1945-03-28

PRIVILEGE-MR. POULIOT ALLEGED TAPPING OF TELEPHONE WIRES USED BY MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):	Mr. Speaker, I regret profoundly
to have to rise to a question of privilege to claim respect for the privileges which you have, sir, and which every private member of this house should have. I will admit that in time of war there may be certain curtailments of liberties and of freedom, but there are some rights that belong to members of parliament which must be jealously guarded by each one of us because they affect all of us. If you ask me, sir, what is the subject matter of my question of privilege, I will tell you that it is an abuse which some members have noticed for some time and many members from all parts of the house have mentioned to me, namely, the tapping of telephone wires and the recording by the Bell Telephone officials or by government officials of private conversations of members of parliament.
Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: Was she a blonde?


Mr. POULIOT:: Some members may joke
about it, and I regret very deeply that some other members laugh at such silly remarks as that just made. It is a shame to them. It means that they know nothing of the rights of members of parliament; they know nothing of what we claim as our rights in a democratic country.
On Wednesday or Thursday, in the middle of last week, I telephoned to inquire about my son,, who was not well, and I heard a noise that lasted two minutes over the telephone- I wonder if I will have to pay for it. On Sunday night last I telephoned from Riviere du Loup to Ottawa, to a friend of mine of the press gallery, and there was the same noise, but this time it was not for so long. This morning I had a lengthy conversation with an official of the Department of Labour who had come to my county and done such good work that I telephoned to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) to congratulate him on the efficiency of that official. Again I heard the same noise. That means that not only are our long distance calls tapped but also our local calls; I wonder if there is a member of parliament with a head on his shoulders who will tolerate that for a moment! It is an abuse and a crime and it is on behalf of my colleagues as well as myself, on behalf of all those who want the privileges of parliament to be respected that I denounce this practice.
Here is what I ask. I ask that the president and the general manager of the Bell Telephone company be called as witnesses before a committee of this house to give evidence under oath with respect to this matter. I want also to have the sworn evidence of the manager of the Bell Telephone company in this city of Ottawa, in Toronto, in Montreal, in Winnipeg, in Quebec City, in Halifax and in Saint John, and then we shall know who is responsible for this thing.
My last word is this. WThen there is a fight for democracy in the whole world, I do not see why such Himmler methods are practised in this country; and I hope that when the Prime Minister goes to San Francisco he will not go there as the leader of a government which might be a gestapo, and an ogpu combined.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I do not know whether I caught the significance of the last words of the hon. member, but if he was reflecting in any way on the government in the matter to which he has referred I would ask him to prefer some charge in the proper way and we shall see that it is investigated.
May I say that the fact that conversations may be heard over a telephone is nothing new. I remember many years ago having been appointed as a commissioner to look into the question of the conditions under which telephone operators worked, and I found, much to my surprise at the time, that the exchanges had what were known as "listening boards" for the express purpose of taking down conversations which were heard over the telephone. The matter was brought up in this House of Commons, and if I am not mistaken a measure was subsequently passed making it an offence to disclose any information which was obtained in that way. The reason given at the time was that the companies found it desirable to know whether telephones were being used for private purposes or for business purposes. It has been public knowledge ever since that there is the possibility of conversations over the phone being heard by others in some way. But to insinuate that a government is adopting methods of espionage in connection with the use of the telephone or the telegraph is going very far. May I tell the hon. member that I do not think there is the slightest justification for believing that any department of this government, or any government, would lend itself to that kind of thing.
Privilege-Mr. Pouliot


Jean-François Pouliot: If the right hon. gentleman will permit me, my information is that it is a war service rendered by the Bell Telephone company to the government.


Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: May I say that this is a matter which, of course, affects the membership of the house at large. I know nothing about the charges or allegations made by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) but it is shocking if that situation exists, and I suggest to the Prime Minister that if charges are made, perhaps the proper standing committee, that on privileges and elections, might be convened, assuming the situation is such as requires an investigation of this kind. We should not have the slightest breath of suspicion upon the government or upon parliament in respect of a matter which affects in such a vital way the members of the House of Commons. I think that is a fundamental right which we all have, and I would not like to think that it was being impaired in any way.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think something will have to be preferred in the nature of a charge with sufficient evidence to warrant investigation. The government cannot be investigating every allegation or rumour which is made. But no one is or could be more anxious than myself to prevent anything of the kind being even a matter of suspicion.


Hon. R. B. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: May I suggest that the Prime Minister make inquiry at his early convenience in the ministry of war services to see if they maintain a service of listening in? I do not know anything about this charge-if it can be dignified by that term; I do not think it can-of the hon. member for Temiscouata. But I had reason to believe between 1940 and 1943, when I had the honour of leading the opposition, that something of that sort was going on, and I think I had the manager of the Bell Telephone Company in to see me. I know this, that all my telegrams were censored, that they were read, and I protested most vigorously against it. It was possible to have excerpts taken from my telegrams and letters. But no harm came of it and the matter was allowed to drop.
I think there may be some basis for the position taken by the hon. member for Temiscouata; and the only ministry I can think of which would know about this is the controlling censorship branch.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: No evidence has been placed before the house on this matter, and we have had the assurance of the Prime Minister with regard

to it. I believe there is authority under the defence of Canada regulations to do this kind of thing and I have heard it said that it has been done. I think it would be in the interests of the government and of this house if some inquiry were made. The Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent), who is in charge of the defence of Canada regulations, may know definitely whether anything of this sort is done; and perhaps he would be prepared to give the house an assurance after himself inquiring into the matter. It should be cleared up, because we hear these suggestions from time to time, and the power, I believe, does lie, under the defence of Canada regulations, with the ministry.
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): I know of no censorship of telephone conversations; but I will inquire from the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who is in charge of the security services, as to whether or not there is any system of the kind in vogue.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Better
inquire of your colleague the Minister of National War Services (Mr. LaFleche) too.



ROYAL AIR FORCE


Hon. C. W. G. GIBSON (Minister of National Defence for Air):: Mr. Speaker, I very much
regret to inform the house that word has been received1 that an aircraft in which Commander Brabner and other senior Air Ministry officials were coming to Canada is reported as missing and must be presumed to have been lost. These officials were coming to Canada to attend the "Wings" parade at Uplands to-morrow.
The government of Canada extends its .very deep sympathy to the families of those who are missing.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should just like to supplement the words of the Minister of National Defence for Air by repeating how profoundly our country as well as the United Kingdom will feel the loss of these public servants, some of them well known to us here, and all of whom have rendered such great service in a gallant way in the course of the war and whose lives were very precious to the state. The reference which my hon. friend has made is to officials coming from Britain to Canada to be present at the ceremony which is to take place to-morrow; the names of those who are lost will be announced later. I may say that included among the number are some who have

Prisoners oj War
2S7
played a very distinguished) part in the great work of the air force in Britain and in connection with the commonwealth air training plan.


Mr. STIRLING:: The Royal Air Force.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes; they are all of the Royal Air Force. I should like to have it known that this .parliament and the people of this country will sympathize deeply with the relatives of those who have been so greatly bereaved, and with the British government and people in the tragic loss of these distinguished public servants.


Gordon Graydon: May I associate this party with the. words spoken by the Prime Minister, and at the same time extend our sympathy as well and express the hope that better news may yet come with respect to all on board.


Major James William Coldwell: We should like to associate ourselves with the remarks which have been made. Knowing the
distinguished careers of the gentlemen, the news that they may not arrive at the function to-morrow is indeed a great disappointment; but greater still is the sorrow that comes to their families, with whom we deeply sympathize.
Mr. J. H. BLACIvMORE (Lethbridge): We desire-to associate ourselves with the kind things that have been said. There is one remarkable fact that I have observed on many occasions in the course of this war. Men have gone through all the perils of tours for example, operational flights, successfully and without injury and have been released, and on the way home they have met disaster. It is something which it seems almost impossible to understand, but that is war. We deeply sympathize with those who are bereaved.


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: May I add one word to what has already been said? It grieves us very much when great men are taken from us, especially when, as some of us recognize, there is in the character of these men the quality of humility, and that quality is also outstanding. I could not help thinking of an experience that has come to me personally in the loss of my own son, on the occasion of which Air Marshal Breadner and some of the highest officials, even in their busy lives and with their tremendous responsibilities, took enough time out to send a personal word expressing their regrets, signed by their own hands. It is something that brings home to our minds, I think, the difference between our way of life and that perhaps of people who live under some other form of government. I am sure we all regret the passing of these great men and sympathize with the families of the loved ones in the sorrow that has come to them.



PRISONERS OF WAR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. R. LaFLECHE (Minister of National War Services):	In a statement on
Monday, relating to conditions among Canadian prisoners of war in Germany, the Prime Minister referred to information recently received by the Department of External Affairs which indicated that as a result of conditions in Germany brought about by the Allied offensive, there was a definite prospect that it would be impossible to deliver parcels individually addressed to prisoners of war and that a further statement would be made by myself.
On February 15 I issued a press release explaining that, owing to the evacuation of Canadian prisoners of war in certain camps to other parts of Germany following the advance of the allied armies, it had been decided that personal parcels should not be sent by their next of kin in Canada until definite information had been received as to the camps to which they had been transferred.
All information received from the protecting power, the international Red Cross, the British and other governments has been studied by officers of my department and of other departments, including the Department of External Affairs and the Departments of National Defence, who are concerned with the welfare of Canadian prisoners of war. The present situation resulting from the recent allied drive has been carefully reviewed, and it is the unanimous opinion of these departments that having in mind the present situation in Germany, we should concentrate our efforts in getting Red Cross parcels and medical parcels to our prisoners. It is very doubtful whether individual parcels will even reach Germany, but if they do there is a danger that they may displace food and medical parcels, and also that they may fall into enemy hands. Further there is a most important fact which either is not generally known or at least seems to be overlooked, that the distribution of personally addressed parcels is made through the German postal service, which, according to reports, has been disorganized, and therefore parcel post service in Germany is virtually non-existent. It seems highly improbable that any personal or permit parcels would be delivered to the addressees. Consequently it is the recommendation of these departments that for the present no further parcels addressed to indi-
2S8
Prisoners of War
[Stage Direction]
vidua! prisoners of war in Germany should be accepted for dispatch. Notification to this effect will be sent individually by my department to next of kin in Canada, who I have every confidence will fully understand the reason for this decision.
We shall continue to watch the situation closely and should there by any developments favourable to the sending of personally addressed parcels, the suspension will be lifted and next of kin promptly informed. My hope is that the successes of the allied forces which we are following so eagerly will result in speedy liberation of all prisoners of war and thereby solve a problem that has given us such grave concern.
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: May I ask whether Red Cross parcels are getting through to prisoners?
Mr. LaFLECHE: They are, through special efforts that are being made in that direction. I would recall to my hon. friend an article that appeared in the press this morning explaining how that is being done by truck from Switzerland. The trucks are painted white so that our aviators and, we hope, the enemy, will allow them to go through.


Mr. McGEER:: Is it not a fact that parcels are going through from Sweden and that the Germans are cooperating in effecting delivery of those parcels to the prisoners in prisoners of war camps? I understand that the cooperation has reached the point where prisoners of war are manning the trucks and handling the parcels. If that is so, it seems to me that those interested in prisoners of war should know it.
Mr. LaFLECHE: We do know it. What the hon. member has said is the fact, but the statement I gave a moment ago deals not with Red Cross parcels but with personally addressed parcels for our prisoners of war in Germany. I explained in that statement that the delivery of these parcels is made by the German postal service, which is disorganized.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: But is there any reason for believing that the cooperation that the Germans are now extending with respect to Red Cross parcels would not be extended if there were parcels from next of kin available for distribution on the same basis?
Mr. LaFLECHE: I am glad to say that the possibility is being explored, but these conditions are changing very rapidly.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. AYLESWORTH:: 1.	Were tenders asked for by the Department of Munitions and Supply for hospital equipment for the new hospital ship, formerly the Letitia?
2.	If so, who were the tenderers and what were the tenders quoted?


Mr. CHEVRIER:: 1.	No. Early in 1944 Wartime Shipbuilding Limited was instructed to supervise the conversion of an armed merchantman (the Letitia) to a hospital ship, the work of conversion to be done with the utmost urgency and completed at the earliest possible date.
Sources of supply for the necessary equipment were immediately investigated and, in such cases as would not cause delay, competitive prices were sought and received, but formal tenders were not called. A large part of the equipment, such as hospital beds, metal furniture and. galley stores could not be procured in Canada but was available if immediately ordered in the United States. Through the cooperation of the United States navy and the United States maritime commission valuable assistance was given in the procurement of these and other technical stores, which greatly speeded the work of conversion.
Considerable of the equipment used on the Letitia is the same type as that bought by the Department of Munitions and Supply as the result of tender for the first hospital ship, Lady Nelson, and at no increase in price.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


MEAT PACKING PLANTS AND ABATTOIRS-RELEASE OP EMPLOYEES
Mr. ROSS (Souris):: How many men have been released by meat packing plants or abattoir s throughout Canada since December 1, 1944, by provinces and by months ?


Mr. MARTIN:: Non-Military Separations from the Meat Products Industry
Source: UIC 751-B-"Statistical Report on Employment Operations by Industry"
During four-week period ended Dec. 28/44:
Male Female Total
Canada	
1,097	441	1,538Maritimes	
37	5	42Quebec	
386	50	436Ontario	
178	98	276Prairies	
457	275	732Pacific	
39	13	52
Questions
During five-week period ended Feb. 1/45:
Male	Female Total
Canada	
1,482	769	2,251Maritimes	
66	17	83Quebec	
210	94	304Ontario	
303	137	440Prairies	
838	494	1,332Pacific	
65	27	92
During four-week period ended March 1/45:
Male	Female Total
Canada	
2,131	775	2,906Maritimes	
22	13	35Quebec	
236	73	309Ontario	
314	160	474Prairies	
1,484	513	1,997Pacific	
75	16	91
Hudson's bay company-taxes


Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	How many stores and trading posts does the Hudson's Bay Company have in the western provinces and British Columbia?
2.	Is the Hudson's Bay Company exempt from paying income tax and all other special war taxes?
3.	Is the company exempt from paying import duties and sales tax?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: 1.	No information.
2.	No.
3.	No.


SUGAB CONTROL
Mr. BLACKMORE:: 1.	Who is the sugar administrator for Canad_a?
2.	Who is the deputy sugar administrator for Canada?
3.	Was either of the above directly or indirectly connected with the cane sugar industry?
4.	Is either of the above still connected with the cane sugar industry?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Mr. S. R. Noble, O.B.E.
2.	Mr. H. J. Hobbins.
3 and 4. Mr. Noble was not and is mot directly or indirectly connected with the cane sugar industry. Mr. Hobbins is on loan to the wartime prices and trade board, on a fulltime basis, from the Czarnikow (Canada) Limited, sugar and produce brokers.


DEFENCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED-PARRY SOUND PLANT
Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: 1.	Are there optional purchase or other clauses contained in the government agreement with Defence Industries Limited covering the disposition of the plant operated by that company at Parry Sound, Ontario?
2.	If so, what are the terms of such clauses?


Mr. CHEVRIER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The terms of disposal are as follows: If the government wishes to sell the plant it shall give Defence Industries Limited the right within 60 days to purchase the plant or any part thereof at a price the government is willing to accept from any other party. If the offer is not accepted, the government may sell same to any other party at a price not less than that at which it was offered to Defence Industries Limited.


COARSE GRAINS AND LOW GRADE WHEAT- FREIGHT RATES
Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	What were the freight rates on coarse grains and low-grade wheat on July 31, 1930, from Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, to the Pacific coast?
2.	Have any reductions or increases been made in such rates?
3.	If so, on what dates and to what amount?


Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	On all grain, the carload rates on July 31, 1930, from Moose Jaw, Sask., to Vancouver, B.C., were: When for export to British and foreign countries, 25 cents per 100 pounds; when for domestic consumption, 50i cents per 100 pounds.
2.	Effective March 10, 1933, on coarse grains and low grade wheat there was published from Moose Jaw to Vancouver carload rate of 39 cents per 100 pounds.
The tariff stipulates that the rates named therein will only apply when a certificate, signed by the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, province of British Columbia, is surrendered by consignee showing that the grain covered by such certificate is to be used for feeding live stock or poultry, and there is also required the surrender of an inspection certificate of the board of grain commissioners for Canada, certifying that shipment consists of grain of a grade specified in the tariff.
On other grain, rates shown in answer to No. 1 above are still in force.
3.	Answered by Nos. 1 and 2.


R.C.A.F.-DOG CREEK, B.C., AIRFIELD
Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	Is there a R.C.A.F. airfield at Dog Lake near Williams Lake, British Columbia?
2.	If so, when was this airfield constructed?
3.	From whom was the property purchased?
4.	What amount of land was purchased by the government for this airfield?
5.	What was the purchase price of this property?
6.	Was this property part of a larger parcel of land?
7.	What was the assessed value for taxation purposes of the whole property?

Questions


Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	Yes, at Dog creek, not Dog lake, near Williams lake, British Columbia.
2.	Work commenced in September, 1942, and completed in November, 1943.
3.	Expropriated from Diamond "S" Ranch Ltd. (David Spencer Limited), by the filing of plan on April 26, 1944.
4.	Area expropriated-911-42 acres.
5.	The former owners' price for the expropriated land was considered too high and the case is being referred to the Exchequer Court of Canada for determination of the compensation payable.
6.	Yes, part of the property of Diamond "S" Ranch Limited.
7.	The assessed value of the expropriated land in 1943 was $3,641.49.


INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West) :: 1.	Is the industrial development bank yet in operation?
2.	If so, how many loans have been made?
3.	What is the total amount of the loans to
date?	.


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Yes.
2 and 3. The Industrial Development bank is not a branch of the dominion government but a subsidiary of the Bank of Canada.
Section 29(1) of the Industrial Development Bank Act requires that "The bank shall, within twenty-one days following the end of each calendar month, make up and transmit to the Minister of Finance in such form as he may prescribe, a statement of its assets and liabilities at the close of business on the last day of the -preceding month." This statement as at February 28, 1945, appeared in the Canada Gazette of March 24, 1945, and showed loans and investments (excluding dominion government securities) at $79,229.77.
In addition, section 29(2) provides that "The bank shall make up and transmit to the Minister of Finance at least once in its fiscal year or more frequently if so directed' by the minister, in such form as he may prescribe, a classification of its loans and investments and of the loans guaranteed by it." Provision is made for the publication of this statement in the Canada Gazette following its receipt by the minister.


CANADIAN ARMY
Mr. MUTCH:: 1.	Has the Department of National Defence instituted methods of job training into static establishments of the Canadian army in Canada and the United Kingdom?
2.	If so, when did this begin?

3.	What is the practical purpose of such training?
4.	By what percentage is it expected that personnel in such static units may be reduced in numbers?
5.	Have such establishments been reduced in personnel since the courses began?
6.	If so, by how many?


Mr. ABBOTT:: 1.	Yes.
2.	NDHQ-July, 1944.
CM HQ and Districts-November, 1944.
3.	The job training programme is set up in three parts, namely, job instruction training, job methods training and job relations training. The purpose of this training is as follows:
Job instruction training teaches improved analysis of section duties and the preparation of job breakdowns. This provides a better method of training individuals to do their specific jobs; quickly, correctly and conscientiously.
Job methods training teaches a planned critical analysis of all jobs and is designed to eliminate unnecessary detail and, in general, streamline work of static formations. It is the purpose of this course to teach personnel to make the best -possible -use of man-power, materials and equipment.
Job relations training teaches supervisory personnel how to achieve -better cooperation with personnel under supervision. It is actually a course in man-management.
4.	It is not -possible to estimate an expected percentage of personnel reduction as a result of this type of training. See also answer to question No. 6.
5.	Yes.
6.	According to the reports received, 24 personnel in the United Kingdom and 112 in Canada have been released to date. This represents a financial saving of approximately $272,000 per annum. These reports do not cover seven military districts where the job training programme has yet to be introduced-


QUEBEC ARSENALS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaCROIX:
How many men and women were working at the Palace Hill, St. Malo and Valcartier arsenals, in the district of Quebec, (a) on-January 1, 1944; (b) on March 15, 1945?
Mr CHEVRIER:: (a) January 1, 1944:	Male	Female	TotalSt. Malo	.. 3,183	3,943	7,126Valcartier 	.. 944	1,926	2,870Palace Hill 	.. 426	125	551
10,547
Total

Questions
(b) March 17, 1945:	Male	Female	TotalSt. Malo	... 2,875	1,962	4,837Valcartier 	... 792	956	1,748Palace Hill	... 285	53	338Total 	6,923


QUEBEC CONFERENCE, 1944
Mr. RAYMOND:: 1.	Was the Churchill-Roosevelt conference held at Quebec in the month of September, 1944, convened at the invitation of the Canadian government?
2.	What was the total cost of such conference to the Canadian government?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	The location of Quebec made it particularly well suited as a place for the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, together with their staffs of military and civil advisers, to hold their important conferences concerning the supreme direction of the war. At the time of the first Quebec conference in 1943 the facilities that were available proved to be very satisfactory and contributed in considerable measure to the success of the conference. Accordingly, when the Canadian government received an intimation that developments in the war made a further conference necessary at the end of last summer and that Quebec was the most convenient site, the government invited the president and the prime minister to hold their meeting there. His Excellency the Governor General was graciously pleased to place his quarters in the citadel at the disposal of President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill.
2.	8214,240.68.


OTTAWA CAR AND AIRCRAFT-LAY-OFFS
Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	How many employees were laid off by
Ottawa Car and Aircraft Limited, during each of the following months:	December, 1944;
January, 1945; February, 1945?
2.	How many employees have been laid off thus far in the month of March, 1945?
3.	Are further lay-offs pending?
4.	How many veterans of the present war are among those laid off in each of the periods indicated above?


Mr. MARTIN:: 1.	December 1944, none; January 1945, none; February 1945, 11 males, 2 females.
2.	246 males; 77 females. In period December 1, 1944, to March 23, 1945, 100 males and
females dismissed for cause. In period December 1, 1944, to March 23, 1945, 260 males and females left voluntarily.
3.	No information.
4.	Six.


FORT NORMAN OIL WELLS
Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: Is the -army of the United States of America discontinuing the following activities now being carried on by it in Yukon and Northwest Territories through the agency of Standard Oil Company:
1.	The extraction of oil from wells at Fort Norman in the Northwest Territories?
2.	The piping of oil from said wells to a refinery at Whitehorse, Yukon?
3.	The operation of said oil refinery?
4.	The piping of gasoline from said refinery to Fairbanks, Alaska, and to Watson Lake, Yukon?
5.	If so discontinued, will the government of Canada undertake to continue the production of oil and oiil products for the use and benefit of industries and residents of northern Canada?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 1, 2, 3 and 4.
According to information received from the United States government the answer to these questions is in the affirmative.
5.	There are many factors involved in any such decision and these are at present under examination. Any decision with regard to the future use of wartime installations will, of course, not necessarily affect the continuation of commercial oil operations centered at Fort Norman.


ALASKA HIGHWAY
George Black: Is it the intention of the government of Canada to maintain and keep open for traffic and public use the highway known as the Alaska highway, within Yukon territory after said highway is surrendered to Canada by the United States of America?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This is a matter to which careful consideration will continue to be given by the government. No definite information can be given at present.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: 1.	Are buildings erected at Whiteborsey Yukon, and -along the route of the Alaska highway in Yukon, by or on behalf of the army of the United States for occupancy by personnel of said army and the staff and crews of contractors on said highway to be surrendered to the government of Canada?
2.	If so, will said buildings be available for purchase by the public and what will be the method of sale and transfer?
3.	Wall an official or officials of the government be located at Whiteho-rse in Yukon with authority to dispose of such buildings in Yukon?
Questions


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	Such buildings will be acquired by the Canadian government from the United States government on the basis provided in the exchange of notes of November 22 and December 20, 1944, which has been tabled to-day.
2.	Those buildings not required by the Canadian government will be offered for sale, in the same manner as Canadian surplus assets, through the machinery established by the government for disposal of war surplus.
3.	Local representation will be provided should that prove necessary or useful for the purpose.


GENERAL MCNAUGHTON
Mr. ROSS (Souris):: 1.	On what date was General Andrew McNaughton relieved of his command of Canadian army?
2.	Has General Andrew McNaughton been retired from the Canadian army?
3.	If so, at what date did retirement become effective ?


Mr. ABBOTT:: 1.	26th December, 1943.
2.	Yes.
3.	1st November, 1944.


AVAILABILITY OF TRACTORS FOR RETURNED SOLDIERS ENGAGED IN FARMING
[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans' Affairs): The hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) asked a question yesterday with respect to the availability of tractors for soldier settlers. With his permission I should like to file the answer now. The question and the answer follow:
James Arthur Ross: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans' Affairs, Mr. Mackenzie, and I am sorry that I have not been able to send him notice of it.
It has to do with a return received yesterday which indicates that the V.L.A. board have frozen tractors and a lot of farm machinery for future delivery. A number of our young men who own their own land have not the equipment to work it with and it is late in the season. I ask that equipment be released to men who, having been overseas and discharged, are in a position to pay cash for tractors in order to put their crops in.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Regarding the tractors which have been purchased to meet the minimum requirement of veterans who will become established under The Veterans' Land Act during 1945, I wish to say that steps have already been taken to release all of the tractors which it is felt will not be needed to meet the actual needs

of veterans coming under the act. During this month the following quantities have been released back to the suppliers:
Alberta	 82	Manitoba .. 29
Saskatchewan .. 110	Maritimes.. 19
There are no tractors on order for British Columbia, only 100 available for Ontario and 25 for the province of Quebec. It is felt, therefore, that it would not be in the interests of those veterans who will come under the act to release a further quantity. These quantities were released to implement companies in accordance with the arrangement which was made at the time orders were placed for these tractors and the administrator for farm equipment has issued a request to implement manufacturers to reserve such released tractors for the use of veterans who are operating their own farms without government assistance. He has also instructed his rationing officers to see that his request is carried out by implement companies. We feel confident, therefore, that the tractors we have released will find their way into the hands of deserving veterans who are operating their own farms.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: 1.	Has General Andrew McNaughton at any time been granted any pension from the federal treasury of Canada?
2.	If so, what amount annually and when was it paid?
3.	At what date and on what basis was said pension granted?


DEFENCE SERVICES-ORDNANCE STORES
Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	At what places in Canada are the major ordnance stores kept for each of the three defence services?
2.	What has been the cost of the, (a) storage buildings; (b) facilities, at each such place?
3.	At what places have premises been under lease; stating the owners, the cost of renovations, cost of improvements and equipment, the yearly rental paid, additional charges or costs?
4.	What wras the maximum value of stores at each such place in 1944?
5.	What has been the total cost of all supplies placed in such ordnance storage?
6.	What is the cost at each place of supplies reported, (a) surplus; (b) obsolete; (c) total for all places?


MARITIME PROVINCES AIRFIELDS
Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1. What has been the total expenditure .on each of the airfields in the maritime provinces to date?

International Organization
2.	How many of such airfields have been completed stating estimate cost to complete the others ?
3.	How many private or municipal airfields in the maritime provinces have received government assistance stating amount of such expenditures for each airfield?



MOTION FOR PAPERS


Mr. NICHOLSON:: For a, copy of all letters, telegrams and other documents in the possession of the Post Office Department in connection with complaints regarding the post office administration at Amsterdam, Saskatchewan, since June, 1940.



PRESS REPORT OF VISIT TO WASHINGTON OF CANADIAN MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: I call the attention of the government to an article which appeared in the Globe and Mail of this morning under a Washington dateline to the effect that two hon. members of this house conferred with the acting Prime Minister of Australia and the foreign minister and also with United States officials. The article goes on to say that they appeared before a closed meeting of the United States senate foreign relations committee with the acting Prime Minister of Australia and foreign affairs minister. Did these two private members of parliament have the authority of the government or the Canadian Ambassador at Washington, and as to Australia, of the Canadian Ambassador for Australia, or did they go over the head of this government? The article also refers to the Empire Parliamentary Association. The two Canadian members are gentlemen who are old friends of mine. I have great respect for the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght) and the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Jackman), yet they only acted as private members of the association. The Empire Parliamentary Association met in annual meeting yesterday. They did not authorize any such trip. They knew nothing about it, and no such office as "executive secretary" exists. The president is the Speaker and the secretary is the Clerk of the House of Commons. I think on an occasion like this it might do a great deal of harm to have a story such as that contained in this article go out, as it leaves the wrong impression at a time like this and will do harm.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. member for Broadview is perfectly right. I should like to have the credentials of the two hon. members read.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I might say that I know nothing about this matter other than what is contained in the article to which my hon. friend has referred, and from what he has just said. I gather the visit to Washington of the two hon. members to whom he has made reference is a purely unofficial one and has to do with matters pertaining to affairs of the interparliamentary union. It is in no way an official visit.


Thomas Langton Church: The Empire Parliamentary Association, as I see it, is for the British empire only; it is not a pan-American affair, and they had no authority to represent the association there at any time.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Knapman Fraser: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance or the acting Minister of National Revenue. Will the 1944 personal income tax return have to be filed on or before April 30, or will the date be extended to August 31? I ask this question because chartered accountants would like to get the answer as soon as possible.


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Acting Minister of National Revenue):: The matter is under consideration.



INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: I should like to direct three questions to the Prime Minister, which, because I was unable to get them to him before the house assembled, I would not expect him to answer to-day. As soon as the Prime Minister finds it possible to do so, will he inform the house as to the part played in the Dumbarton Oaks and Bretton Woods conferences by a certain foreign-born, Leo Pasvolsky, prominent in financial circles in the United States? Will the Prime Minister tell the house who were the men who drafted the final act of the united nations monetary and financial conference held at Bretton Woods, and will he also tell the house who drafted what is known as the Dumbarton Oaks proposals for the establishment of a general international organization? Was it, by any chance, Mr. Leo Pasvolsky? Will the Prime Minister tell the house whether or not he has heard a report that this same Leo
Privilege - Mr. Diejenbaker

Pasvolsky is to accompany the United States delegation to San Francisco in the capacity of intimate adviser?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I might as
well answer my hon. friend at once. I am not in a position to give him any information on any of the questions he has asked, nor do I expect that any amount of inquiry would enable me to give him a reply.


John Horne Blackmore: It would be of the
first importance to the people of this country to know the answers to these questions.



POWELL RIVER WHARF

[Stage Direction]
FACILITIES FOR LOCAL SHIPPING On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Cruickshank: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works on behalf of the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair): When the government sold the wharf at Powell river they undertook to provide suitable facilities for local shipping. My information is that several of the fishing boats have been sunk because of the lack of proper facilities. Will proper facilities be provided immediately, or when will they be provided


Hon. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Minister of Public Works):: I have just received notice of this question. If the hon. member will put it on the order paper I shall give him the answer.


George Alexander Cruickshank: This is urgent.
Hospital boats are being tied up to-day because of the lack of facilities. The notice went in two and a half hours ago. With all due deference, when boats are being sunk and a hospital boat is tied up, I think the matter is urgent.



RECOMMENDATIONS OF CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO CLASSIFICATIONS, ETC.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: On March 22 the civil service
commission made a report to parliament regarding the protective service and other members of the House of Commons staff, which will be found in Votes and Proceedings No. 4. When that report was brought down I asked Your Honour what was the next step to be taken in connection with it, and I think Your Honour indicated at the time that it would be a matter for parliament. I take it that the action must be initiated by the government. May I ask the Prime Minister, or the Minister

of Finance, under whose jurisdiction this may come, as to what the government intends to do with respect to it this session?


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: I do not know whether it is under my jurisdiction or not, but if it is a matter for the consideration of the government I think I can say that the government will give it that consideration very promptly.


Mr. SPEAKER:: In connection with the
question asked by the leader of the opposition, I may say that a memorandum with respect to the matter has been prepared by the Clerk for submission to the government.



PRIVILEGE-MR. DIEFENBAKER   REFERENCE TO STATEMENT OF MR. WOOD, IN DEBATE ON MARCH 23

Mr. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: I
rise to a question of privilege arising out of a statement made by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Wood) as reported at page 177 of Hansard, in which he uses the following words: So far as compulsory service is concerned the hon. member for Lake Centre to-day said that if Canada is to be a force behind the security council it is necessary that she should have lompulsion for the purpose.
Then he goes on:
Would the hon. member for Lake Centre say that Australia should have conscription before she should be on the security council? Would he say that General Smuts of South Africa should institute compulsory service before being able to make a contribution to society?
May I say that I never made any such statement as that alleged by the hon. member for Brant. I at no time advocated that the forces to be contributed by Canada should be compulsorily raised in Canada.


Mr. WOOD:: On a question of privilege,
I am glad to hear the hon. member for Lake Centre say that he did not make any such statement.



SAN FRANCISCO CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from March 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mackenzie King to approve a resolution to send representatives to a conference of the united nations at San Francisco to prepare a charter for the maintenance of international peace and security.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, when on the nineteenth of this month I introduced in this house the resolution which is now before hon. members, I believed that the object of the resolution was so completely in the interests

San Francisco Conference
of Canada, that the importance of the conference to be held at San Francisco was so self-evident, and that the purposes to be attained through such a conference were so allimportant that the resolution would receive the unanimous approval of this House of Commons and like approval in the other house.
Having followed the debate closely it is a great satisfaction to realize that in all probability when the vote is taken this afternoon the resolution will receive the support of all hon. members. I believe all the parties that have responsible leaders already have intimated their intention of supporting the resolution. But there are four or five-I am not sure of the number; we will know later on-who term themselves independent members of parliament from the province of Quebec, who have stated that they intend to vote against the resolution. I should like my first word to be an appeal to them in the interests of Canada as a whole to reconsider their intention to take any such step at this time. It is not too late for Canada to speak with a single voice on the desirability of bringing into being an organization that will help maintain the peace of the world. I should like, as I am sure all hon. members of this house would like -as I am sure even those hon. gentlemen themselves in time will come to wish-the world to know that when we were on the threshold of making a contribution toward that great end, Canada spoke with one voice. I speak directly to the hon. gentlemen who have indicated that they intend to vote against this motion. I want to make clear to them that in voting against the resolution they will not be representing the feeling of Canada. I want to make it equally clear that they will not be representing the feeling of the people of the province of Quebec. I would go further and say that they will not be honestly representing the feeling of the people of the constituencies which they represent in this parliament if they vote against this resolution.


Mr. ROY:: That may be your opinion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am stating my view, and I believe history will prove that I am in the right. If my hon. friend continues to have any doubt may I at once, for his edification as well as that of his constituents and indeed that of the people of Canada at large, read once more the resolution which is before the house so that everyone in this country may understand what it is that he and those who may vote with him against this resolution are really doing at this time. The first clause of the resolution reads:
That this house endorses the acceptance by the government of Canada of the invitation to send representatives to the conference.
They would refuse even to send representatives from this parliament to this conference at San Francisco, to be attended by the representatives of some forty-four nations which are united together in the cause of freedom, and which now wish to take the step of trying to bring themselves closer together in a great world organization which will help to maintain peace once this terrible war has come to a close. The second clause is:
That this house recognizes that the establishment of an effective international organization for the maintenance of international peace and security is of vital importance to Canada, and, indeed, to the future wmll-being of mankind; and that it is in the interests of Canada that Canada should become a member of such an organization.
I ask those hon. gentlemen, in the light of what they themselves know and. have witnessed during the past five and a half years of war, how can they vote against a resolution which says that it is in the interests of Canada to have an organization which will prevent anything of the kind arising in the future? The third clause of the resolution reads:
That this house approves the purposes and principles set forth in the proposals of the four governments, and considers that these proposals constitute a satisfactory general basis for a discussion of the charter of the proposed international organization.
What are the purposes and principles which they are asked to endorse? Here is what they will be voting against when they vote against this resolution. They are:
The purposes of the organization should be:
1.	To maintain international peace and security; and to that end to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace and the suppression of all acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means adjustment or settlement of international disputes which may lead to a breach of the peace;
2.	To develop friendly relations among nations and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
3.	To achieve international cooperation in the solution of international economic, social and other humanitarian problems; and
4.	To afford a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the achievements of these common ends.
These are the purposes this house is being asked to endorse, and apparently those hon. gentlemen are unwilling to take that step. The principles against which they will be voting, because they are part of the resolution, are as follows:
In pursuit of the purposes mentioned in chapter 1 the organization and its members should act in accordance with the following principles: 1. The organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all peace-loving states.
San Francisco Conference

2.	All members of the organization undertake, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership in the organization, to fulfil the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the charter.
3.	All members of the organization shall settle their disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security are not endangered.
4.	All members of the organization shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the organization.
5.	All members of the organization shall give every assistance to the organization in any action undertaken by it in accordance with the provisions of the charter.
6.	All members of the organization shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which preventive or enforcement action is being undertaken by the organization. The organization should ensure that states not members of the organization act in accordance with these principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.
In other words hon. members of this house are being asked to approve the sending of a delegation to San Francisco to help frame* a charter, and to see that as far as may be humanly possible nothing is inserted in that charter which will do other than* serve the great objects for which it is being brought into being, the purpose, as I have said, being to further world peace by pacific means. I have read ail the purposes and all the principles, and I fail to see how any citizen of any country, loving his country and thinking of its future, could wish to do other than endorse those principles and purposes with his whole heart.
The fourth paragraph of the resolution reads:
That this house agrees that the representatives of Canada at the conference should use their best endeavours to further the preparation of an acceptable charter for an international organization for the maintenance of international peace and security.
And lastly:
That the charter establishing the international organization should, before ratification, be submitted to parliament for approval.
Again I make my appeal to those hon. members to consider their position as citizens of Canada, and particularly as members of the parliament of Canada, because their vote will be viewed significantly by nations beyond the confines of this country. Every hon. member who comes into this parliament has an* obligation to his country in relation to its domestic affairs; but at a time like the present he has an even greater obligation in regard to its position in the world as we know it to-day, and as we know it may become in* the future, unless we do all in our power to preserve peace on this globe for the centuries to come.
*Mr. Mackenzie King.]
So I appeal to my hon. friends to meet their obligations to Canada as a whole, as her position will be viewed by nations abroad when they read the results of the vote which will be taken this afternoon. I would like to see that vote one hundred per cent of the House of Commons and of the Senate of Canada. I would suggest to hon. members, if they are still unconvinced, that perhaps they might absent themselves when the vote is being taken*, rather than have it broadcast throughout the world that in Canada there were members of her parliament who felt they were unable to further a great world need such as in this resolution it is sought to meet.
I now come to the answering of questions which have been asked. I promised at the outset that I would seek to answer questions which were asked by hon. members in* the course of the debate, and that I would do so when I made my reply. I have followed the debate very closely, and, if I have not noted all the questions, certainly I have noted the most, essential of them. There has been a great deal of repetition, and therefore I shall not seek to do more than to reply to the really essential points under discussion. It is a sort of longer catechism on world organization. I am afraid* my reply will have largely to take the form of reading questions asked, and then endeavouring to answer them.
But first of all may I say a word about the preliminary skirmish which took place between my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) and the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Cold-well), as to who was the better prepared to participate in the debate. Since there was a sort of veiled insinuation made by someone that there was a certain close relationship between the leader of the C.C.F. and myself in regard to the speech I had made and the one he had made, let me make it perfectly clear that nothing of the kind has existed, either in connection with this debate or, so far as I know, in [DOT] connection with any speech made either by him or me at any time. I treated both hon. members in the same way, and sought to give each of them an* opportunity to be prepared when the moment to speak arrived.
May I say that the question of the Dumbarton Oaks proposals has been before the country and before hon. members of parliament ever since October 9, 1944, when I released to the press a short statement in regard to the Dumbarton Oaks proposals, and suggested in the statement that not merely mem-

San Francisco Conference
hers of parliament but citizens of Canada generally should study those proposals. Surely it cannot be said that there has not been sufficient time for hon. members to study them.
I have in my hand the text of the press release I made on October 9, regarding the Dumbarton Oaks proposals. I find! the following :
The statement issued to-day deals with matters which deeply affect the future of every Canadian. I commend it to the careful and earnest study of the people of Canada. The issues raised will, X hope, not become a matter of party controversy, since they far transcend party lines.
I outlined how far agreement had been reached at Dumbarton Oaks, and made reference to the fact that some of the matters were being held over for further consideration.
In conclusion I had these words to say:
It is scarcely necessary for me to say that, before any final commitment is entered into with respect to the participation of Canada in a general international organization, there will be the fullest opportunity for discussion in the parliament of Canada.
That was on October 9. At that time I was advising not merely members of parliament, but the people of Canada generally, that these [DOT] were important proposals, deserving to be considered and studied most carefully-which they have been. The press of the country has been full of opinions expressed in reference to these proposals.
But, coming to the particular meeting of parliament, I made it known as early as I could that this matter would be taken up at the session in which we are now engaged, and that it was one of the two important subjects which would demand the attention of parliament at this time. That announcement was made in no limited way. It was given over the national network of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on March 2. In the course of my remarks I said this:
Since the Crimea conference, an additional reason has arisen for a brief session of the present parliament . . .
The purpose of the forthcoming conference at San Francisco is the creation of a general international organization to maintain peace and security in the post-war world. I have already mentioned the necessity of Canada being represented at the conference. It is vital that Canada should be able to speak with a clear, strong and united voice in world affairs. It is therefore desirable that the Canadian delegation should go to San Francisco with an assurance of the widest possible measure of support from parliament. An expression of such support will be sought at the forthcoming session.
That was on March 2; and it was March 19 when we met here. Meantime I had a brief interview with my hon. friends the leader of the opposition and the leader of the 32283-20



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
C.C.F. I was sorry I could not reach my hon. friend the leader of the Social Credit party (Mr. Blackmore) as he was not in the city at the time. But on the Friday prior to our meeting on the Monday I asked the two leaders I have mentioned to come to my office, that I might indicate to them the order of business the government proposed for Monday. I outlined then to those two gentlemen what we proposed doing. I went further, and read over to each of them the resolution I was proposing to introduce. They therefore had full knowledge of the resolution given to them, in order that they might be in a position to be prepared to speak and, if they so desired, to give in advance to members of their parties the substance of the resolution. I do not know that I could have done more than that-except to have given each of them a copy of my speech. However it was not written at the time-or had not been completed. It was in process of incubation, but was not finished. Perhaps I may say that, much as everyone seems to be making declarations on his own behalf. It was not finished until within an hour or so of my coming to the house.
What followed will speak for itself. The main thing at the moment is that hon. members have expressed themselves fully and freely with respect to the proposals, and that they should have made such comment and criticism as they thought best.
I have very little exception to take to most of the criticism and comment to which we have listened, except in one particular. I refer to a deliberate misrepresentation of what I said, and the endeavour-not by one, but by one after another of members of the official opposition-to have it appear that I had made certain proposals with which as they well know I myself had had nothing whatever to do. I shall refer to that a little later. I speak of it immediately because I feel it reveals a pretty poor order of debate on a great international matter such as the one being considered, one in respect to which I have from the outset expressed the hope that it would not be viewed as a matter of controversy between one party and another or as a matter between the government and its opponents, but that it would be viewed above party considerations, in a manner that would make its appeal to the nation as a whole as an expression of Canadian unity. But hon .gentlemen opposite have become so much accustomed to directing their attacks against myself and misrepresenting my position that they cannot refrain from so doing even in a debate on a great international

[Stage Direction]
San Francisco Conference
[Stage Direction]
question. It only indicates how biased they have become in their point of view toward anything the government may undertake.
One other thing I might perhaps comment on a little is just why it should be necessary for hon. gentlemen opposite always-if not always, it is so nearly always that I fail to remember any occasion to the contrary-to seek to imply some ground for suspicion as to the truth of what one is saying. Just why every now and then at least, when a member of a government makes a statement which he says is true hon. gentlemen cannot accept the statement on his word and without searching for some ulterior partisan political motive in the making of it, I cannot understand.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: You
said the first day that we could ask questions and then you stopped us.


James Arthur Ross: Page the ex-Minister
of National Defence.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps my
restless friend will try to keep quiet. I know that it is very hard for him to do so.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Then do not make misstatements.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If hon. gentlemen opposite are determined to get into a rebellious mood, I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to protect me so that I may make my speech without interruption. I think I shall find it possible to look after myself as long as I can be heard, but I at least want you to see that this house has an opportunity of listening to what I have to say.
May I come to the first question that was asked, namely why no Canadian representative was at Dumbarton Oaks? That question was directed by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson). He said he felt very much put out that Canada had not been represented at Dumbarton Oaks. He regarded it as a reflection to some extent on Canada's war effort and all that Canada had done in the course of the last five and a half years.
I need scarcely say to hon. members of this house that Canada was not represented at Dumbarton Oaks for the same reason that some forty other united nations were not represented there. Someone had to make a beginning to bring into being this great world organization and the beginning was made by the great powers. I would ask hon. members, would it have been possible to have thought of any group of nations which could have been assigned the obligation of seeking to make the framework of a united nations world security organization that could have met with greater acceptance than that the great powers should

have been chosen for that end. Unless the great powers are able to agree among themselves on basic principles and proposals I see no hope at all for any world organization. One matter that ought to bring the greatest possible satisfaction to all of the peoples of the world to-day is the fact that the four great allied powers have been able to sit down in conference and agree on proposals which are as comprehensive as those which are now before us and suggest that they should be used as a basis for discussion of a charter to maintain peace after the termination of the war.
As hon. members know, it was at Moscow in November, 1943, that the United States, the United Kingdom and Russia met and that the United1 States and the United Kingdom subsequently met with China, to take the first steps in giving form to a world organization to preserve peace. They thought that a beginning could not be made too soon, and in the declaration of Moscow there was set forth the statement that immediate steps should be taken by them to see that a beginning was made. It was representative officials of those powers who met at Dumbarton Oaks.
I was asked if Canada had not been invited to Dumbarton Oaks; if we had not gone there because we were not invited. That is one reason why we did not go, and a very good reason. But I do not think it was any reflection on Canada because we were not invited, any more than it was a reflection on Belgium, or Holland, Brazil, Australia or any other country of the united nations. Too many cooks sometimes spoil the broth, and to have the representatives of the great powers meet in the first instance and see what they could do was I think the successful and wise way of proceeding. That i3 why the Dumbarton Oaks conference was limited as it was to the representatives of the great powers.
But even at Dumbarton Oaks they did not succeed in getting complete agreement. Some matters had to be left over for further consideration, and they were considered at Yalta. We were not invited to Yalta, nor was Australia, or New Zealand, or South Africa or any other of the united nations, except the great powers that were represented there.
At Yalta these great powers tried again to see if they could not find some basis on which they could agree which would be sufficient to enable a great conference to be held of all the powers for the purpose of bringing a world security charter into being. Happily they were able to reach such an agreement, and we have now presented to us what is an agreement between the great powers looking toward the establishment of this great organization for the preservation of world peace. I would

San Francisco Conference
say that nothing could be more fortunate than the fact that what would be the most difficult of all steps to obtain, namely, a measure of complete agreement between the great powers on the maintenance of peace in the post-war world, has already been attained. Surely after that has been attained, the lesser powers or the other countries, by whatever name you wish to call them, will be glad and ought to be ready to cooperate in every way with the great powers in bringing the charter into a form which will make it commendable, so far as any charter can be made commendable, to all.
The hon. member for York-Sunbury asked: Does not preservation of peace depend on the great powers, apart altogether from their representation on a security organization?
Of course it depends on the great powers. But that does not mean that the likelihood of the great powers being kept in agreement will not be very much increased by all of them becoming members of a great world organization and assuming definite obligations in that organization. That is what this particular treaty will help to do. It will pledge every member of the organization which will include all the great powers, to subscribe to all that is set out in the charter. This will mean that not by mere chance or without any set arrangement, these powers will meet and confer but that they will continuously be kept in touch with one another not merely in dealing with questions of peace and war once things have come to the danger point, but rather to deal continuously with the causes which create war, and to deal with them particularly before matters have reached an impasse in circumstances that might lead to war. So that this world organization, once brought into being, will contribute in a very large way to keeping perpetual agreement between the great powers and in helping to make their efforts to maintain peace most effective. Part of the work of the organization will be to see that all the nations will be dealing in a general assembly with questions of the possibility of war and with the conditions that create war. The procedure of the general assembly will correspond in many ways to that of this House of Commons. The council will resemble more or less the executive which has final control in certain matters. Every hon. member of a representative parliament knows that the actions of an executive are controlled by knowledge of the attitude which will be taken by members of the representative body. The opinions and decisions of the legislative assembly will be continually
exerting themselves upon the great powers which will have permanent seats on the security council.
The next question asked was in regard to the meeting in London, why no minister has been sent there, what instructions have been given to Canada's representatives, and what collaboration there is to be later on with the United Kingdom and other members of the commonwealth at San Francisco.
I think it is obvious, at the moment at least, why a Canadian minister is not now in London. It is a little difficult for one who occupies the position of Minister of External Affairs and Prime Minister to be in two places at the same time, and in matters of this kind one has to decide where one's first duty lies. It has not been possible for me personally to go to London at this time; but may I say that, in the invitation extended by the British government, that government has shown itself much more understanding in the matter, and may I add, much more courteous than hon. gentlemen opposite who have insinuated that there was a special or sinister reason why Canada was not being represented by a minister in London at this time, that reason being they would have others believe-I may as well state it quite frankly-that the present Prime Minister is always seeking to pull away from closer contact with other parts of the British commonwealth. It is being sought to spread that kind of impression as widely as it can be everywhere; it is repeated ad nauseam by hon. gentlemen opposite. I would ask them to tell me one time in the whole of my life when I have not stood first and foremost with every member of the British commonwealth in furthering our common interest. They expect a man to take a great responsibility, to act as the head of the delegation to a great world conference of the kind we are considering, and before he starts off they do all in their power to render him ineffective in whatever he attempts to do. They are seeking to spread the impression that, if I lead the delegation from the parliament of Canada at San Francisco, in some way I shall be sulking in the corner all the time I am there, not wishing to have contacts with other members of the British commonwealth. And that, after the part I have played as leader of the government of this country during five and one-half years of war, to say nothing of the many other years I have sought to serve Canada and the commonwealth of nations of which Canada is one.
Hon. gentlemen opposite will find out when the opportunity comes-and I am thankful to say it will be given fairly soon-for them as well as the government to appear before
32283-20i
San Francisco Conference

the people of this country, whether or not the people of Canada feel that I have done my duty by the British commonwealth of nations, by the British empire, through every hour of the time I have been serving as Prime Minister of this country.
My hon. friend asked, have we given instructions to the delegates going over? Instructions? We have been discussing this question with members of the British government for over a year past. I personally sat at the council table at Downing street with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and his colleagues and discussed these very matters which relate to world organization and the position which should be taken by representatives of different parts of the commonwealth when they came to consider proposals such as those' subsequently drafted at Dumbarton Oaks. We have been exchanging communications back and forth during the last year, getting the opinions of the British government, getting the opinions of different parts of the commonwealth, and giving our opinions. So far as the present meeting in London is concerned it is, as I described it, a meeting for the purpose of exchanging opinions and of seeing whether, as a result of further consideration of the different points which have been raised, there are some matters which might be met in this way or that way-seeking in all that is done to serve the ends of useful conference. We shall be represented at the meeting at London by the Right Hon. Vincent Massey, High Commissioner for Canada, who is a member of the Canadian privy council and has seen all the communications which have passed between the British government and ourselves, and most, it not all, of those which have passed between other parts of the British commonwealth. We shall be represented also by Mr. Hume Wrong, associate under-secretary of state for external affairs, who, more than any other man in this country, has from the beginning of its consideration to this hour followed every move in connection with the formation of this world organization, so far as it has been humanly possible for anyone to do so. Mr. Wrong has been present at meetings of the cabinet when we have been discussing these matters. We have benefited by his expert opinions and suggestions, and he has full knowledge of our attitude. He does not need any special instructions to take to London at the present time. He knows our mind and will be able to represent it fully there. I may add -that he will be able day by day -to keep us informed by cable and in a similar way we can keep in touch with him as regards any question which may arise.

WThy, then, should hon. gentlemen seek to create an impression that I am deliberately staying away from a meeting in London in which there is the fullest representation and the best representation on the official level that could be given to any meeting which could be held there?
Now as to collaboration with other parts of the commonwealth at San Francisco. Whoever accompanies or is part of the delegation will perhaps be a little surprised to discover how completely all these matters which are of common interest will be discussed between all those who represent different parts of the commonwealth. We have all sought from the beginning to approach these great world affairs with as much of one mind as it is possible for men -with different environments to have. Why endeavour to create suspicion that we are seeking in some way to create divisions among ourselves, more particularly when we are dealing with foreign nations.
My hon. friend the leader of the opposition next asked me about representations made by Canada to other powers. So far as Canada's representations to other powers are concerned, we have communicated to all of the great powers the views which I expressed in my opening address. They have been communicated to all the governments of the British commonwealth; some other governments have obtained them through their ministers here. There has I think been the fullest disclosure of our point of view that could be desired.
As to proposed amendments bjr other countries, about which another question was asked, we have been informed of some views which are likely to be expressed on behalf of other states. In one or two cases we have been informed of amendments which they are likely to move. This information has been given to us in confidence. In processes of negotiation, governments do not place every suggestion or view on the table for all kinds of interpretation and commitments to be made before finality is reached. What is done in all these matters is to have as full an exchange of opinions and views as possible, and then ultimately to decide on what specific amendment, if any, it may be desirable to present.
So far as the government is concerned it is not our intention at the present time to suggest anything specific in the way of amendment, but when the delegation reaches San Francisco and there have been discussions with other members of the commonwealth and other nations, it may be deemed advisable for Canada to bring forward certain amendments. If such is the case the amendments

San Francisco Conference
will speak for themselves and the government will take full responsibility for any amendment it proposes.
Now I come to the mention of the Canadian delegation, in reference to which I have been asked several questions. First of all as to how the delegation will be chosen. It will be chosen in Canada exactly in the same manner as delegations have been chosen in the United Kingdom, and in the United States, in all of the nations of the British commonwealth, and so far as I know also in accordance with what is being done by all nations that are sending representatives to the conference. That is to say, the responsible government, the government in charge, will take responsibility for appointing the delegation. The delegation to go from Great Britain was appointed by Mr. Churchill, the delegation representing the United States was appointed by Mr. Roosevelt, and the delegations from Australia, New Zealand and South Africa have been appointed by the prime ministers of those dominions. The Prime Minister of Canada will take a similar responsibility to that assumed in other countries.
In connection with Canada's representatives, it seems to be assumed that it will be my responsibility to head our delegation. May I say at once to hon. members of this house that I deeply appreciate what I hope I may regard as an expression of confidence in myself, not politically but so far as this particular mission is concerned, as I gather it from the remarks made in the course of this debate. It is assumed that I shall take that responsibility, and in the belief that it is the wish of this House of Commons that I should so act, I am prepared to go to San Francisco as head of the delegation.
I.	must say, however, speaking to this house and to the country, as it is my duty to do, that some regard must be had for the circumstances in which I find myself in undertaking that responsibility. Some hon. members have been kind enough to refer to a possibility that has found circulation that I might be asked to accept a very responsible position in connection with the work of organization of the conference. I thank those who have had this kindly thought in mind for even thinking of anything of the kind. That it should have occurred to anyone that I might be chosen for a position of great responsibility at the conference is in itself a compliment and an expression of confidence which I value very deeply. May I say, however, that even if there were such a possibility, and I know of no reason why there should be, I would myself not find it possible to accept a position of the kind. It must be obvious that I cannot free
myself, during the remainder of the period of this parliament at least, from the responsibilities which as Prime Minister of the country I have at a time of war, and anyone who has that responsibility will, I am sure, feel that he should give to that all-important aspect of public affairs as much in the way of concentrated attention as it is possible to give-So that in going to San Francisco I shall not be freeing myself of that obligation and duty but I shall be taking on the other in addition to what I now assume.
But there is another circumstance of which hon. members are well aware. We shall be having a general election in this country very shortly. I cannot say when yet, because I cannot fix the date at the moment, not knowing when the Ontario election may take place. That is another feature that within the last few days has come into the picture, because any date we may select will necessarily have some relation to the date fixed by Ontario for the provincial election. I had hoped that the election might follow very shortly after the termination of this parliament; I do not mean the date of polling, but that the beginning of the campaign might take place even while the San Francisco conference itself is on. It would be impossible to be sure that in going to San Francisco in those circumstances one would be able to remain there even to the close of the conference. Personally, I intend, in assuming the responsibility entailed in going to the conference, to regard that as the obligation which the country wishes me to regard first of all, and I hope that the members of my party, as I am sure they will, will realize that, in not being able to be in Canada for at least a period of a month, at any rate in all probability three or four weeks when the election campaign may be on, the reason in any way is not that I am not anxious to do all I possibly can to see that the present administration is returned to power and that its policies are made to prevail in the next few years. Rather, the reason is that I feel that the greatest responsibility at the moment is to do what can be done in the-name of this country to help to bring into being this gireat world organization for the maintenance of peace.
I should not, perhaps, mention anything so immediate and personal as one's obligation to one's own constituency. I have found, in the course of these war years, that it has not been possible for me to visit the constituency which I represent in this parliament. I had hoped time and again to find it possible to make a trip through the country and to spend a few days in the constituency, but that has
San Francisco Conference

not been possible. As I see matters to-day, if added to the other obligations which I am assuming at the moment there is the obligation to the constituency, to be there for a period of time during the campaign, it may be exceedingly difficult for me to meet that obligation. I do believe, however, that the people of Canada will realize the position in which I am placed in that regard, and even if I should not find it possible to be present for my own nomination, I have no fears that there will be a complette understanding of the reasons. These' things I speak of simply because they will come up within the next few weeks, and what I am now saying will also *explain why, in assuming the larger obligation which is involved in heading Canada's delegation to- the world conference in California, it will not be possible for me to discharge other responsibilities in as full a manner as I should like to be able to meet them,
It has been suggested that there should be representatives of agriculture, labour, veterans, industry, business and so forth on the delegation. that goes to San Francisco. I think the mere mention of that list makes apparent, the difficulty there- is in making selections for a delegation of the kind. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and I have felt that- nowhere could it more properly be drawn than by confining the representation on the delegation to those who are and have for some time been the representatives of the people in one- or other of the houses of1 parliament of Canada. I hope that in reaching that conclusion it will not be felt that I am1 doing anything other than seeking to give to the Canadian parliament the important place which it should hold at all times in the respeclt of the naition as -the representative institution of the people of this dominion.
As to delineating policies that the gov-srnment should have, before going to San Francisco, I do not think I need to add to what Pas already been said. I have made clear what our policies are, and I believe hon. members are on the whole pretty generally agreed that the right attitude is being taken.
Now it is said that the government will have no mandate to represent Canada after April 17. Mr. Speaker, the government is receiving its mandate at this moment from parliament. The purpose of the resolution that is before the House of Commons is to have this House of Commons decide whether Canada is to be represented; at the conference, and the principles and proposals which the delegates are to support while there. The resolution when it passes this house will be the mandate of this fMr. Mackenzie King.]
House of Commons to the present administration to see that a delegation from Canada goes to the conference at San Francisco and that it acts in accordance with the provisions of the resolution.
I cannot understand how any hon. members can feel that because a general election may be on, owing to the life of parliament having expired, the government ceases to have any functions or any duties. Some government must continue to carry on. The government of the country must carry on whether it is at a time of an election or at any other time. I cannot see that there is other than full responsibility on this administration to carry out the obligation to see that there is proper and ample representation of Canada at San Francisco.
The British government is sending a delegation to San Francisco. It may be that while the delegation is at San Francisco there will be a general election in Britain; I cannot say. But if there were, -would anyone say that that delegation should come back because it has no mandate? That is another thing that I cannot understand-why some hon. gentlemen opposite always raise questions with respect to anything which this government does or anything that I may do, which they would not think of raising in regard to any other government or any other individual similarly placed in the United Kingdom or another of the nations of the commonwealth. It has become a habit and I suppose they find it difficult to free themselves from it.
Questions have been asked about the relationship of the new organization to the league of nations. I cannot answer that question offhand. I assume that when the new organization comes into being it will gradually take over the functions and many of the organizations that have been associated1 with the league of nations. I think of one in .particular, the international labour office, for example. The international labour office, I am sure, is the most important of all the 'bodies that have been associated with the league of nations. Some sixty per cent of the expenditure of this parliament on league of nations matters goes toward the support of the international labour office. We are proud in Canada that we have had that office located in Montreal during the last few years, practically throughout the years of the war. I have no doubt in the world that the international labour office will become a part of the new united nations organization. It will receive, I am sure, every support toward that end, and doubtless it will be so with other of the special bodies connected with the league of nations. What I imagine is probable is the league in part will continue to operate for a time, and gradually as the transition period

San Francisco Conference
ends the new organization will completely replace the old one. But there are matters of legal adjustment that have to be made and they take time.
I come now to the question of military agreements and commitments which have been made a central point of criticism in this debate. And here, Mr. Speaker, I take very strong exception to the attitude of hon. gentlemen opposite in seeking to make me responsible in the public mind for certain positions with which I have had nothing whatever to do. In discussing military commitments hon. members opposite-it started with the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green)-began by saying that I, the present leader of the government, had put forward certain proposals as to what was to be done in the application of force and in using force outside of Canada. Two proposals of the Dumbarton Oaks conference, one after the other, were referred to as my proposals. The hon. member for Vancouver South, first of all, said that it was possible to interpret what I have said one way or the other. Then he gives not the right interpretation, but one of his own which he knew very well was not the right one, but the wrong one; and thereafter everyone who followed him, I think without exception, in the official opposition deliberately used wrong interpretation as though it were the right one and argued therefrom. The reason I take-
Mr. -GREEN: I said exactly what I meant.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, I know. I am not surprised that the hon. member said what he did say, because it is not the first time he has spoken in debate. The reason why I am taking exception so strongly to this is that my hon. friends opposite are creating in the minds of some nations a certain opinion, or are endeavouring to create a certain opinion, in reference to Canada's attitude, towards the Dumbarton Oaks -proposal, which may have a very serious and far-reaching effect among the delegates from other countries who will be present at San Francisco.


Mr. GREEN:: The Prime Minister gave the impression.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They are endeavouring to have the idea gain ground that Canada is now taking a certain position with respect to the use of power by force, and how it is to be applied; an impression which is a wholly erroneous one, and an infinite amount of mischief may as a consequence be done before the meeting takes place at San Francisco at all. Perhaps my hon. friends do not realize the extent of the mistake they have been making in that regard. Let me mention .another thing of the same kind. Everything
that they have been saying about the British commonwealth not working together in harmony is pretty certain to be inimical and harmful to members of the British delegation and to all who represent any part of the British commonwealth when they meet at San Francisco. It is not a question of the effect of what they say on our domestic politics. People in Canada know hon. gentlemen, know what they have been saying for the last twenty years, and they know what value to attach to it. The citizens of Holland and Belgium, France and Brazil; all the other American republics and the other countries who will be represented, do not know how true or false any impression may be. What they now hear is that the Canadian delegation which is going to San Francisco is already committed to certain attitudes or it is not going to take certain attitudes, and some of those countries may well became prejudiced against Canada in advance. That is the part that causes me very real concern. I feel it deeply because hon. gentlemen know better and ought to have been guided more correctly in the words that they used.


Howard Charles Green: The Prime Minister should not have said what he did say.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Just a moment. In order that there may be no mistake as to what I am saying, I shall make use of some notes I have before me.
The hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon), speaking on Wednesday, March 21, asked these questions, or made this representation, as reported at page 65 of Hansard'.
With respect to these points I should like the Prime Minister to make clear when the agreements which are mentioned in the Dumbarton Oaks proposals, and referred to in his speech yesterday, are likely to be entered into by the states subscribing to the charter, and this is what I mean by that statement. Will there be any agreements entered into at San Francisco, or will the agreements be entered into after approval and ratification of the charter have been given by the respective governments, or will the agreements be entered into only after the peace treaties have been signed?
I shall answer that question as follows. I said in my statement of March 20 that there was a good deal of obscurity about the methods by which the proposals relative to military agreements would be developed. I would not have spoken in this way had I been in a position to answer the question asked by the leader of the opposition. I think I can deal definitely with one of his points. No military agreements will be negotiated at San Francisco, nor could any such agreements come into effect under the proposals until they
San Francisco Conference

had secured the approval of the security council. I suppose no one now can say just when the agreements would be concluded, if the provisions relating to them are included in the charter. Further the leader of the opposition said:
It would appear that the extent of our contribution with respect to force will be governed by the agreements rather than by the charter itself. We should be told whether there will be one blanket agreement covering all our contributions in this regard or whether there will have to be a special agreement covering each particular operation in which the organization may require men and equipment and. if so, will each of these special agreements have to come before parliament for approval and ratification in each instance?
Here too I am unable to give much further information, except to state positively that under the proposals as they stand any military agreement involving a contribution from Canada to any other member state will be subject to-and I quote these words:
. . . the ratification of the signatory states in accordance with their constitutional processes.
The general scheme put forward in the proposals is designed to make it possible for the security council to know in advance what armed forces, facilities and assistance would be available to it to deal with whatever dangers might arise. In my own statement on March 20 I spoke in part as follows:
As they stand, the acceptance of the proposals would in no way commit Canada to send forces beyond Canadian territory at the call of the security council. If any such commitment were sought, it would be embodied in a later agreement, freely negotiated by the government of Canada and coming into effect only after it had been approved by parliament.
There I was stating a fact. The proposals that are before us are not proposals I have made; they are proposals made by the great powers acting together, seeking to get as large a measure of agreement as possible. They are their proposals and, as I read them, I think I can see what was in the minds of the great powers when those proposals were framed in the way they have been. The great powers realized that if this organization was to serve the purpose for which it is intended it would need to have not only the support of the great powers but the support of as many of the united nations as it might be possible to bring into membership in the organization. In drawing up these proposals, which are only for the purpose of affording a basis of discussion when it comes to creating a charter, they were careful so to frame them as not to make it impossible for some of the lesser powers or other powers to join in bringing this great organization into being. It is sometimes for-
fotten that in planning this charter, if it is to be effective, it is not only necessary in the first instance to get other nations into the organization, but it. is essential that those other nations shall have behind them the public opinion of the people of their countries.
In creating a great organization of this kind steps have been taken one at a time in order to remove grounds for suspicion. We have heard from hon. gentlemen in the far corner what their suspicions are. There is not ground for one of them in anything that is to be found in the Dumbarton Oaks proposals. The proposals have been drafted very carefully in order to make it possible to bring this organization into being; then, after it is created, the further steps that are necessary will be taken one by one in order to ensure the permanence of peace. In all that is done there has been the most positive assurance given that whatever may be the constitutional procedure of the different nations in their legislative bodies, that constitutional procedure will be followed before anything becomes an obligation upon the nation concerned. That is not my proposal ; it is a statement of fact in the proposals given to the world after the Dumbarton Oaks conference.
After I had made my statement it must have been wholly clear that it was intended to be simply a statement of fact in regard to the proposals as they stand. It was not intended to bear and could not rightly bear the construction which has been placed upon it, un-warrantly, by certain hon. members opposite. I wish now to correct the impression they have sought to convey, so that other nations may know there is no justification for it. I am not so much concerned as to what the people of Canada may feel in regard to what hon. gentlemen opposite have said, for they will understand it; but other nations may not, and I want other nations to know that my statement could not honestly be said to convey the impression-and here I repeat what different hon. members opposite have said- that in entering a world organization Canada has not very much to worry about or that there is very little obligation; or that the government is trying to leave open an exit from some of the obligations that Canada will be asked to assume at San Francisco, implying that such action was an attempt to appease the isolationists of Canada; or that it was offered as a sop to the isolationism or the little Cana-dianism of a minority in this country in order to ensure support for the resolution.
Still less were my words intended to create the impression mentioned by the hon. member

San Francisco Conference
for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), that instead of doing her part-and I quote his words:
... to underwrite world security absolutely and unequivocally, Canada will underwrite it conditionally and partially.
I say that seeking to foster throughout the world that kind of impression as to the position this government representing Canada intends to take at San Francisco is doing an irreparable injury, in advance, to the work of the conference itself. The hon. member for Vancouver South said it did not help to have the Prime Minister use the words-and he quoted:
As they stand, the acceptance of the proposals would in no way commit Canada to send forces beyond Canadian territory at the call of the securitv council.
The hon. member went on to represent that this was a return to the no-commitment policy of pre-war days, and he argued that it gave the impression that Canada had very little obligation to assume, and that the government is still trying to leave open an exit from some of the obligations Canada would be asked to assume at San Francisco. May I say to my hon. friend that this is a rather curious iine for a member of the Progressive Conservative party to take. I cannot remember that there was any outspoken support for any policy of commitments in advance from the Conservative side of the house from 1930 onwards.


Howard Charles Green: We have been complaining about your no-commitment policy for ten years.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My statement was a simple statement of fact in reference to the Dumbarton Oaks proposals; and to say that the statement of the fact was an attempt to appease the isolationists of Canada is reading into it a wholly unwarranted construction. There is one inescapable answer to my hon. friend about "the no-commitment" matter and the things for which this administration stands. There was no commitment to go into the present war. There was no commitment on the part of Canada to play the part she has played in this war. There was no commitment that Canada should go on fighting this war as she is now doing so valiantly. The reasons Canada went into the war; the reason Canada is fighting as she is to-day; the reason she is playing the part she has played in this war, is that Canada was at liberty, of her own free will, to play the part she thought she should play in the great cause of world freedom.
My hon. friend suggests that we should be part of some commonwealth unit which should have the right to say what shall be done by
all the members of the commonwealth. I ask him this question: If that view had prevailed, does he think Caanda would have been playing the part that she is playing to-day in this war I say that a complete answer to the hon. gentleman as to whether the policies of this government have been sound is found in the way in which this country responded to the needs of the world at the moment we had a practical situation facing us. I repeat that if there had been commitments in advance this country would never have gone into the war in the united manner in which it did. This country would never have given the army that she has given, the navy she has given, the air force she has given, the munitions she has given, the food supplies she has given, the financial aid she has given and the mutual aid in different forms she has given if there had been any effort to commit her in advance to any or all these things. She has given her all in a total war effort because there were no commitments, and because the heart of Canada was sound, and we did not need to be making any commitments.
Another thing that strikes me as extraordinary is that hon. gentlemen opposite always find it necessary to belittle Canada's war effort- Mr. Churchill has not found it necessary-


Howard Charles Green: Now, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Thomas Vien: Order.


Howard Charles Green: Some hon. members who are shouting "sit down" will not be here to shout it in a few weeks. The Prime Minister must withdraw that statement. He has no right to say that about our belittling the war effort, because it is entirely incorrect.


Mr. REID:: It is not.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It is.


Howard Charles Green: We did not make any
attempt to belittle Canada's war effort, and never have. But the Prime Minister is of the view that the war effort is the war effort of the Liberal party. He cannot charge me with that, and it must be withdrawn.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about throwing the rifles overboard?


An hon. MEMBER:: What about Bracken in Grey North?


Gordon Graydon: Surely there must be some order in the house.


An hon. MEMBER:: Sit down.


Gordon Graydon: Surely a mechanical
majority like this is not allowed to control the whole of parliament.
San Francisco Conference


Mr. CASSELMAN:: Mr. Speaker is on
his feet.


George Alexander Cruickshank: We would like to have the truth about the rifles.


Thomas Vien: As I heard him, the hon. member was taking exception to a statement made by the Prime Minister. I do not think there was anything objectionable in it.


Gordon Graydon: He referred to every
hon. member over here, and made a statement which is not in accordance with the facts. I have heard no member belittling Canada's war effort, and I know that upon reflection the Prime Minister will want to withdraw that statement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have nothing to withdraw. I wish to make it perfectly clear that never at any time have I claimed that the war effort of Canada was the war effort of the Liberal party. I claimed it was the war effort of the Canadian people, a war effort which was wisely and generously directed.


Howard Charles Green: I would ask you for your
ruling on the point of order, Mr. Speaker.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker
has ruled upon it.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps the hecklers will
keep still. The Prime Minister was referring to me, stating that I had belittled Canada's war effort. I did no such thing. It is a common rule of debate that a statement of that kind should be withdrawn, and I appeal to Your Honour for protection.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has tried to belittle everything I have done, in every utterance he has made, more or less.


Howard Charles Green: You are not Mr. Speaker; I want a ruling.


Frederick Clayton Casselman: Mr. Speaker is on his feet.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have the floor.


Frederick Clayton Casselman: No; Mr. Speaker has the floor.


Thomas Vien: As I caught his words the Prime Minister said, "I cannot understand why my hon. friends opposite should belittle Canada's war effort." I did not interpret that as referring only to the hon. member for Vancouver South. It was a general statement referring to the opposition.


An hon. MEMBER:: And you are doing it every day in the week.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: We are not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friends have been seeking all along to create the impression that certain proposals put forward in respect of the Dumbarton Oaks statement were proposals of mine, and that I was responsible for the interpretation they themselves were giving to them. And they have sought to give to those proposals an interpretation which is not justifiable at all.
The last hon. member to speak last night in the debate, from the official opposition side of the house was the hon. member for Park-dale, (Mr. Bruce). Had I happened to be in the house at the time I would have taken exception to his remarks at once. I have read them, and find that, ait page 261 oif Hansard he said this:
The Prime Minister, however, soon lapsed again into another state of unreality when he declared his intention-
"His intention."
[DOT]-to refer all matters of aggression to parliament and to await its decision before taking action. The delay and uncertainty, if such a procedure were carried out, would be the most certain way of bringing about a third world war.
That, Mr. Speaker, is an absolutely untrue statement. I have made no declaration of any kind, either directly or indirectly, which could be construed as indicating an intention of referring all matters of aggression to parliament, and of awaiting its decision before taking action.
Then, ait page 262 of Hansard, the hon. member for Parkdale said:
If this is all the Prime Minister contemplates there will be general agreement, but when peace is threatened, to make a proviso that the consent of parliament must be obtained before our armed forces can be used, as proposed by the Prime Minister, is to invite another world conflict.
I have made no proposal with respect to how our armed forces are to be used. I could not do so. As yet the organization itself is not in existence, and until the organization is in existence and treaties have been made, no one will be able to know what will be expected of any nation. And more than that, until we know what the terms of peace are, and what the great powers propose to do in maintaining peace, and what is provided for controlling Germany and Japan in the years to come-and these are only a few things-[DOT] until we know these things we do not know what force may be required or what demands may be made upon any country. I have made no proposal whatever, and1 the hon. member knows it. And yet here is his statement that-
. . . when peace is threatened, to make a proviso that the consent of parliament must be obtained before our armed forces can be used, as proposed by the Prime Minister, is to invite another world conflict.

San Francisco Conference
Well, considering its source, I would not attach so much importance even to that, were it not for the fact that these statements are being taken up by press correspondents, who are passing them on not only to our own country but to other countries as well. Looking at one of the morning papers I find this, in reference to yesterday's proceedings in parliament:
Doctor Bruce made several clear-cut points. First he emphasized the danger of delay if the Prime Minister's idea were followed to have each individual call for Canadian^ force to support the world organization promised on an appeal to parliament.
I have had no such idea. I have given expression to no such idea. I have now no such idea. And yet those statements go out before this conference convenes. They go to nations in all parts of the world, and are read by them, and their actions to some extent may be governed accordingly.
I am not going to leave this matter without quoting to hon. members opposite from one of their newspapers, one which in connection with most matters has supported them very strongly through thick and thin. I quote from an editorial in the Ottawa Journal of March 23, 1945, and put it on Hansard because I hope it will be to hon. members opposite a sufficient answer as to how a leading Conservative journal interprets my remarks as made in the House of Commons. Under the heading "Misunderstanding Dumbarton Oaks" the editorial reads:
Parliament's discussion of the San Francisco conference appears to be accomplishing one good end. The end of removing widespread public misconceptions regarding Dumbarton Oaks.
For example, surprise is being expressed over what is called Prime Minister King's "disclosure" that the council of the world security organization could not automatically commit the member nations to contributing men and resources in the event of an outbreak of aggression. Also, so w'ell-informed a newspaper as the Toronto Globe and Mail speaks of a "pooled force of military power . . . capable of action at the first threat of aggression."
Mr. King, of course, made no disclosure; spoke nothing new. The world security organization, as proposed by Dumbarton Oaks, will have no army of its own, and there will be no "pooled military force." Actually, the idea of an international police force, at one time advocated in certain quarters, has been universally rejected.
What is proposed instead is in section 5 of chapter 8 of the charter:
"In order that all members of the organization should contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, they should undertake to make available to the security council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements concluded among themselves, armed forces, facilities and assistance necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security. Such .agreement or agreements should govern the
numbers and types of forces and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided. The special agreement or agreements should be negotiated as soon as possible and it should in each case be subject to approval by the security council and to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their constitutional processes."
Prime Minister King's interpretation of this, in its application to Canada, is:
"The agreements would limit the military aid pledged by members to what each member was ready to give of its own volition. The agreements might include provisions governing the circumstances in which any forces could be called upon to serve abroad. These arrangements would need separate approval in accordance with the constitutional processes of the country. In Canada that would mean approval by parliament before such agreements were ratified.
"There is at present a good deal of obscurity about the methods by which this part of the proposal would be developed in practice. One point, however, is clear. As they stand, the acceptance of the proposals would in no way commit Canada to send forces beyond Canadian territory at the call of the security council. If any such commitment were sought, it would be embodied in a later agreement, freely negotiated by the government of Canada, and coming into effect only after it had been approved by parliament."
The editorial then goes on:
Mr. King's interpretation seems to us reasonably accurate. We very much doubt whether any plan which proposed that a country such as Canada must keep on hand an army, navy and air force, plus supplies of armaments, to be at the call of a council for service at any time anywhere in the world, and regardless of possible disagreement over the rights or wrongs of the issues involved, would have the least chance of acceptance. The security council of this world organization will not be infallible. It will be made up of human beings as liable to error as the rest of us; and, consequently, to argue that a ,few such human beings should be given uncontrolled power over the armies and resources of scores of nations, their whims become world 1 aw, is surely to argue the impossible. Without at all making a fetish of national sovereignty we think we can say that the nations of the world, including our own, would never submit to any such condition.
I think I may leave there the final word in regard to whether or not I have correctly interpreted the proposals of Dumbarton Oaks in the statement I made to the House of Commons.
Some other questions have been asked, one, for example, with respect to the revision of treaties. I am unable to say what will be done with regard to the revision of treaties until I know what may be outlined by the conference toward that end.
Something has been said of Canada seeking a permanent seat on the council. May I say a word in that regard. The hon. member for Lake Centre asked1 whether there was any
San Francisco Conference

move to secure a permanent seat based on the expected contribution of Canada. I can assure the hon. member that the Canadian government. neither has advanced nor has any intention of advancing a claim to rank equal with the great powers on the security council.
There is also a good deal of talk, much of it critical, of an alleged desire on the part of the Canadian government to see Canada enrolled among the middle powers. I was careful in my statement to say nothing to support this unfounded assumption. The truth is, however, that Canada, although not large in population, has attained through the vigour of our people and the extent of our resources a position in which Canadian interests are worldwide. The potential contribution of Canada to the purposes of the world organization for peace cannot be measured by counting heads. It can, however, be estimated1 by regarding the not inconsiderable part, military, economic and financial, which our country has taken in the alliance with the great powers.
Had time permitted I should like to have had something in particular to say concerning the suggestion of having "a single voice" speaking on behalf of the commonwealth. In order not to detain members too long I shall refer them to what I said in a previous debate in this house. Some hon. members seem to forget that this subject was debated very thoroughly in this house at the last session of parliament. At that time I made a comprehensive statement on behalf of the government as to its position in regard to having the commonwealth speak, as hon. gentlemen say, with "one voice," and I just wish to give them what I said at that time and to point out that since then none of them has answered the question I asked in the statement I then made. I said that the British commonwealth of nations has never been, nor can it now be, a single entity in international affairs. The British commonwealth is not a nation; it is rather a fraternity of nations, who are by formal definition and by long practice, "autonomous communities, in no way subordinate one to the other in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs." There has never been a serious attempt to make the British commonwealth a single personality in international affairs. It was never done in the league of nations or in any of its subsidiary agencies; nor has it ever been suggested as applying in the inter-governmental bodies created during the present war.
We cannot at this stage of our history as a free nation turn back upon the process by which we reached free nationhood. But that is what hon. gentlemen opposite are seeking to do. They are seeking to go back to the days
TMr. Mackenzie King,]
prior to the last war, prior to the conference held at the time of treaty making. They are seeking to undo the work that Sir Robert Borden and his colleagues successfully performed in gaining for Canada her right to sign that treaty as of herself, instead of simply being lumped with the other nations of the commonwealth all as one. They are seeking to undo the work of the imperial conferences of 1923 and 1926, at both of which I was present myself and of which I can- speak with some authority, where the declaration concerning equality of status which I have just quoted, setting out the position of the different nations of the commonwealth and which is known as the Balfour declaration, was made, not by Canada alone but 'by Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and the United Kingdom. They would throw that into the discard altogether, as well as the Statute of Westminster, which was enacted, not by this -parliament, but by the United Kingdom parliament, making clear the completely autonomous position of each nation and its individual person-ants'- and individual rights. Hon. gentlemen opposite would throw all that away for the sake of having it appear that in some way this government is lukewarm to the commonwealth. They would undo all this work in seeking to do injury to the government.
The simplest answer I can give to the point raised by the hon. member for Vancouver South is to repeat to him and to this house a statement which I made on August 4 of last year. In concluding certain remarks about the relationship between the nations of the commonwealth and the organization of peace I then said:
Inside the commonwealth we can and do manage as a rule to reach agreement on the general lines of policy which our governments should pursue in dealing with major issues. We find it possible to agree because we have the will to agree and cherish similar international ideals and purposes. If, however, the countries of the commonwealth had to reach agreement by some political process yet to be devised, so that all were bound to carry out a single policy, there would be a very different story. The world council is to be an executive body. It must be capable of prompt and single-minded action. The United Kingdom, which is indisputably a great power, will sit on the council in its own right, and its influence there will be enhanced by its special relationship with the countries of the common-wealth. The United Kingdom representative will, however, be responsible to London and will take his instructions from London alone.
Here are questions which hon. gentlemen have not answered:
Supposing we were to change this so that he -would become a representative of the British commonwealth, should be have to withhold action until he has received instructions from

San Francisco Conference
half a dozen governments? What should he do if these instructions were in conflict? Should he follow the majority opinion even if it is violently opposed by the government, parliament and people in one or more commonwealth countries? At the very best, action would be delayed and decisions blurred. At the worst we would run the risk of rendering the commonwealth impotent in international affairs and perhaps of disrupting it.
I say to the few in Canada who have advocated such a change that the prestige abroad of the British commonwealth was never higher than it is to-day. The prestige is based upon a belief that in the British commonwealth there has been evolved a unique alliance of a peculiarly tough and enduring kind whose members act together not because they are under any strict obligation to do so but because they have the will to act together. Our friends abroad, furthermore, have discovered that the primary objects for which the members of the commonwealth act together are objects which can be shared by other countries of good will. They realize that the commonwealth is not a power bloc exploiting its own interests but a group of like-minded nations whose close association has in the past formed, and should form in the future, a most reliable element within the framework of the world order.
I think I have come to the end of what I have found it necessary to say this afternoon in answer to questions raised in this debate; but I recall that my hon. friends of the Social Credit group also directed a number of questions to me. Last evening the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) asked a number of questions and requested that I reply to them to-day. Perhaps I might say I have concluded the longer catechism. I come now to his remarks, which may be classified as the shorter catechism.
The first question is:
Would the adoption of these proposals in any way weaken the ties or relationship between the countries which comprise the British empire? If so in what manner and to what extent?
The answer is: the establishment of a general international organization for the maintenance of international peace and security would, I believe, strengthen the association of the countries of the British commonwealth. Certainly it could in no way weaken or impair it.
The next question is:
If the proposals are adopted, would the control of this nation's currency and credit remain within our own power? In other words, would we retain absolute control over our own currency and credit?
I might say that before my hon. friend asked that question, I had prepared an answer to give to his leader in relation to what he had had to say on the Bretton Woods proposals, and I will give this answer to both hon. members and to their party, at this time.
A word as to the speeches made by the
hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) and the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Black-more). The contribution of these hon. members to the debate consisted very largely of an attack on the resolutions of the united nations monetary and financial conference, generally known as the Bretton Woods proposals. I confess that I am somewhat surprised to find the Social Credit party bringing aid and comfort to the more reactionary international bankers, who have been the chief critics of the Bretton Woods proposals.
The hon. member for Acadia asked: does approval of section 3 of the resolution before the house imply an endorsement of the final act of the Bretton Woods agreement? The short answer to that question is, no; the house is not in this resolution being asked to endorse the Bretton Woods proposals. At the same time, I am convinced that collaboration among nations in the economic and financial field is a vital part of any effective system of international security.
The Bretton Woods proposals are technical and complicated and I do not propose to enter into a discussion of them. I should be greatly perturbed, however, if by failing to comment on the substance of the hon. members' observations regarding Bretton Woods, I were to leave with the house the impression that I in any sense agreed with those observations. I do not believe that the hon. members gave an accurate interpretation of the proposals, nor do I believe that analysis will support the criticisms they have made.
Member after member in the course of this debate has properly insisted on the great importance of achieving international collaboration in the economic as well as in the political field. It is increasingly recognized that prosperity, like peace, is indivisible and that it cannot be achieved through anarchy, or through measures of extreme economic nationalism. The edifice of peace we are seeking to construct will totter if it is not founded on conditions of material well-being throughout the world. We should be making a very poor approach indeed to the great problems to be dealt with at San Francisco, if we failed to take a constructive attitude toward the proposals which the delegates of forty-four united nations assembled at Bretton Woods have, after long study and deliberation, put forward for the consideration of governments.
The next question is:
Do any of the proposals and principles involve the return to the gold standard?
The answer to that question is, no.
San Francisco Conference


John Horne Blackmore: I wonder whether the Prime Minister would permit a question, just to clarify the situation with respect to Bretton Woods. He does not need to if he does not wish to.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I feel I have covered that pretty fully.


John Horne Blackmore: The Prime Minister has not covered it at all. Bretton Woods has two definite proposals; one has to do with the international lending body and the other has to do with the international stabilization body. The one to which the international bankers are opposed is the lending body. The one to which the social crediters are opposed is the international stabilization body. It is important to get that straight.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is not the main point at the moment.


Gordon Graydon: I think the Prime Minister ought to deal with it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. member has it backwards, anyway.


John Horne Blackmore: No, I have got it straight.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The next question is:
If so, will the government, as far as it is concerned, oppose such a step?
So far as I am concerned that is answered by the previous reply.
My hon. friend's next question is:
Do. any of the proposals or principles involve the acceptance of the Bretton Woods proposals?
The answer is, no. Next:
And if so, will the government as far as it is concerned oppose such a step?
That is answered by the answer to the preceding question.
Is this vote to be regarded as a vote of confidence in the delegation?
The resolution now under consideration by the house sets forth clearly the points on which approval is sought. The house is asked to endorse acceptance of the invitation to send representatives to the conference and to agree that the Canadian representatives should endeavour to further the preparations of an acceptable charter for an international organization for the maintenance of international peace and security. I have already stated that the government will accept its constitutional responsibility for the selection and appointment of the delegation. I do not think 
that the question of approval or disapproval of the delegation, one way or the other, is involved. Then the next question:
Will the Prime Minister assure the house that as far as he is concerned this whole matter will be brought before appropriate committees of the house for full investigation before any commitments are made?
I must thank my hon. friend for assuming that I shall continue to be Prime Minister after the next election. I would say to him that the resolution now before the house states that the charter establishing the international organization should, before ratification, "be submitted to parliament for approval". When it becomes necessary to take action in order to secure the approval of parliament, if the present government is in office opportunity will be given to consider what form of action and what method of procedure would most appropriately give an opportunity for adequate parliamentary consideration and discussion.
The last question is:
If the proposals are adopted, -would Canada and any other individual nation be able to negotiate a trade agreement upon a basis satisfactory to the two countries without any interference by the world organization?
The answer is, certainly; the proposals before the house do not relate to the conduct of international commercial policy.
Two other important questions were asked.
I imagine hon. members might think I had evaded them were I not to mention them and reply. I shall do so very briefly. The leader of the opposition said:
Too little was said by the Prime Minister and too little has been said in this debate on the question of opening the channels of trade.
. . . When the Prime Minister replies I suggest he give his views with respect to the possible functions and powers of the economic and social council in this regard.
I cordially agree with the leader of the opposition that world peace and world trade are inseparable partners. There is not much I can add to my earlier statement with regard to the functions of the economic and social council in this connection. I do not expect that questions of trade will arise directly at San Francisco. We shall be concerned there with a new world order in which it is to be hoped that trade can flourish as never before. The general assembly and the economic and social council would have the responsibility in the world organization for facilitating "solutions of international, economic, social and other humanitarian problems and promoting respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms". There will be specialized international bodies brought into relation with the economic and social council dealing with

San Francisco Conference
various aspects of these general functions. Promotion of trade is undoubtedly an essential element in promoting human welfare but it must be carried on through many agencies.
Now for the final question; the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) asked whether the delegation at San Francisco would support the establishment of an international educational agency or commission as an integral part of any organization set up to maintain peace. He also referred to the proposals which have arisen from meetings of the allied ministers of education in London and asked whether Canada had been invited to take part and, if so, what the position of the Canadian government was.
It is contemplated that a specialized organization or agency should be established as one of the inter-governmental bodies to be brought into relation with the world organization through an agreement between the economic and social council and the appropriate authorities of the organization concerned with education. I do not anticipate that there will be much discussion at San Francisco of the nature of the international agency to deal with education. Negotiations have already been in progress for some time looking to the development of plans in this field; and the San Francisco conference will have a great deal of work on its hands. The Canadian government has kept in close touch through the Canadian high commissioner with the discussions in London. They took the form initially of meetings between the ministers of education of allied governments. We have indicated that Canada would hope to take part, within the limits of its constitutional responsibilities, in such an organization if it be set up. Consideration has been given for some time to the preparation of a constitution for an educational agency and it is to be expected that definite proposals will be presented before long.
I have at last concluded the replies which I undertook to make to the questions that have been asked.


Gordon Graydon: I think the Prime Minister has overlooked a question which I asked and which I think is germane to the discussion, and that is as to the status of the delegates whom the government will choose from outside its own supporters or ranks. I asked that question of the Prime Minister and he seems to have overlooked it in his answers. I wanted to know whether they would go as full-fledged delegates or advisers, and what freedom of expression, and so on, they would be guaranteed while there in accordance with the arrangements which have been made in the republic to the south. Perhaps he would elucidate that point.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am very much obliged to my hon. friend for bringing the question to my attention. I had inadvertently overlooked it. I hope that all members will go as members of one delegation. I should like to see Canada represented by one delegation which would be able to speak for the whole dominion and to speak apart altogether from party affiliations. The alternative would be to have members of opposite parties present as associates or advisers, but I should think that the public of Canada would much prefer to have all representatives from the different political parties go as members of one delegation. I should hope that the discussions in this house in the last ten days might make it apparent that it should not be difficult for members of all parties to agree in representing Canada's point of view on what position should be taken on whatever matters may come up for discussion. The government will have to take responsibility for any decisions that will be reached, but there will be no desire whatever to prevent any member of the delegation, were he to find it impossible to agree with other members, to make his views fully known. I would not wish to place restrictions on anyone, but of course each delegate would be expected to take full responsibility for what he himself might say. I very much hope, however, that the house will agree that the best manner in which Canada could be represented at the conference would be along lines I have suggested.


Howard Charles Green: I asked the Prime Minister what the attitude of the government would be towards regional organizations, particularly in the Pacific. He said nothing about that. I wonder if he could make a statement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is another question which I regret having overlooked. I do not think it would be possible to express an opinion on what will be done in the matter of regional organization until at least the present war is over. My hon. friend is primarily and rightly interested in British Columbia's position, and no' doubt he has in mind what might be desirable in relation to the Pacific. So far as the Pacific is concerned,, the main business now is to. defeat the Japanese. I think all of us are agreed on that as the objective. When the Japanese are defeated we shall know what conditions may be imposed upon them by the allied nations that bring about that defeat, and we shall know later what provision is to be made to see that they are kept in their place, if I may use so mild an expression, for time to come. Until those eventualities are known I doubt whether it would be possible for me to say what will be done in the way of making pro-
San Francisco Conference

vision for regional organization, but the charter of the organization will doubtless have some reference to the question. It is a difficult matter to decide, I admit. It is a question that can be settled finally only in the light of conditions as they may develop.


Howard Charles Green: Does the Prime Minister think that such organization may be necessary?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot say
whether or not it will be necessary until I know the circumstances to which I have referred. Then it will be possible to express an opinion.
May I say this one word in conclusion. If another war breaks out in twenty or thirty years it will be more horrible than this wTar, which has been more horrible than the last one. The barbarisms of the enemy will exceed those of to-day, just as the barbarities and atrocities of the enemy to-day exceed those of our enemies of a generation ago. In another war the last restraints would go, and unrestrained savagery, equipped with new and frightful weapons, would spread over the world.
All should pray that the San Francisco conference will result in an effective agreement. I wish to close on that note becaues it is the thought which to-day I know is uppermost in the minds of peoples everywhere. If we have another conflagration such as we have had in this war, this country stands to lose more than any other country' on earth. Canada has more to lose in another world war than any other country because of the great resources we have, because of our climate, because of the character of our people and because of our situation between the continent of Europe and the continent of Asia and our enviable position in the western hemisphere. It behooves every citizen of the country' to do his utmost to ensure, if it is at all possible, that an appalling condition such as even now we are witnessing shall never arise again.
Here may I quote a sentence that impressed me very deeply in a letter I received last night, so deeply that it rather caused me to wonder whether, even yet, in our discussions we have really grasped the significance of the coming conference in San Francisco and the imperative importance of making it a success. I had written to Field Marshal Smuts, who, I learned, would be coming to the San Francisco conference from London, and had invited him to pay a visit to Canada either before the conference itself or on his return from it. I am happy to say that Field Marshal Smuts has promised to accept that invitation, and we may look forward to having him, one of the greatest statesmen of the world, as a guest of this country. General Smuts played a very prominent part, as all know, in the last great war.

He had very much to do with bringing into being the league of nations. He has an experience I believe unsurpassed by any man, not excepting anyone, on matters pertaining to world organization; it was foT that reason that in the reply that I received to my message lo him last night I was so much impressed by certain words he used. His reply' was as follows:
My very warm thanks for your kind invitation to me to visit Canada. I look forward with deep interest to this prospect which I hope will be realized either before or after San Francisco. I also look forward to pleasant repetition fruitful contacts with you during the conference with all its possibilities for success or failure.
"With all its possibilities for success or failure." I say to hon. members of this house, we as citizens of Canada cannot afford to utter any word, to take any step, which may do other than help to make that conference a success, because if it is a failure, God alone knows what will happen to the future of this world.



S'UPPLY

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Bradette in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Administration service-
7. Advisory committee on agricultural services-further amount required, $1,000.
Gordon Graydon: The advisory committee on agricultural services I understand was set up by representatives of leading agriculturists throughout the country, and I was wondering what special work had been done by the committee this year which would necessitate additional travelling expenses of $1,000. I do not speak in any critical mood because I know that the work of this committee is highly commended by those who are interested in this special kind of work. In a previous session I raised the question as to the further utilization of these agricultural brains throughout the country who are brought in to advise the government from time to time, and I was wondering if this increased appropriation meant that the government was extending the work of the advisory committee. If so, I commend the increase if it is going to mean that the policy of the government is being extended for the greater utilization of the advisory committee on agricultural services. I think it would commend itself to the house generally. Can the minister say anything about that?


Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Acting Minister of Agriculture):: The Minister of Agriculture is
out of the city to-day and to-morrow. I think the explanation of the increase is that the advisory" committee has been called in more frequently than was anticipated when the original amount was put in the estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Science service
[Stage Direction]
If28. Botany and plant pathology-further amount required, $8,907.
Mr. PERLEY:: Would the minister explain what this further amount is required for? It is a considerable sum.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am only the acting minister while the minister is away and possibly my knowledge of this item is no greater than that of any other member of the committee, except that in connection with many of these items there is the cost of living bonus which has probably increased the original appropriation. I think that explanation would apply also to several of the following items.
Supply-Agriculture


Ernest Edward Perley: It is quite an amount to
pay for temporary assistance. Can the minister say how many were employed and for how long?


Mr. HAZEN:: I would call the minister's
attention to this fact. There seems to be a distinction made between temporary assistance and the cost of living bonus. If he will turn to page 9 of these further supplementary estimates he will find under "Trade and Commerce" the item "cost of living bonus and other pay-list items" and also an item for "temporary assistance," so that temporary assistance and the cost of living bonus seem to be two different items altogether.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend is quite
right. I presume that additional clerks and stenographers were required to give temporary assistance.


Douglas King Hazen: The minister cannot furnish us with the number so employed?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I have not the details here, and if my hon. friend wishes the details perhaps we had better let this and the other agricultural items stand until one of the officials is here.


John Horne Blackmore: I think it would be
wise to let these agricultural items stand since there are several on which I desire information.
Item stands.



DEPARTMENT OP FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
-}.35. Bank inspection (inspector general of banks' office)-further amount required, $3,750.
Ernest Edward Perley: Would any of this $3,750 by any chance be required for the inspection of the chartered banks following the labours of the banking and commerce committee last summer?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No. This amount is just for the ordinary running expenses of the office of the inspector general of banks. He is an official of the government and has a certain staff.


John Horne Blackmore: Does this item cover the inspection of the industrial development bank? Does its inspection come under this department?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The industrial development bank, to the best of my recollection, is not subject to the inspector general of banks. He has jurisdiction, I think only over the chartered banks and the Quebec savings bank.


John Horne Blackmore: Is the industrial development bank open for business yet?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Ernest Edward Perley: How many applications
have there been already for loans from this bank and how many applications under the Farm Loan Improvement act.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I tabled an answer to-day relating to the industrial development bank. While the bank has been in operation for some months, the aggregate amount of the loans is not very large. The amount was given in the answer which I tabled to-day. The hon. member for Peterborough West says that it is $79,000 up to some date in February. The act provides that a report is to be made covering certain details of the operation of the industrial development bank at the end of the fiscal year, and that report will give all the information which the statute requires.
With regard to the loans under the Farm Improvement Loans Act the regulations under that act were not completed until recently, about a month or two ago, or less than that. I think the banks are just getting into operation under that act, and I cannot get any information as to the number or volume of loans that have been made to date.


Thomas Langton Church: I wish to raise' a point about bank inspection which I had hoped last August to raise in connection with section 82 of the Bank Act, but owing, to the hot weather I did not do so. Will the minister in the recess of parliament look into the matter of bank inspection, especially under the clause of the new act regarding the banks building skyscrapers throughout Canada? The law provides that banks may not engage in real estate except in taking collateral security. In many cases the banks, in my opinion, are violating the act in this respect, and there should be an inspection to check it up. It is important that we should know what the position of these chartered banks is, and by what right they erect these big buildings, much larger than are required for their business, and deal in real estate in the more important cities right across Canada. In seven years they revert to the crown, but the treasury board, as I understand it, can give an extension for another seven years. The act says so. The law should be carried out. The banks have certain powers, but they should not be extended to what amounts to speculation in real estate, using trust funds for the purpose of erecting all over the country buildings which compete with other mercantile institutions engaged in the building business. I repeat that I hope the treasury board will give attention to this matter. I raised this same point with the Hon. Mr. Dunning, the predecessor of the present minister, and he said he would look into it.

Supply-Finance
We have a new Bank Act, and I contend that this very important clause should be enforced. Let us have a proper system of inspection. We all remember the failure of the Home bank and the suffering which it caused, particularly in the city I come from. That failure occurred mainly through lack of inspection. Some changes have been made in the act, and I draw the committee's attention to the fact that in this respect the law is not being carried out. If a bank were to expend ten to fifteen million dollars on a large building when, for their own specific purposes, they do not require a building costing more than a million dollars, they are engaging in real estate and carrying on a regular real estate business. They do it by means of agreements which evade the purpose of the law, and apparently the banking and commerce committee overlooked the situation when the section was passed. The minister should have a conference with the inspectors and see what the banks are doing in this *connection.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I shall look into the matter to which the hon. gentleman has referred.


John Horne Blackmore: Can the minister tell us where the branch of the industrial development bank is located in Alberta? I had a request this morning concerning a loan, and I do not know just where to tell the man to apply.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am sorry I do not know, either.


Air. FAIR:: Has a farmer to be in a very sound financial position with the chartered banks before he can get a loan under the farm improvement loan legislation?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The banks are expected to exercise business judgment in making loans, but, naturally, with a guarantee of ten per cent of the losses, it is expected that they would lend more freely than they otherwise would.


Mr. TUSTIN:: Under "bank inspection" we find "sundries"; and in the very next item, "sundries" again. If you go down these sup-plementaries you find quite a considerable sum of money under "sundries". Would the minister explain that? It seems that the word has been used very frequently in relation to large sums of money.


James Lorimer Ilsley: One of the officials will be here shortly, and I will give the hon. gentleman .some instances of "sundries".


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Superannuation and retirement benefits-[DOT]
436. Superannuation and Retirement Acts, administration-further amount required, $3,000.
Mr. GILLIS:: Has anything been done to correct what I consider an injustice? The minister will remember that at the last session the Minister of Justice piloted a bill through the house which changed the retirement regulations to make available funds of deceased civil servants to the stepmother. "Mother" and "father" were covered previously; "stepmother" was not. There was a case I have been working on for the past year, and when the regulations were brought in that particular section was changed to include a stepmother, so that, in my opinion, cases at that time outstanding could be rectified. When the minister was presenting this very item to the house I asked him if the proposed change would be retroactive so as to cover cases which were outstanding. His answer at that time was, maybe not; it might be necessary to have an order in council passed, but he did not think there would be any difficulty. Since the law was changed I have written to the Minister of Finance and other people endeavouring to have that particular case corrected. Apparently cases outstanding at the time of the change are not affected at all, and it appears to be impossible to get the necessary order in council. I think it is a great injustice. Whatever equity the deceased civil servant may have by way of superannuation is part of his estate; if he has a stepmother or stepfather or a next of kin the estate may be left to them, and I think that particular money should accrue to it. The minister is familiar, I believe, with the case I am talking about. Is there a chance of having anything done to benefit cases outstanding at the time this provision was changed?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I would say, no. I would be pretty firm on that, for this reason. The law has to be administered as it is at the time. I do not remember the details of the case, although I know that the hon. gentleman wrote me and I replied to him, I think about as. I am replying now. When the law is changed so as to let in another class of beneficiaries it applies to the deaths in the future, to what takes place after the act is passed. If it did not, one would have to go back one year, two years, three years and so on, and there would be no real limit on grounds of justice as to the time to which one could go back. I do not think we dare start that.
The hon. gentleman says that the fund is part of the estate of the deceased; but that is not the theory on which the Superannuation Act is constructed. The fund is in the nature of insurance for the retiring civil servant and
Supply-Finance

for certain named classes of dependents; if he does not have any dependants it does not go to anybody, and that is the reason for the rates. The rates are constructed on that basis. If that were not so, if it were just paid in any event to somebody, I suppose that the rates payable ought to be considerably higher. I do not think we can deal retroactively with those cases, because that was the law at the time, and the cases were dealt with in accordance with that law. While the treatment of the civil servant on superannuation who retires after the change in the law is better than it is in the case of one who died before, that is often the fact when laws are changed; it is almost impossible to give them retroactive effect.


Clarence Gillis: I am not satisfied. The minister's argument is all right up to a point. I do not say that it should be paid to anybody at all, but the injustice in this particular case was recognized by a change in the regulations. The regulations must have been too rigid or they would not have been changed, and they were changed to include this particular category. Perhaps the reason for the change was largely the fact that many people were bringing pressure to bear on the particular case I had in mind. It was really a matter of destitute circumstances in the family and there was injustice there which necessitated a change in the regulations. Personally, I suggest that, for a particular case, if there are extenuating circumstances an order in council is quite in order, seeing that we have passed thousands since the outbreak of the war. I am still suggesting, in accordance with the observation of the Minister of Justice when he piloted the bill through, that it should not be difficult to pass an order in council in a case where there are at least extenuating circumstances, and the one I had in mind was certainly such a case.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. member for Lethbridge asked me where persons ifesident in Alberta should apply if they desired to get in touch with the industrial development bank. Apparently they apply at Vancouver. The memorandum I have is to the effect that if they are located in Alberta or British Columbia application should be made to the Vancouver office. Apparently there is not yet an office in every province.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
437. Government's contribution to the superannuation fund-further amount required, $40,795.
Mr. O'NEILL: A civil servant receiving a salary of $150 a month and a bonus of $18

a month pays income tax on the $150 plus the $18, but in contributing to the fund he is not permitted to contribute on the $18, and that makes quite a difference in the course of four or five years in figuring out the superannuation of that employee. Can the minister explain how the conclusion was arrived at?
James Lorimer Ilsley: The cost of living bonus may be of temporary duration and does not become part of the salary of the civil servant. His salary is that set up in the classification and the cost of living bonus is a war-time addition. I do not know how long it will continue or whether it will be increased or reduced, but it has never been regarded as part of his permanent salary for superannuation purposes. I do not think the fact that income tax is payable on it is relevant. It is a certain part of his income but it is not part of his permanent salary, and it is on his permanent salary that he is superannuated.


Mr. BOUCHER:: Has this item anything to do with the policy adopted last session where certain prevailing rates employees were permitted to take advantage of the Superannuation Act?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have not the details of this before me. Does the hon. gentleman wish to have the item stand?


George Russell Boucher: Possibly the minister
could tell me whether the item has anything to do with the adoption last session of the principle whereby certain prevailing rates employees were allowed to take advantage of the superannuation fund. I thought it might have something to do with that. If so, it would indicate that comparatively few are given that privilege.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I cannot tell whether that
is what necessitated the additonal amount. I suggest that I might write to the hon. gentleman giving the information. If, however, he thinks it is a matter of sufficient public interest to warrant having the item stand it can be held over.


George Russell Boucher: I would be glad to let
the item pass on the understanding that I shall get the information, but I should like to know to what extent the prevailing rates employees were given the advantage of the legislation [DOT]passed last year and to what extent government contributions were made in that regard.


James Lorimer Ilsley: All right.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Fisheries

[Stage Direction]
j/38. To provide for transportation, dressing and dyeing, and other expenses incidental to receiving and disposing of fur seal skins accruing to Canada pursuant to provisional fur seal agreement between Canada and United States by exchange of notes dated December 8 and 19, 1912-further amount required, $85,000.
Grote Stirling: Will the minister explain
how the crop belonging to Canada has worked out this year?


Hon. ERNEST BERTRAND (Minister of Fisheries):: This year we had to have the fur skins processed in the United States instead of in Great Britain owing to labour conditions there. We would have been unable to get delivery fast enough to meet the market requirements in Canada, and we have to pay so much more in customs duties. That makes up the difference. We had 3,977 fur skins processed and the customs duty was 188,096.20, which made an excess of $85,000.


Grote Stirling: Is it not a fact that Canada's share, now that. Japan is out of it, has increased materially and consequently we have a larger crop?


Ernest Bertrand: It is not due to that fact. It is due to the excise and customs duties which we have had to pay because we had them processed in the United States instead of in England. For the last two or three years we have had more fur skins than before since Japan has been out of it.


Mr. BROOKS:: As I understand, the raw fur goes to the United States to be processed and is returned to Canada.


Ernest Bertrand: Yes.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Why should there be customs duty on that?


Ernest Bertrand: Because those are the regulations. We have to pay the war tax and the war exchange tax and excise and customs. It is only a book entry.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Do we get the money back?


Ernest Bertrand: Yes.


Grote Stirling: Is that the case, though? Do you get the money back when the cured skins are returned.


Mr. MICHAUD:: When the skins are sold
on the market.


Grote Stirling: Would the minister explain it?


Ernest Bertrand: We sold our skins for $282,000 and it cost $158,000, so we had a net of $123,000, but out of that we had to pay customs duty on the processed skins.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Is it not possible that the
skins might remain in the United States and then you would have to pay customs duty on those remaining?


Ernest Bertrand: Yes, but there is duty paid to our own customs on those coming back.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Jf39. Departmental administration - further amount required, $28,000.
Mr. MacINNIS:: I should like to say a few words on this item which comes under departmental administration. It will be a long time before we can again discuss any matters relating to labour and there are two or three things which are causing discontent in the ranks of labour at the present time. I refer to certain parts of P.C. 1003, and the other is ivage control order P.C. 9384. One of these orders was passed in December, 1943, and the other, I believe, in February, 1944. I understand that changes in these orders have been advocated ever since they were passed. As a matter of fact, when P.C. 93S4 was passed in December, 1943, a storm of protest, such as was seldom heard in the labour movement, occurred right across Canada. Some amendments were made to this order, but it is still unsatisfactory because the chief objection to it was not removed. There was considerable comment on this order during the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne in the session of 1944, and I myself drew attention to what I considered to be the chief trouble with this order. It is called a wage control order, but I pointed out at the time that the title was a misnomer. I said that it was not a wage control order at all; that it was a wage stabilizing order; and that is made clear in section 14, paragraph (a) of the order itself, which reads as follows:
It is the purpose of this order:
(a)	to provide for the establishment of wage rates incorporating therein cost of living bonuses, payable in respect of the rise in the cost of living; and
(b)	to stabilize the wage structure in Canada established, in this manner in order to maintain stability in prices and prevent increases in the general cost of living; and
(c)	to provide machinery for an orderly rectification of any gross inequalities and injustices in wage rates so established, in so far as this is possible consistently with the paramount principle of the maintenance of the stability in prices, and this order shall be administered and enforced to give effect to these purposes.
That is to give effect to the purpose of maintaining prices. My contention of that time has been supported quite recently by no
Supply-Labour

less eminent an authority than the national war labour board itself. I shall read from their decision in that regard. The national board was dealing with a particular wage case, that of the employees of the Canada Starch Company. The decision was given on November 28, 1944. In this case the Ontario regional war labour board ordered or recommended an increase in wages of five and five and a half cents an hour. On an appeal by the company, the national board in referring to the recommendation of the regional board said this:
The war labour boards are given power to authorize or direct increases of wage rates thus established only to the extent necessary to rectify a gross injustice or gross inequality.
Then they go on to interpret "gross injustice" and "gross inequality" as a glaring or a flagrant injustice or inequality. Prior to that time regional war labour boards felt free to deal with cases on their merits, depending on conditions in the municipalities in which the cases arose. But the ruling of the war labour board no longer allows the regional board to do that. As a matter of fact, as I mentioned in February, 1944, the result of this order is not to regulate wages; it is to freeze injustices. And I may say, quoting again from the decision of the board:
To say that the purpose of an order is to stabilize the wage structure, as we understand the term, is to say that wage rates must remain stable and unchanged, unless an applicant can establish that his case meets the strict test laid down.
And the strict test is that the condition complained of is a glaring or flagrant injustice or inequality. It does not matter how low the wages are or how much they are out of line with other wages, unless it is, in the opinion of the board, a glaring and flagrant injustice they must remain as they are.
The national board's decision goes on to say:
The regional board here appears to have proceeded upon the basis of what it thought to be fair and reasonable rates. But we must say that the war labour boards under the governing order in council P.C. 9384, are not fair wage boards or minimum wage boards; they are wage stabilization boards set up to administer a set of specific rules.
Nothing can be clearer than that. I repeat,
I drew this to the attention of the house more than a year ago. I showed that the regional boards had no authority to deal with the situation on the basis of the more intimate knowledge they would have of the conditions prevailing in these cases. But here is the peculiar thing in the decision of the national war labour board. They took the case as if it had been referred to them in the first instance. They disallowed the five and five and a half cents recommended by the 
Ontario board, but they granted three cents which the company was prepared to grant. In granting the three cents this is what they said:
Having in mind the nature of the employer's operations and their location, we find that these rates, when the three cents that the company is prepared to pay is added to them, compare very favourably with the rates paid by industries similarly located.
A few paragraphs above the national board says that the regional boards are not fair wage boards or minimum wage boards, that they are stabilizing boards. They themselves, on the very same principle, grant an increase; mind you, an increase that the company was already prepared to pay.
I submit that there should be better coordination between (the operations of the regional boards and the operations of the national' war labour board. In my own city of Vancouver there was a most flagrant demonstration of lack of coordination between the operation of' the national and regional boards. In a case concerning the street railway employees and the railway company the regional board gave a general award of 3i cents an hour. Om appeal the national board wiped out this award completely. The employees went on strike. The board here laid down an ultimatum that it would not further consider the matter unless the employees went back to work. In return I believe the employees issued an ultimatum that they would not return to work until the national board withdrew its ultimatum. In other words, ultimatums were thrown around pretty freely. The amazing thing in that case was that the Minister of Labour stepped in-I am not finding fault with him-or his national officers stepped in, and they were negotiating with these employees right along until a settlement was reached. Perhaps a little more could be said about that matter, but I am not going to bother saying it now.
I should like to impress upon the minister the importance of making amendments that will deal effectively with the point I have just drawn to his attention, a point that is causing a great deal of trouble. Personally I believe that more weight should be given by the national board to the rulings or recommendations of the provincial boards.
I should like to draw attention to another matter, which I mentioned over a year ago; that is, that the burden of maintaining the price structure, as far as labour is concerned, is placed upon the shoulders of the lowest paid workers in the less protected industries. Workers employed in an industry that is essential and more or less protected can usually have their grievances attended to by a stoppage of work, whether the stoppage is legal

Supply-Labour
or illegal. Employees in a poorly paid industry, which is not sheltered and in which, because of that fact, wages are particularly low, can do nothing but grin and and bear it. I do not think that is a satisfactory state of affairs.
I should like now to say a few words about the labour code or labour relatione order, P.C. 1003. There are three particular amendments which are long overdue as far as this order is concerned. I believe the order itself was a step in the right direction, and was, I think, welcomed by everyone interested in harmonious relations between employers and workers in industry. The first amendment that should be made to this order is in section 5, which deals with the certification of bargaining representatives. It is not the bargaining representatives who need to be certified but the bargaining agency. Once the bargaining agency is determined that agency itself will appoint its representatives. All through this order, however, reference is made to bargaining representatives, and to that extent the order does not recognize trade unions at all. If it were not for the fact that in subsection, 3 of section 4 reference is made to a collective agreement, which can only be an agreement between a trade union or an employees' organization and the employers, a person would have no alternative but to come to the conclusion that the purpose was not to recognize trade unions as such. That is a matter which I believe should be rectified.
My second point is that the determination of the bargaining agency should be by a majority of those voting, at least if more than fifty per cent of the employees concerned vote. The principle that the union must have a majority of all the employees of the plant is, in my opinion, wrong. If it were applied in this house very few hon. members would be able to take their seats here; yet we feel that we are democratically elected. Therefore I would suggest to the minister that he give close attention to the desirability of amending this provision.
My third point concerns something that is not in the code but which should be in it. I believe company unions should be outlawed, definitely and completely. They have no place in the relations between employers and employees, and there can be no democratic organization of workers as long as company unions continue to exist. I should like the minister t;o look into these matters, and I am sure he will find that the points I have raised are causing discontent in the rank and file of the organized labour movement in this country.


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: First of all my hon. friend dealt with the wage stabilization order, P.C. 9384. I want to tell my hon. friend very frankly, and I think I say it without fear of successful contradiction, that the price and -wage stabilization policy of this government has done more for the working men and women and the farmers of this country than any legislation ever placed on the statute books by any government.


Angus MacInnis: It is not on the statute books.


Humphrey Mitchell: Then we will say anything introduced as a policy under the War Measures Act by any government. What is the record? At the present time the agricultural income of this country is $1,800,000,000. or more than three times what it was in 1935. If my memory serves me correctly, and I think it does, the wage bill of this country in 1939 was $2,300,000,000. To-day it is $4,800,000,000. Since the introduction of this wagefreezing policy about which my hon. friend has spoken the cost of living index in this country has gone up 3-1 per cent. In the same length of time in the last war it went up twenty times as much, which is some indication of what this policy has done for the people of this dominion.
Looking into the future may I say that no instrument devised by man is perfect. If there are any of these perfect people in this country I should like to take a look at them and give them jobs at their own salaries. Some of the people who have criticized this policy most vehemently will be those who at the conclusion of the war will demand its retention. Those who are as old as I am- my hon. friend is probably a couple of years older-will have a vivid recollection of what took place at the conclusion of the last war. At that time there was absolutely no control; there was complete anarchy in the price structure of this country. The cost of living increased roughly one hundred per cent from 1914. I have a vivid recollection of all that after coming back from the last war.
I can remember paying $60 for a suit of clothes that was not worth $15. I can remember when sugar was twenty-five cents a pound and when I had to pay ninety cents a pound for my first Christmas chicken dinner. Potatoes on the Hamilton market were selling, not by the bag or basket but by the potato. If you look over the world in general at the moment you will find that in those countries where they have had no control of prices and the other things necessary with it, there is chaos and disorganization. All you
Supply-Labour

have to do is think of China at the moment Tvhen aeroplanes are flying in currency from the Himalayas to bolster up the chaotic conditions brought about by inflation.
I would say this, and it is a matter of opinion, that possibly some of the conditions that existed in Greece were brought about largely by the complete collapse and the inflationary movement of currency which took place there. Who is it that suffers under those conditions? It is not the big fellows whom my hon. friends like to talk about; it is the average man and woman on the street. The big fellow is often able to pay his obligations in what some people are apt to call phoney money. I have always held the opinion that it is not the ' amount of money you have in your hand or pocket that counts; it is what you can get for that money after you have it.
I have a vivid recollection, and I suppose my hon. friends have also, of the inflationary movement that took place in Germany. At one time they reached such a stage that they were paying people twice a day and giving them a half hour off in which to spend their money, because if they kept it more than an hour it was valueless. When it comes to regimentation and discipline Of doubt if there are any people in the world superior to the German people.
I think it is a great tribute to the Canadian people-I am not accusing my hon. friends of this-that notwithstanding the sniping of irresponsible persons against this courageous action they understand what it is for and have cooperated in order to make possible this price and wage stabilization policy.
I think this is the only country in the world where both the regional and national boards are representative, apart from the chairmen, of both industry and labour. As we all know, in the United States the general public is represented, while in Australia they have special courts for this purpose. I think the degree of cooperation we have had by responsible persons in the administration of this policy speaks well for the future.
My hon. friend talked about groups who were organized, or whatever the case may be.
I would call this price and wage stabilization policy a charter and set-up for the defenceless people of this country, particularly for our womenfolk who have to spend the money after the men have earned it. It has imperfections like any other document prepared by human beings, but I would suggest to those persons who would adopt toward this policy an attitude the nature of which might cause its break-down that they look more closely into it before they go too far.

Whatever government may be occupying these benches, even if it is my good friends of the C.C.F. or my good friends of the opposition, they will find it necessary to maintain a policy of this description, particularly in the post-war period when you will have the emotional let-down which you get after any great war such as the one we have passed through and where you have the demand for consumer goods such as we had after the last war and such as we shall probably have after this one. That will be the testing time of the policy. It will be just as difficult to maintain that policy at that time as it was at the time when we were the only nation of the united nations that went out to stabilize this kind of thing away back in 1941 or 1942. I do not think I can say much more about that at the moment. I have sketched in particular and general terms what I think is necessary.
As I said, it is easy to criticize and I appreciate constructive criticism either in this house or outside it. But it is not going to be said of me that I had anything to do with the breaking down of the living standards of the great masses of the people of this dominion. Let other persons take the doubtful honour of advocating a policy or putting out propaganda of that kind.
I come now to P.C. 1003 and I appreciate the constructive criticism of my hon. friend. This was a revolutionary document in the sense that for the first time in the history of this country the basic principles of trade union agreements or the right of the workers to organize was adopted as a policy of the national government. What did we have to do? Under normal circumstances labour relations, under the constitution of this country, come within the purview or the orbit of the provincial governments. First of all we held a confernece with all the provincial governments at which the basic principle of the right to organize was agreed upon.
We then consulted with labour organizations and with the employers and we drafted what we thought was a pretty fair basic document. We sent copies to the provinces, to the labour organizations and to the employers' organization. In return we received 170 suggested amendments to the document. AVe endeavoured to weave as many of those amendments as we could into the original document, and after there had been perusal by all the parties who had taken part in the framing of the document approval was announced by labour, by the provincial governments and by the employers.
I am ready to admit that when you deal with labour relations there cannot be any finality. I stated that when I announced this

Supply-Labour
in the House of Commons. It is like a trade union agreement. I am sure that one of the brotherhoods in my hon. friend's own organization haS accused the officers of negotiating an agreement through which you could drive a coach-and-four. I think it speaks well for the draftsmanship that only three amendments have been suggested. After all is said and done, a trade union agreement is not a legal document but is something that is based on character, good will and conciliation on both sides, and you will find in the labour organizations of this country that an agreement which has been reached with an approach of that kind has stood the test of time. Neither the one side nor the other can call the other side a scoundrel to-day and expect to make a satisfactory trade union agreement to-morrow.
Take the railroad organizations in this country. Speaking in a broad and general way they are probably the best paid and have the best relationships with their employers across the table of any industry in Canada. I suppose that in the course of time we shall be asked by responsible national organizations on both sides of the fence and by some of the provincial governments to make amendments, but I think my hon. friend will agree with me that under normal and stable relationships, whoever may make suggestions for amendments, it is necessary that the original parties to the drafting of the agreement be consulted. I think that is the only fair and proper course to pursue and my hon. friend may rest assured that when the time comes that will be done.
This must be, at all events, a half decent document because in the .first year of its operation, strikes in this country were reduced by over fifty per cent. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. I think the credit belongs not only to the trade unions but in a measure to the employers in this country. It indicates also that the document has been drafted in the direction of stable labour relations. I hope I have answered some of the points my hon. friend raised.
On the economic side I think the policy of this government was courageous. It was a policy that has been followed by most of the nations. On the labour relations side we have laid at least the foundation-stone of stable labour relations in the Dominion of Canada, provided there is conciliation on both sides and the ability to see the other fellow's point of view.
Mr. MaeINNIS: I should like to say one word in reply. If the Minister of Labour had begun on the note on which he ended I would not have said anything because I simply wanted to bring certain things to his 32283-21
attention. But when he tries to leave the impression with the house that we here, and myself in particular, want to wipe away all regulations, he is just talking nonsense. All this talk about carrying an aeroplane load of paper money and all that sort of thing does not do credit either to the minister himself or to the house, and the same is true of what he told us about what happened in Germany after the last war. That sort of talk is just nonsense, and no one knows it better than my hon. friend. I have no desire to see all regulations removed. As a matter of fact, no one in this house realizes the need for regulations better than I do, and the need for them after the war too. What my hon. friend told us about what happened after the end of the last war happened, be it remembered, under free enterprise.


Humphrey Mitchell: It was the same thing in Germany under socialism.
Mr. MaeINNIS: But they did not have much opportunity to cooperate. These are the things I want my hon. friend to remember.
There is another thing I want him to remember when he talks about strikes. There is an abnormal situation in the labour movement to-day, and I think the minister knows it, that makes for harmony. That situation may be changed very quickly because those who are most insistent upon maintaining harmony to-day were only a short time ago the militant ones in the labour movement who did not want harmony to exist. Anything may happen any day to put them on the other side of the fence, so that the minister should not be too complacent about the conditions in industry at this time. I happen to know from my experience in the labour movement just how these things go, and I am not a bit too sanguine about how long this harmony is going to last.


John George Diefenbaker: There are one or two points on which I should like some information from the minister. They arise out of a statement made by the bon. member who preceded me. It is in connection with the surveys which have taken place during the past year with a view tO' assuring a higher degree of employment after the war than many of those *who are defeatist believe will be possible. I have read with considerable interest a number of speeches delivered by the minister at various times since the last session with regard to this important matter, which indicate that he is giving thoughtful consideration to this problem, which is of transcendent importance to the people of Canada and of the other countries of the world.

Supply-Labour

The question that I have in mind is this. What is the government now doing and what has it done to assure employment after the war, especially in view of the reduction in production in war industry that is now taking place and will take' place on an ever-increasing scale during the ensuing months? I read that the minister said some weeks ago over the radio, that Canada had' a very fine set-up in connection w'ith the matter of post-war employment. He went on to say, and this is a sentiment that I am not critical of :
I am one of those who believe that we can have full employment in peace as we have had during the war.
But he added these significant words in that radio speech of his about a month ago.
But merely to state that there will be a job for everybody willing to work will not produce that job.
One of the acts of this government has been to appoint under the labour department a committee designed to survey post-war employment possibilities in this country. The committee has made its report but the report has never been produced to parliament, although it has been asked for on several occasions since it was made. Up to now it remains the secret of the government and is not available to the public at large. We in this parliament have the right to ask that this report be produced, or in any event that it be brought down to the last of February, so that at this session we shall be able to discuss this important matter. If we do not discuss it here, certainly it will receive discussion during the days ahead of the election which apparently is at hand. None of us who believe in the system of free enterprise will have any indication as to the plans that the Department of Labour has worked out through its experts to the end that the largest degree of employment which is possible to be achieved will in fact be achieved. Therefore I ask the minister to produce this report. He has been asked for it on a number of occasions, not in the house but during the period while the house was not in session, and as yet there has been no indication that the government is prepared to produce this report.
There is another matter on which I should like the minister to outline the plan of the government. It has to do with the 250,000 women who are to-day employed in the various war industries. The reason I ask that question is that when the minister was in Winnipeg some time in November last the question was asked him there, according to the Winnipeg Free Press, as to what plans he had with respect to employment in other industry, or what plans in general he had with reference to these women who of necessity, with the

reduction in war production, will find themselves unemployed. The answer he gave as recorded in the press was a simple, "I don't know." I think by now, having regard to the survey which has been made, the minister will have a plan that will bring at least a degree of hope to these women who have patriotically sacrificed during the period of the war in order to assure full production.
I come to a further matter, which has to do with agriculture. I find, in "Canada at War", the March issue, that the manpower situation in so far as industry as well as agriculture are concerned is reviewed at some length, and it is there stated that in high priority industries in Canada to-day, exclusive of agriculture, there are approximately ninety thousand vacancies. It goes on to point out that as far as agriculture is concerned there is a serious shortage to-day, and that it is expected that the farm labour situation will be more difficult to cope with in the coming season of 1945 than in 1944. I realize the difficulties in connection with agriculture, and something of what the farmers have had to put up with to-day, something of the difficulties which they are experiencing in families where the old people are looking after the agricultural work on the farm, having two, three and four sons in the armed forces; and I am glad to see that the minister intends to do something in order to relieve this situation. But as far as I can see, the plans to-day are still in the nature of paper plans. They look fine on paper, but when it comes to implementing these plans the difficulties begin. I remember well that in June, 1944, the minister stated that the Department of Labour was going to interview individually the 500,000 men who were rejected from service in the armed forces, with a view to removing them where necessary to more essential employment. As far as agriculture is concerned the numbers that have been moved to agriculture are insignificant compared with the numbers in general that have been moved. As a matter of fact, the situation to-day as far as manpower is concerned is quite serious for the men who come back from overseas.
I was in Regina the other day, and in conversation there w'ith a man well aware of the rehabilitation plans of the government, when I asked him what positions are available to-day in so far as my own province is concerned for the men who return from overseas, the answer is, "All we have is jobs on the farms and in the mines; practically nothing else". This is a serious matter. These men coming back to-day in driblets find themselves unable to secure work. What will the situation be when there is complete demobilization.

Supply-Labour
I know the minister put out further amendments-an amendment to the national selective service civilian regulations on March 19, and again great powers are given to the department. The department is given authority to direct any male of sixteen to sixty-five years, whether employed or unemployed, to a job in agriculture. That, as the minister said in his recent speech at Windsor, just establishes still further the fact that no man in the history of Canada is as powerful or has been as powerful as he.
I ask the minister to advise how many men were directed to agriculture by his department during 1944; how many men to-day, according to the census which was recently made by the department, is it anticipated will have to be transferred to agriculture in order to maintain the production which is so necessary to the war effort, and particularly at this time, when food shortages are occurring in various parts of the world.
I am in entire agreement with this amendment. It gives the minister power to do these things. I ask him how is it intended to carry out the powers which have been granted? Powers which are unused are worthless. He has a power which I do not think he enjoyed before in this connection. He now has the power to authorize the payment of workers' transportation and the removal expenses of workers' families to such areas during such periods as he may approve. What is he going to do? What are his immediate plans, with the approach of spring work, to assure that available employees will be made available to agriculture in all parts of Canada? To what degree is it intended to utilize the information which was secured in 1944 by the survey of the men who were found unfit for the armed services, to be made available for agriculture?
I realize that the minister has a difficult job in this connection, and what I am saying this evening is not in a critical vein; it is designed merely to get information; for everywhere in my province, where the man-power from the farms has gone forth to war in a manner which has earned the commendation of the people of Canada as a whole, those who are on the farms are saying, "Our boys are overseas, they are serving, and we are not complaining, but we ask the minister immediately to let us know whether or not during the present year the necessary man-power will be rendered available." I ask the minister to discuss this matter at some length, to place before the country at this time his plans, to take the people into his confidence, because the farmers of Canada, too, realize not only the problem but at the same time the solution which is available at his hands by reason of the survey which has been made.
32283-21J


Humphrey Mitchell: That is a pretty tall
order. I thought these were just the supplementary estimates, and the war estimates will be before the committee after the supplemen-taries have been dealt with.


John George Diefenbaker: This is not a war
estimate.


Humphrey Mitchell: Selective service comes
under the war estimates. But I have no objection to facing up to his queries. In the first place he referred to something I said about facing up to the post-war period. In that connection I make this prediction. It will depend upon those who are administering the affairs of the country, because, like my hon. friend, I believe in free enterprise, and I think it is an obvious fact that if you do not know what makes the clock tick before you get responsibility you will never know because you will not have time to learn; you will be too busy.
When you compare the expansion in the agricultural, industrial and economic structure of the country, when you take into consideration the men we have put into the fighting forces, I think any fair observer will agree that we have not done a bad job. Of course, anything can be made to look all right on paper, but that is something like the writing of a symphony. You can write a policy and make it look all right on paper, but if my hon. friends opposite arc ever fortunate enough, or perhaps unfortunate enough to be sitting where we are sitting they will find that the experience is not quite the same as the anticipation. A man may write a symphony but he does not know what it will sound like until it comes out of the organ. In the same way, it does not matter what kind of government you have, you have to try the legislation you pass on the men and women of the nation.
My hon. friends, I think, will agree with me that the engineering of material things is simple compared with the engineering of human beings. That is a very difficult science, and, I repeat, when you take all the facts into account we have not done a bad job.
My hon. friend spoke about something I said in Winnipeg. Well, that previous statement I made about what makes the clock tick goes there too. I sincerely believe that with the right kind of policy we need have no fear of the post-war period in this country, but if we are to have any disorganization and conflict of ideas, with a government that is not strong enough to govern, we do not know what we can expect. I do not think we can continue to go forward as we have done in this war unless we have stable government in
Supply-Labour

Canada. Surely that is elementary. We do not know what will happen in Europe. He would be a wise man who would prophesy what the condition will be in Germany six months or a year from now, or what the condition will be in France, or Italy, or Greece, or any of the liberated countries six months or a year from now.
With regard to any nation that has ever amounted to anything in the history of the world, you will find that its prosperity has been predicated on its ability to trade, and that brings in the question of finance as well as tariffs and all the other inter-related problems.
Another question my hon. friend raised was the survey. I do not suppose that was the first survey ever made in this country whether by government or by my hon. friends or by the C.C.F. As I said the other day, I have a vivid recollection of their leader saying eighteen months ago that by last spring there would be an unemployment problem involving one hundred thousand. What was the real situation? Last spring we had one of the tightest labour conditions in the history of the country and had it not been for the mechanics of selective service I do not know what we would have done.
I do not think any political organization, no matter what its composition may be, no matter what its philosophy or its economic theories or form of government, can get into power and stay there on the basis of a fear complex, because that is a dangerous thing. The approach should be positive rather than negative, not too much pie in the sky. Politicians, of course, have to spread a little bit around but I would issue this warning: When you people get the population into the clouds you have to get them dow-n again. Do not forget that.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is the richest country in the world.


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes, but you cannot build a country on phony money'. I have a simple definition of money. I have expressed it before and I may repeat it now: If it isn't hard to get it isn't money. I suppose all hon. members here know perfectly well what took' place after the last war; they know what the conditions were not only in Canada but in the countries of Europe. I can remember the various changes in government that took place in Great Britain and I think it is fair to say that the policies of some of those governments were based on what I have called pie in the sky. When they got responsibility, they just did not know what to do.
[Mr Mitchell.]
My hon. friend mentioned figures and spoke of a continuing survey. AVhen it is completed, if it is worth publishing, it will be published, but I am always afraid of any fellow who walks around with a stack of figures under his arm. I remember in the old depression days many people in this country thought they had a solution if only they had a tabulation giving the number of people unemployed in the country.


An hon. MEMBER:: Will the minister permit a question?


Humphrey Mitchell: Please do not interrupt; I will be here until April 16 if necessary. I am not running away from it. To revert to what I was saying a moment ago, however, I maintained in those days that it was not figures we wanted but jobs. I can well remember, as I am sure the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) can, the discussions we used to have in this house about the unemployables. To-day all those unemployables have disappeared like the snow in the spring. They are at work. You cannot call men and women unemployable until you have offered them jobs which they cannot take, and if we concentrate on jobs rather than statistics we shall get ahead. So much for statistics.
Now I come to farm labour.


John George Diefenbaker: Is the minister going to produce this survey of his own experts?


Humphrey Mitchell: I answered that the other day; you will find it at page 149 of Hansard.


Mr. NOSEWORTIIY:: What does it say?


Humphrey Mitchell: You can read, you went to school. My hon. friend is a schoolteacher and if he can make a thing so complicated that he does not understand it himself he thinks I should.
With regard to the farm labour situation, I would say very seriously that every year it gives us cause for grave concern. Let us be frank and honest about it. You cannot take half a million people off the farms, put nearly a million people in uniform and increase your industrial structure by about three quarters of a million-I am guessing on that figure-and still be where you were before. That is elementary. But what we have been able to do since the outbreak of this war, to the undying credit of the farmers of this country, is to take off bigger and bigger crops every year. That has been made possible. I remember the decisions that I had to make when I first came into the ministry and saw the tremendous drain from the farms of the country. We had to say to the people in agriculture: You cannot leave; you cannot be called up.
MAJtCH 28, 1945	325
Supply-Labour
I would say to my hon. friend, if he is ever a cabinet minister-sometimes it is a pretty lonely place; it is the end of the road-he will have to say yes or no. If he is ever fortunate or unfortunate enough to be in my position I hope that he will have to make some of the decisions that I have had to make from day to day. That was one thing we had to do. At the moment I think it may be clearly stated that the agricultural people of Canada have been treated from the man-power point of view, or the problem has been faced from the man-power point of view in a more practical way possibly than in any other country of the united nations. At the moment there are roughly 168,000 people on postponement in agriculture compared with only 33,000 in the industrial structure of the country. That should give some indication of how we have faced up to the problem.
May I pay a tribute to every provincial government. They cooperated wholeheartedly with the federal government. Last year we spent upwards of $600,000 in the movement and placing of men and women in the agricultural structure of the country in the on and off seasons. We moved people from Ontario to the west. We moved men from the farms in the winter to the basic industries and back to the farms in the summer. We tried to take advantage of the peculiar climatic conditions in this country and swing the manpower back from the two structures in the off seasons. Of course that had to be regulated by the seasons. I am sure hon. members will appreciate some of the difficulties with which we were confronted in working out this plan. When you get the plan on paper and you are confronted with a problem of this magnitude it is sometimes very difficult to predict the future. What we endeavour to do is to move the people in conformity with the close and start of the season in different parts of Canada. I think we have been reasonably successful. We have received cooperation from the provinces. What we set out to do was to mobilize the man-power in the particular provinces to the best of our ability.


Mr. SENN:: Would the minister permit a question?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.


Mark Cecil Senn: In regard to the movement of farm labour from one part of the country to another does the minister not think it would have been wise, particularly when we have price ceilings, to regulate the wages of these men as well as their movement?


Humphrey Mitchell: I appreciate the problem the hon. member has raised. I will answer it.
I do not mind my trend of thought being broken. I do not know of anything more difficult than the regulation of wages in agriculture in Canada. We tried to do that with the soldiers, when we took them out of the army and put them on the farms, and we got into endless trouble. In one province there may be different wage structures in two adjoining counties. It is a most difficult thing. We did give it some thought but we had to give it up because of the urgency of the situation. We thought it would probably do more harm than good if we attempted regulating the wages. I appreciate my hon. friend's question. It is a difficult question and it has worked hardship in certain parts of the country on both sides of the fence from the point of view of the employer and the employees.
Ma3r I continue with the mobilization of man-power for agriculture? We also have an arrangement with our American friends, particularly in western Canada, where combines are brought in from the Dakotas and Montana to Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba and back to the Dakotas again, to help one another out. Then we have the men on leave from the armed forces; but the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence can best explain that to you.
We have gone a step farther this year. Under selective service we can direct anybody to agriculture. I would make this prediction: before this year ends the food situation in the world will be more desperate than munitions ever were. That is my firm conviction. I am guessing and I may be wrong. But I think the greatest problem will confront us in the, I hope, not very distant future, and that will be the food problem. The mobilization of man-power in its broadest aspects should not be treated as a political question; it should be treated as a national question. We talked of the man-power muddle and all that sort of thing three or four years ago. Obviously when you set out to organize a nation you are bound to be in a little bit of a muddle at first. But so far as agriculture is concerned I think it can be truthfully said that the farmers, in cooperation with the provinces, and may I say that people particularly in the smaller towns of the various provinces in Canada, have done a man-sized job in the production of foodstuffs in this country. So far as I am concerned, let the credit go where it maj'. So long as we get the job done I am satisfied. If there is any hon. member who has any ideas on the man-power side of production in agriculture, I should like to hear from him, because it is not a party question, it is too important for that.
I have tried to do the best I could with the questions that were asked. I hope I have
Supply-Labour

answered them to the satisfaction of the hon. member. If there are any more I shall do the best I can with them. I should like the hon. member to appreciate the fact that I am speaking largely from memory. I have a large department.


James Arthur Ross: While endorsing the request of the hon. member for Lake Centre. I should like to say a word about agricultural labour. The minister told us first of all of what a great job stabilization had done for industrial and agricultural labour. I entirely disagree with him that agricultural labour is stabilized. I am one of those who had asked the Minister of Agriculture every session to try to do something to stabilize agricultural labour, to establish wages in this country in the interests of both labour and his employer, the farmer. I think some attempt should be made to do that. The question has been raised by the hon. member for Haldimand to-night and by other hon. members during the past session. While there are directives to send men from other industries to the farms, it is in a most unhealthy situation to-day because industrial wages are still much better than farm wages, notwithstanding that farm labour wages have more than doubled since the commencement of this war.
The minister spoke of the agricultural income which has certainly multiplied since the commencement of this war. I would also remind him that agricultural production has increased over thirty-three per cent during that time also, and the plight of the farmers, at least in my part of the country and throughout- the prairies, is much worse to-day than it has ever been since 1919. There is no argument about that at all. We have old people selling out and leaving their farms idle this summer. That is happening right in my community. It is a very difficult problem. I agree with the minister rvhen he says we are likely to have a national food shortage. I am afraid of that too.


Humphrey Mitchell: I did not say that; I
spoke of international conditions.


James Arthur Ross: I was going to enlarge on that and say that if we did o-ur duty internationally we would have a food shortage. I am sorry the Minister of Agriculture is unavoidably absent this evening, because I believe these two departments should be very closely linked together. I argued these matters a year ago, and I do not think the Minister of Agriculture was very much impressed with what I had to say. However, I have looked up my remarks at that time, and I am sorry to say that, the predictions I made then, purely as a guess, have come true to-day. Look at the decreased hog production, the decrease in

dairy production, and so on. What I said a year ago was only my opinion, but those statements are being borne out to-day. Our hog production is down some thirty-two -per cent throughout this country, and it will be much lower before the end of the year.


George Ernest Wood: Do not overlook the fact that beef production is up.


James Arthur Ross: I grant that-, but we
should not be very proud of the way, we are handling beef production in this country. It is true that beef production is up twenty-five or thirty per cent, but the way we are handling it is nothing of which to be very proud.


George Ernest Wood: You are the only one beefing about it.
Mr. ROSS (Souris)1:	If you will just keep
your seat you will have plenty of chance to ask questions later on.


The CHAIRMAN:: While this is a wide
open discussion I suggest that agriculture should not enter into it at the moment.


James Arthur Ross: I am speaking about
agricultural labour, which I think is very much to the point right now. As I have said, I still believe the Department of Labour should do something to regulate farm wages. During the last harvest we had people who were afraid they would not ask enough money for their labour, so that they did not want to work at all. But you will always get some farmer who will pay these ridiculously high wages that are asked; then the whole wage situation is ruined in that particular community. I believe the government should have taken some action in that connection. I am not advocating cheap farm labour at all; I believe a scale of wages should be set up in fairness to the farm labourer and in fairness to the industrial worker. That is what I have advocated since the beginning of this war, and I believe the government should have tackled that problem.
The minister suggested that our man-power question was perhaps a muddle some years ago but that the situation was better to-day. I maintain that the man-power situation is as serious to-day as it has been at any time in the past, particularly in regard to agriculture. I have never asked that men should be left on the farms to deplete the armed services. Far from it; I do not think any member of this house has done more than I have to try to get men into the armed services. But I believe we should have had a definite man-power policy, and no minister in this house is more responsible for the lack of such a policy than the Minister of Agriculture. Back in, 1940, when he was Minister of National War Services, a

Supply-Labour
national registration was taken in this country. At that time I thought the minister would evolve some policy under which people would be directed to industry, to the armed services and to agriculture. That has not been done to this day, and as a result we have a lamentable manpower situation in Canada. No branch of industry in this country, has suffered more than agriculture as a result. I say we must continue to' think of the armed services first until this war is won, but I still maintain that this man-power policy is just as piecemeal and half-hearted as it has been at any time in the past. If our agricultural production is to be on the basis it should be in order to fulfil our obligations to the other united nations, then the Department of Labour and the Minister of Agriculture will have to do something to regulate the wages paid farm labour in this country, and I make that statement having in mind the welfare of both the employee and the employer.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend is trying to out-Solomon Solomon, and it cannot be done.


James Arthur Ross: Why can it not be done?


Humphrey Mitchell: I said you could not out-Solomon Solomon.


James Arthur Ross: Some two years ago I asked the minister to evolve a wage scale for agriculture, in exactly the same manner that this had been done under the controls administered by his department. I am not one of those who like controls, but I believe this should have been done just as it was done for industrial labour. I believe it could have been worked out quite satisfactorily on a parity basis. If now, after our experience since 1939, you say it is still fair to have a regulated wage scale for industry, to control the prices at which agricultural products may be sold, and still force the producer to bid in the open market for his help, certainly I do not understand your formula at all. I still hope you may do something in that respect, because we are facing the most serious agricultural manpower problem that we have had to contend with since 1939.


Mr. MacNICOL:: I was very much interested in what the minister said; but when he refers to the fact that there has been a very great increase in employment since 1939 I want to remind him that this came about directly as a result of the war. There was a greatly increased demand for labour for the production of munitions, of course, but I hope it will not be long until the war ends, and then the minister is going to find the very lack of jobs about which he said something a moment ago,
the lack which prevailed before the war. Tomorrow some minister of this government will have brought before him a concrete example of what is coming. A delegation will be in this city to-morrow in reference to the closing down of the shipbuilding yards in Toronto.
I do not know how many men are going to be laid off, but I know the last time I was in those yards a great many men were working there. That is the problem you are going to be up against. It is not the fault of the minister. He cannot help it, and I am not going to censure him in any way; but I should like to know whether he has any programme which will provide jobs. For instance, when this delegation comes here to-morrow will the responsible minister be in a position to say, "Well, now, we can place these five hundred men in other positions at once." That is only a start; there will be five hundred thousand, if war ends, to be placed before very long, and I should like to know if the department is really planning any programme. Perhaps that is not a problem for the Minister of Labour; it may be a matter for the Minister of Reconstruction. But it is somebody's problem. I meet it every time I go home." I will meet it on Saturday. A great many men are looking for jobs to-day. I had three letters from Toronto this morning from people wanting jobs. What is the programme, if there is one? It may not come under this vote, and if the minister does not want to discuss it now that will suit me quite well. But there should be a programme. One of the minister's predecessors, a very capable man, the late Hon. Norman Rogers, went into the matter thoroughly and he had a programme. Has the minister any programme?


Humphrey Mitchell: I am not afraid of the question my hon. friend is putting to me, but I think it comes principally under the Minister of Reconstruction. In the Department of Labour we do the placing. We have the placement machinery, the unemployment insurance and so on. I do not want to put forward any argument that might deviate from the argument to be presented by my hon. friend the Minister of Reconstruction when his estimates come up.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The minister will appreciate that once the war is over the working man is going to come to the Minister of Labour. If I were the Minister of Labour I would consider it my business to see that labour is employed. I would think it was my business to initiate and operate a programme to provide jobs for labour. We have a Minister of Justice; we have ministers of this and that, but the Minister of Labour is
32S
Supply-Labour

the man who will be appealed to by labour. To-morrow somebody will have to answer this delegation that is coming here. Does the minister know about this delegation that is coming to-morrow?


Humphrey Mitchell: Let us get it down to simple terms. The reason why there are nineteen members of this government is the magnitude of the task. I can remember when there was a Prime Minister who thought he could do it all himself.


Gordon Graydon: He is doing it now.


Mr. LOCKHART:: That is no change.


Humphrey Mitchell: That was not so long ago. You understand that I do not say that in any critical sense; it is simply an observation. Every man to his own last. I believe in free enterprise, but I believe also that when socialism comes in the front door, freedom goes out the back. I cannot imagine this House of Commons with. 245 members running anything, any business. I am speaking of business.


John Ritchie MacNicol: When you refer to the government I agree with you.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friends had their chance. There was more unemployment during the period their government was in power than at any other time in the history of this country. I say without fear of successful contradiction that there has been more employment during the' life of this government than during the life of any other government in the history of Canada. Let the record speak for itself.
As I say, every man to his own last. I think I am running a large enough organization. My job is the placement of men through the employment service.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I agree.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not think I could run two departments. I do not think I could run finance and labour even though this spills over into finance. The primary job of the Department of Reconstruction is reconstruction, and my hon. friend will have an opportunity to speak on that phase of government policy when the estimates of the Minister of Reconstruction are before the committee.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The minister stated in effect at Winnipeg or in the west that there was a programme, and I am trying to find out what that programme is, because the workingman is going to appeal to him as the Minister of Labour. The Minister of Labour is the man to whom the workingman will go for a job. I take a lot of interest in the men who 
are coming here to-morrow. When I go home these men say to me, "What is going to be done for us after the war?" I cannot tell them and apparently the minister cannot tell me; yet that is the business of the Department of Labour.
The minister said a moment ago his job was to provide jobs, and I agree with him. He then said something about the government or the department not running anything, and I said, "I agree." I am thinking in a business way.


Humphrey Mitchell: I want it made perfectly clear that I am speaking in a business way.


John Ritchie MacNicol: One need only go to Fort McMurray to see where $1,500,000 and more has been spent by the government on a plant, but I shall deal with that later on. It is impossible for government to operate a business. At that plant they have a staff of 203, I am informed, where previously there was a staff of sixty-seven. The present staff of 203 produces fifty barrels a day, while the previous staff of sixty-seven produced from 300 to 400 barrels a day. The government cannot run business. But after the war the working man will be appealing to the Minister of Labour. He is the only minister to whom he can go. He cannot go to the Minister of Finance; he cannot go to the Minister of Justice; he cannot go to the Minister of Fisheries; he cannot go to the minister of this or that; he must appeal to the Minister of Labour.
This delegation coming here to-morrow is to represent from four to five hundred men to be laid off by the shipyards. Is the government going to tell these men where they can get jobs? This will be only a start. I really want to help the minister; I want to see him take the reins in his hands and make preparations to give jobs to men. When the men come back from the war they are not going to stand around twiddling their fingers and asking for a job, or I will be surprised if they do. They will want jobs.
I do not want the minister to adopt the attitude of other ministers and tell me that it is not his business. I am a labour man and a business man. I have had perhaps more to do with the employment of men than any other member at the moment in this house. I worked up from the bottom to the top. I have been a labour man all my life and my heart has always been for the labouring man.


Mr. DONNELLY:: What a man!


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes, what a man. Of course the hon. member for AVood Mountain would not know the first mortal thing about

Supply-Labour
labour. He might be able to pull teeth or take a nail out of a finger or give a man a dose of salts or something like that-


An hon. MEMBER:: Or a permit for liquor.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I do not think he would do anything like that. But if I ask him to place a hundred men, give them jobs and pay them out of profits, I should like to see him do that, and I am saying that in the kindliest way. I like the Minister of Labour, and I always have, but he has been a labour union man. I do not know that he ever had anything to do with giving jobs, and that is a different thing altogether. Men are given employment by industry and their wages are paid out of profits. The profits may be small or large-I am not going into that-but that is the only way that jobs can be provided. You cannot draw on your bank account all the time; you have to have a return to provide jobs. You buy your raw materials in the cheapest market and you sell whpt you manufacture in the most reasonable market you can find. Perhaps I am out of order and all this does not come under this item, but as the minister himself has said his business is to provide jobs. I agree with him and I want to help him to provide jobs.
I will be interested to see just who handles this delegation that is coming here on behalf of five hundred shipworkers who are to ask where they are to get jobs.


An hon. MEMBER:: Now.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Right now. Not only that; there will be another big factory sending a delegation here representing, not five hundred people, but perhaps ten thousand. That is what will happen when the war ends, because there is no use in filling shells with powder that cannot be used. A man working in one plant told me that they would have to keep it going because there were fourteen thousand men and women working there. A shell does not last very long and the powder deteriorates, but no sane man is going to run a shell factory and put powder into shells that will not be used.
The minister has been able to do a good job so far because there has been a tremendous demand for labour, but that demand will cease after this war the way it did after the last war. The last war ended on November 11, 1918, and I can remember 925 happy men working and drawing their pay every two weeks. Within a week or ten days, I have just forgotten the exact time, that staff was reduced to 150; in three weeks more the factory was working three days a week and within three months they were all laid off 32283-22
except the office staff. Does the minister think these munition plants are going to turn their wheels just to make a wind? Certainly not. It is a big problem and I should like the minister to tell us what programme he has? I think it was at Winnipeg that he said he had a programme. Men will be displaced by hundreds of thousands, and that is a problem we have to face. I can tell the minister this, that the men will not just sit and twiddle their thumbs this time, or sell shoe laces on the comer or come rapping at the door to sell pins. They want work. What is the minister's programme to give them work?


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not wish to be accused of repetition, and I do not want my hon. friend to think for one minute that I am running away from his question. Up to this minute we have been able to place everybody, speaking in a broad way, through selective service. My hon. friend was a manufacturer himself and no one knows better than he does that you cannot change over from war to peace without creating pockets of unemployment. That is the reason for the establishment of unemployment insurance in this country. There is no man breathing who can maintain continuity of employment in the sense that my hon. friend indicated. The Minister of Reconstruction has already stated that he is going to set aside one day a week-I think it was Monday-for consultation with labour organizations in this country if they so desire, and he' is doing that. You are bound to have some unemployment when factories are turning from war production and tooling up for a new operation. My hon. friend understands that. As I said earlier this evening you have to be pretty careful when this war is over 'that you do not create an emotional condition that will be pretty hard to handle.


Mr. BRYCE:: I should like to take this opportunity of renewing some of my requests to the Minister of Labour. I think it would be foolish of me to let an opportunity like this go by when he seems to be so good natured and jolly to-night. Perhaps I shall have better success this time than I have had in the past.
Last session I asked the minister about the calling up of farmers' sons for service in the army, and he assured me that that would be taken care of. But I can assure him that the very same thing is happening to-day that happened a year ago. When you find a widow with two sons fighting overseas, and you take the third son into the army, I think that is unfair. I can give the evidence to the minister. I know a farmer close to my home. He has only two sons and both have been

Supply-Labour

called up. It is necessary in the interests of agriculture that these men be postponed. The minister said a few minutes ago that we are producing bigger and better crops than ever before. Yes; we are producing to-day bigger and better crops of what the Minister of Agriculture does not want-wheat. We do not need any more wheat; the Minister of Agriculture has said that in speeches all across the country. On the other hand, our butter stocks are as low to-day as they have ever been. We are short of butter. Why? Because we have not the help on the farms to milk the cows. The hon. member for Souris said that we are down thirty-two per cent. We are down fifty per cent in our hog production in Manitoba and there is no prospect of the situation improving for some time because we have not the help.
Without taking up too much time I ask the minister if he cannot do something with respect to the calling up of farmers' sons. Once a farmer's son is called up and gets into the army, it takes a regiment of soldiers to get him back out of it. The minister knows that because he has been in the army just as I have been. You can go and talk to the commanding officer, but it is a hard job to get a man out of the army once he is in. It should, however, be easy for the minister's department to find out just what the situation of these farmers' sons is before they are called up and attested. Can the minister give any assurance that he will do something about the matter this time, or is he just going to give a promise that will not mean anything?


Humphrey Mitchell: It is fundamental that ignorance of the law is no excuse. We have broadcast and advertised what the regulations are with regard to the calling up of farmers' sons and men working in agriculture more than any other thing. I cannot go around personally to tens of thousands of people and whisper in their ears: You do not have to be called up. But we do publish advertisements in the newspapers and broadcast over the radio just what the regulations are, applying to men working in agriculture. It has all been put on Hansard too. As I said to my hon. friend last year I cannot go around and tell every man personally just what the regulations are, neither can my organization. My hon. friend comes from Manitoba. I have some knowledge of the board there and I think it is a very good board, presided over by Mr. Justice Adamson. There is a limit to what I can do.
I shall always be glad to listen to the representations of any member of the house, no matter on which side he sits but I cannot, and I would not if I could, surreptitiously or in [Mr. Bryce. 1
any other way indicate to these boards what they should do. Once a man gets into the army he is out of my jurisdiction completely. It is then a matter for the military authorities. If there is any other way that my hon. friend can suggest of acquainting these men of what their position is under the law and regulations I shall be glad to hear it.


William Scottie Bryce: Once a man is in the army you cannot do anything about it. That is just my point. I know that the minister cannot get into personal contact with every man, but his department calls the men up and the department could- find out what the position of the man was in civilian life before calling him up for the army. There is your contact, and there is a slip-up there.


Humphrey Mitchell: If a farmer's son wants to join the army, the navy or the air force, I cannot stop him from doing so because this is still a free country, thank heaven. But I think they all know what he law is with regard to workers in agriculture. If they do not, I do not know how we can get it over to them. A man engaged in agriculture does not even have to have a medical examination. All he needs to do when he gets his call is to say he is employed in agriculture, and he is left there until his case is investigated.


Mr. HATFIELD:: Oh, no.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend says, no. I should like to know of any case to the contrary. After all is said and done, when you are sending out calls like this organization is doing, to upwards of a million men, there is bound to be a slip made some time. In passing, let me say that I sometimes wonder how some people who on the public platform advocate that every man should be in -the army are yet so solicitous of those people who do not want to go into the army. It is a very difficult policy that I have to administer in justice and without fear or favour.
As to the question raised by my hon. friend, if he has an answer I should like to know what it is. The procedure is so simple. Every boy or girl in this country is taught to read and write, and newspapers are still printed. We put advertisements in the newspapers; we send out letters. If one can do any more than that, I do not know what it is.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: What about the thousands of emergencies that arise.


Humphrey Mitchell: Well, let us have the
"thousands of emergencies". The mere fact my hon. friend says there are thousands does not indicate that there are.

Supply-Labour__________


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Well, there are. I can
give the minister fifty right now.


George Russell Boucher: I wish to mention to the minister a recent situation, as far as selective service calling men into the army is concerned, which, I think, needs his attention. In a case brought recently to my attention a farmer's only son, having served for three years in the air force in this country and having been willing at that time to go active, found that requirements in, the air force were no longer as urgent as they had been, but that the requirements at home to assist his aged father and mother were very serious. He asked for a postponement and was advised by his commanding officer that he had a fit and proper case for discharge to permit him to go back to the farm. He was allowed twenty-one days' leave after which he was to pick up his discharge papers. This was in February; whereupon a new regulation was issued which provided that he was no longer entitled to discharge after having served for three years in Canada before being called up, but that he would be redrafted from the air force to the army. My point is that if national selective service call for a man they should say where he fits into our manpower picture. This man has not a chance to go back to the farm; the discharge promised him is now denied him by a change in the regulations whereby, having served for only three years in Canada instead of three years overseas, he is being drafted-in effect, contrary to the promise made to him-into the army notwithstanding that he is required on the farm. If I were the Minister of Labour, being in charge of national selective service, I would say that that individual should be sent to the farm and not to the army at this particular time. He has served for three years, has been willing at all times to go overseas and do his part but was not permitted to do so, and there is no help on the farm to continue the production which is so urgently needed. He should be given a chance to apply again for a discharge and state his case to go back on the farm, instead of which he is being drafted from the air force into the army. It may be that we badly need men, in the army, but we certainly need assistance in agriculture; and I think the minister in charge of selective service should not have allowed manpower to get out of his control and be handled by the two departments of national defence so that they can swap personnel and increase their numbers.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend is a
[DOT]total conscriptionist, but he has put up a pretty fair exhibition of straddling the fence.


George Russell Boucher: Not by any means.


Humphrey Mitchell: Let the hon. member
wait a minute; I did not interrupt him. He wants men in the army but he wants them out. He says, "I do not know why this man was three years in the air force in Canada; I do not know whether he should go in the army or not." He can do this sort of backing and filling; I cannot. A man who has been in the air force in this country has the same rights as a civilian liable to call for the army. There mus* be something wrong with the information my hon. friend received. The right to disagree is one of the bases of human freedom, but I might as well tell the hon. member that his position has been that he wanted them all in the army or in the fighting forces. He and his party have talked about Great Britain and the United States, but what is the position there? In Great Britain they move men back and forward from the army, the navy, and the air force almost automatically, by direction, and if the hon. member does not know how it is done he should go and see it in operation. In the United States they do the same thing. I repeat that this man has as much right to ask for a postponement as any civilian who has not yet been called under the N.R.M.A. regulations.


Heber Harold Hatfield: I could tell the minister of hundreds of cases where the last boy on the farm is called up; a circular comes along with the letter calling him up, stating, if he wants a postponement because of being needed on the farm, to write in and ask for it. The boy in every case has written in asking for a postponement. The registrars do not reply to that letter until the date of his call-up has expired; then he reports, and then he is in the army.


Humphrey Mitchell: What is the location of that farm?


Heber Harold Hatfield: Hundreds of these men
have asked for postponement and stated their case, but have never received a reply to their letters.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend talks
about "hundreds."


Heber Harold Hatfield: Yes, hundreds.


Humphrey Mitchell: I would say to him, if he can, give us the hundreds, but at least give us one. I have used this argument: you cannot put a thermometer in a man's mouth and pull it out and say he is a farmer. You cannot always put a thermometer in a man's mouth and take it out and say he is a socialist. The mere fact that a man says he is a farmer does not make him one. He may be the only man in Canada who thinks so.
Supply-Labour

I am administering this policy and I know some of the difficulties and complexities. A man may be on what we call a pulp farm. My hon. friend knows about pulp farms where the biggest part of the year they are cutting down trees, and they have lots of ten or fifteen acres, or as the case may be. That may not be a farm. But I should like to look into the case raised by my hon. friend. As I pointed out earlier in the evening, the regulations affecting the agricultural structure in this country are as generous as those operating in any of the united nations. At this very moment 168,000 farmers are on postponement. I am speaking from memory and I am open to correction, but upon looking at some prewar figures I found that at the time there were only about fifty thousand hired men in Canada. I suggest that when one of my hon. friends talks about hundreds, and another hon. friend talks about thousands, it is not hard to imagine what they say in the little red school-house; I imagine they say "millions" and "billions".


Heber Harold Hatfield: I know one farmer's son who went down for his medical examination to the depot and they had him sign papers to enlist. He did not know he was enlisting until he got back home, and they sent the mounted police after him.


Mr. WRIGHT:: The minister asked for suggestions with regard to satisfying the demands of agriculture for labour. He says there are 168,000 men on postponement to agriculture. Every fall these men receive a notice from selective service telling them that they must take a job in some other industry during the winter months. Anyone who works on a farm, especially a stock farm, knows that help is needed on a farm if you are raising hogs, feed cattle or milk cows, and it is needed nearly as much, or more, in the winter than in the summer. Nevertheless in this country, especially during the past two winters, these men have been taken from the farms, and that is one of the main reasons for the present drop in agricultural production. One of the ways in which it can be stopped is to see that these men are allowed to stay on farms in the months in which they are needed. That has not been done in the past.


Humphrey Mitchell: I agree that one of the most difficult things in this country, in the United States and in Great Britain has been the stock farm situation, more so than general farming. I know that we could not have produced the pulp we produced had it not been for the movement from the farms in the winter to the forest, and I know what rMr. Mitchell.]
was accomplished in the malleable iron industry because of the swing. When you are moving a quarter of a million men some are bound to get through the mesh, but we have insisted that they go back to agriculture when the season opens in the spring. I am receiving communications from persons who left agriculture and do not want to go back, but they simply have to go back, and that is all there is to it. You have to insist on that if you hope to have the production we have had in the past.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Would the minister give the names of the 168,000 men.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Order.


Humphrey Mitchell: I can say that my hon. friend is not one of them.


George Alexander Cruickshank: They are all from Quebec.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Order. At the present time we are on supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1945. I believe that early next week we shall go into supply on the war appropriation bill and all departments will be called again so that the discussion that is taking place to-night will be repeated then. That is not a procedure that makes for proper deliberation and I would ask hon. members to keep as much as possible within the orbit of the estimates now before the committee.


Clarence Gillis: I agree with the Chairman, but the discussion has rambled quite a bit, and I suggest that decisions of that kind should have been made earlier in the debate. It is late now to start enforcing a rigid rule. I am not going to say anything about selective service, or discuss all the ramifications of the department, because I appreciate the fact that these are war departments which can more properly be discussed in connection with the war estimates. I would make this observation, however. I have listened to my hon. friends to the right; I listened to the hon. member for Davenport, who has left the house for the moment, talking about private enterprise and suggesting that this was the only means of finding jobs in the post-war period. The suggestion has been made that business will look after the problem, and in the next breath these gentlemen appeal to the government to find employment for thousands now being laid off. Private enterprise, however, has not been interfered with; it is still in the field and still has the right to lay off, and the only thing it is doing is to lay off. If my hon. friends want to lay the employment problem on the doorstep of the government, then private enterprise has

Supply[DOT]-Labour
failed in that field. It has had seventy-six years of a chance and it is time someone started to direct and look after it.
I will not pursue the subject raised by the hon. member for Vancouver East. I think myself it is a subject on which some decision should be made at this session because it has a great bearing on post-war employment. The minister will remember that when the national wage order and the national code were introduced in the house the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and I pointed out particularly what we regarded as its defects. The attitude of the minister at that time was that all legislation will be improved in course of time by the method of trial and error. Within the last seven or eight months there have been some obvious defects in the legislation. I will not go into the wage order to any great extent, but I submit that the application of the wage order in the past several months leaves much to be desired. The wording is grossly unfair and unjust and it should be removed, because the war labour board is a three-man board and the wage stabilization order is administered in relation to controlling prices. The whole approach to the problem, so far as the board is concerned, has been in its relation to controlling prices. The minimum fixed by the government in the wage field is thirty-five cents an hour; unless you are below that your wage rates are not considered unfair or unjust, and under the wording of the order that is the only approach which the board can take.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is not so.


Clarence Gillis: Oh, yes. If you check up you will find it is so.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Plenty of wages are raised that are not below thirty-five cents an hour.


Clarence Gillis: That is true, but at the same time, if the board wants to interpret the order literally it can legally make that decision and make it stick. I think the wording of the order should be changed to read "based on the ability of the industry to pay". Then the board would have some latitude in determining what is fair or unfair for that particular industry.


Humphrey Mitchell: I think I should say that is the very thing they did not want.


Clarence Gillis: Who did not want?


Humphrey Mitchell: Labour-a price ceiling clamped on to ability to pay. If you had a ceiling there, with ability to pay, the employees would not have a chance.


Clarence Gillis: I am not talking about a price ceiling but wage rates.


Humphrey Mitchell: If it were based on ability to pay, I question very much whether the national board would have granted an increase in wmges to the miners as they have done.


Clarence Gillis: If you want to open up that field-


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not want to do that.


Clarence Gillis: I understand that to-day, so far as industry is concerned-and it applies to practically every industry in Canada-wages have come out of the treasury of the country. Everyone who has something to sell in the country has been subsidized.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Oh, no.


Clarence Gillis: You can "oh, no," as much as you like, but when the minister Itries to make a comparison between this war and the last, saying that in the last war prices were so and so, did he ever look at the tax structure in the last war as compared with this war? That is not a criterion. Things that happened in the last war are in the past. Take the Dominion Steel and Coal company's figures released by themselves. I question them very much, and until there is an impartial analysis of their ability to pay, the minister does not know, and I do not know, whether we are doing right or wrong in subsidizing that industry. There is a commission now probing that question.
In the application of the wage order I think those tw,o words are being taken advantage of at the present time. The hon. member for Vancouver East and I have pointed out that in one or two of the decisions made the interpretation placed on the wording by the board was that there must be a flagrant discrepancy in the wages as compared with other industries. I know there have to be wage controls; I am not quarreling with that, and perhaps some will be necessary in the immediate post-war just as they were necessary during the war. I am not accepting every theory that I hear on inflation either, because the only time you hear the cry of inflation is when you start talking about raising the basic rates. Nobody squawks when you lift the ceiling on salaries. That is fine.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, they do.


Clarence Gillis: Nobody says very much
when profits of industries or earnings of banks show an increase from year to year. That is all fine. But any time you talk about putting five or ten cents on the wages of the average worker it is referred to as inflation; it is going to have inflationary effects. I know this is not the time to go into these theories.
Supply-Labour


James Lorimer Ilsley: The ceiling on salaries and
profits is much more severe than the ceiling on wages, deliberately made so.


Clarence Gillis: You would not think so if
the figures that the government release from time to time are correct. I think the last figures that I saw showed that eighty per cent of the wage-earners across Canada were still in the income group of one thousand dollars. I am speaking of the average income. There should not be very much inflation there. You cannot buy very much on that kind of income.


Mr. KINLEY:: Eighty per cent?


Clarence Gillis: Those are the government's
own figures. The hon. member had better look them up. The trouble with most government members is that they do not read the government's figures.


Humphrey Mitchell: Let me say to my hon. friends that those figures have to be broken down. The over-all figure of eighty per cent earning less than $1,000 a year includes everybody, apprentices and right down the line. When I make this observation I say to my hon. friend that I do not take second place to anyone in this country in the feeling that the workingman should get what is coming to him, but it is hardly fair to make a bald statement like that without breaking the figures down. I know something about the figures the hon. member is speaking about.


Clarence Gillis: That is the way they were
put out. I am not breaking them down. That is the way I saw the figures. They were government figures. There should not be any danger of inflation with that kind of spending power. I merely suggest to the minister that the time has come to do something about it. I shall not take up the time of the committee to put on the record the opinions of labour organizations of the country. If they were investigated it would be found that they are demanding or clamouring for an opportunity to sit in with the government and revise this particular wage order. I could tell the minister quite a story about the last wage negotiations of the mine workers. The war labour board has usurped the bargaining rights of the unions. An appeal is made to them; they make a decision; there is no appeal from it and the union stops functioning. There should be some way of going back to conciliation, placing the board in the position of the employer and for it to make a decision that could stand up before an impartial referee. There are many changes that could be made which would be beneficial. I merely suggest that at some time or another the minister should

get together with those who are responsible to the labour organizations across Canada and try to have some adjustments.
The next thing that I am concerned about is P.C. 1003. When that order was passed the Prime Minister announced to the house that he was selecting an eminent person from the legal profession and placing in his hands the authority and responsibility of drafting labour jurisprudence for Canada, bring the rule of law within the trades union movement. We heard a lot about the rule of law in international affairs in the last few days. The board held meetings across the country, probed opinions from all directions and finally sat down and wrote two reports, a majority and a minority report. Then that eminent person resigned, went back to his profession and became one of the leaders of the Tory party. I hope he does not wind up in San Francisco.
When order in council P.C. 1003 was brought down it was a step in the right direction. When it was tabled in the house some of the hon. members of this group pointed out that there were two or three things wrong with it. First, it did not outlaw company unions, and I definitely believe it should have done so. Second, when union certification is arrived at, instead of the union being certified as the bargaining agency it is the representative of the union that is certified. In the application of the code unions have found themselves in this position. They had an agent who was working for them. Something happened; either he took sick or moved away, and according to the code the employer had the right to say that another representative from the same union should have the right to sit in and bargain for the employees in that particular organization. I think the wording there is ambiguous. It should definitely state union certification rather than the certification of a representative.
Within the last few weeks there has been a new trend in the application of the code. Unorganized people desiring to become members of a union make application to the board. The board has taken the attitude that before they will direct a vote to be taken in a plant to determine the bargaining agency the union must show a paid-up membership of at least fifty per cent of the employees in the plant. That is an impossibility, and it completely defeats the purpose for which the code was intended. I ask the minister to check that, because a test of any legislation is its application, the people who are administering it, the way it is to work, and so on. The personnel administering it has a lot to do with it. I do not think anybody who drafted it ever intended it to work in that way. I think it should be corrected. When application is made by

Supply-Labour
the employees of a plant the only fair way to determine the percentage of those desiring to become members of that union is to take a free vote properly supervised. When that vote is taken, if the majority in the plant favour union certification it should be gone ahead with. That is something that should be corrected immediately. One could take a long time on this aspect of P.C, 1003, but I believe these are two things that should be corrected. The whole purpose of P.C. 1003 was to provide for collective bargaining.
May I be permitted to say one word with respect to selective service. I am interested in selective service because I think it is going to be one of our most important peace-time organizations; the regulation of employment, the reversing of the machinery of induction into the service. There are well-trained personnel there. They have learned something about the job. There is one defect in the machinery. Selective service has the right to direct an employee to an employer, but there is no obligation on the part of the employer to accept that employee. I think that should be corrected. If the legal machinery provided by the government in the employment field has the right to tell me where I should go to work, then the employer should be obligated to accept me when I get there. I cannot refuse. If I refuse I am out. If I happen to be the recipient of unemployment insurance and I refuse employment I lose my unemployment insurance. But I have had case after case-and it is becoming tense in the mining districts, where there is no heavy employment-of employers not wanting to take men back from the service because they are not one hundred per cent fit. I think the machinery should be tightened up. Surely if you have the right to direct me, the employer should not have the right to refuse me. That is all I have to say, but I would suggest that the minister check up these two or three points, not because I have mentioned them, but because they 'are being said by those who are directly interested and employed by the labour movements.


Humphrey Mitchell: I thank my hon. friend for the suggestions he has made, particularly those with regard to selective service. That is an aspect which never occurred to me; but I hope I will live to see the day, in the not very distant future, when there will not be any direction at all.


Clarence Gillis: I do not think you will ever see it.


Mr. KNOWLES:: I should like to add just a few words to the remarks that have been made by my colleagues from Vancouver East and Cape Breton South.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Before the hon. member proceeds, I do not want to be too strict in these matters, but I have no doubt that when we have the war appropriation measure before the committee of supply we shall have a repetition of what has been said to-night. These are the supplementary estimates only, for the year ending March 31, 1945. There will be ample opportunity, when the officials of the various departments are here, to ask any questions that may be desired. As a matter of fact, I believe most of the discussion this evening has been out of order. I do not want to be too strict, but the Chair has some duty to keep the discussion focused on the matter before the committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I appreciate your position, Mr. Chairman, but it seems to me the minister has been correct in agreeing to deal with these matters under the head of departmental administration.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not say this in a
sarcastic way, but I believe the points in connection with P:C. 1003 were very ably covered by both the hon. member for Vancouver East and the hon. member for Caipe Breton South. If my hon. friend is going to develop the same arguments on the same points could we not just take it as read? It is getting late, and I will be back next week with the war estimates.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister has hit the nail on the head, I do not intend to go over the ground covered by the two hon. members to whom he referred. I intend rather to mention one or two other points, and to call to his attention the fact that at least one labour body with which I have some association has made definite representations to the wartime labour relations board of Manitoba. I refer to the Winnipeg district trades and labour council. The minister and I enjoyed a very fine banquet on the occasion of their fiftieth anniversary, not long ago, in the city of Winnipeg. I wish to remind the minister that when we were debating this subject last year, on April 28 and May 5, he indicated quite definitely that this legislation, particularly P.C. 1003, might require amendment as a result of the experience of the months that were then ahead. We are hoping that he will realize now that experience has proved that to be the case. Speaking about P.C. 1003, the minister said, at page 2663 of Hansard for 1944:
I do not know of any legislation that has ever been passed that did not require amending at one time or another.
Perhaps it would be my best course to summarize the concrete suggestions that have been made in connection with this matter by the Winnipeg and district trades and labour coun-
Supply-Labour

cil. In the first place they suggest that when any group or organization applies for certification and it is found that the company has contributed to that organization in any way, machinery should be set up for a full investigation into the activities of that body, and such machinery should1 be provided in the order. Further in their representations on the same general point they ask, just as the hon. member for Cape Breton South and I asked last year, that there be definite provision in P.C. 1003 outlawing any form of company unionism. The minister will remember that at that time he indulged in a few quips, but the point we were trying to make was that the order needed to be more definite on this point; that it should be tightened up, and that teeth should be put in it.
The next suggestion made by the Winnipeg council is that when a secret ballot is being taken only the representatives of the union or unions and the board should be present. A further suggestion is that provision should be made in the order for the compulsory signing of contracts where unions are certified by the wartime labour relations board. The next suggestion is that there should be provision for a closed shop when a majority of the employees make that request. No doubt the letter, a copy of which I have before me, is in the possession of the minister or his department. In it he will find the actual wording of an amendment suggested by this body to section 19, subsection (2) (c) of P.C. 1003 which would make it clear beyond any doubt whatsoever that unions would have the right to' seek a closed shop provision in collective agreements. Further suggestions are that the board be given authority to issue a directive for the reinstatement of employees who are discharged, suspended or demoted for contravention of the provisions of the regulations; also that the board should have authority to issue a directive for the payment of back pay to such employees, and be able to issue a directive for the disestablishment of company dominated unions.
I am giving these points rather hurriedly, not particularly expecting the minister to reply to them to-night since, as he has suggested, these matters will come up again, but in the hope that he will give consideration to representations of this kind which are being made by labour bodies right across the country.
One other suggestion has been made, and I offer it even though the minister may want to turn it into a compliment to his labour code. It is that the government take steps now by w'ay of negotiation with the provincial governments to see to it that a national labour fMr. Knowles.]
code is made part of the law of this country, not only under the War Measures Act but in peace time as well. I express the hope that, to-night or next week when the matter comes up again, the minister will indicate the results of the consideration I trust he will give to the various representations I have outlined.


Humphrey Mitchell: I know the way we talk in lodge meetings and when we go out to get votes. If I understood my hon. friend1 aright he said we should have national legislation; at least that was the import of it. I am sure he knows, probably better than I know, that constitutionally, without an amendment of the British North American Act, you cannot legislate on these matters nationally. Under the constitution they are the prerogative of the provinces. Some people may have the view that it should be the other way around, but when you are talking to your membership I think it only fair that you should point out this aspect of it to them, that it is not a question of legislation by the national government at the moment but a question of provincial responsibility. Let the responsibility rest where it should.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the minister will read what I have said he will find that I referred to the necessity for cooperation with the provincial governments in the matter. I am not going into that whole question again, but I repeat my request that he give consideration to the points I have mentioned so that he can deal with them when this matter comes up again.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Lands, Parks and Forests branch -
US. General administration, operation and maintenance of services, including Wood Buffalo park-further amount required, $15,000.
George James Tustin: The Minister of Finance said he would explain the meaning of the word "sundries". This is an item of $15,006, and I should like an explanation of it.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Well, "sundries" is a generic term used to describe some of these items. This item is to cover the cost of a survey on the Bear river from the Mackenzie river to Great Bear lake around a series of rapids, and it also covers the cost of sending in some equipment. My hon. friend is probably aware that the radium mines are located at the eastern end of Bear lake and the only means of transportation apart from air transportation is by Bear lake, through Bear river to the Mackenzie river, up the Mackenzie river and then through the waterways system to Edmon-

Supply-Mines and Resources
ton. In order to cut the cost of this transportation a road is being built around these rapids.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Indian Affairs branch-
Indian hospitals and general care of Indians-further amount required, $240,000.
Ernest Edward Perley: Could the minister give us a break-down in more detail than is given on page 7? It states there that 8193,000 of the total of $240,000 is for professional and special services.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: This vote is to supplement the vote of last year for medical services for the Indians. During the year it has been found that there have been substantial increases in cost. The Indian affairs branch operate several hospitals and it has been found that the cost of food and help and supplies has increased more than was anticipated when the estimates were prepared and submitted to parliament over a year ago. I can give my hon. friend the break-down: supplies and materials, S30,000, travelling expenses, $8,000. This was not foreseen and is required because of a few epidemics which broke out among the far northern tribes and it being necessary to send in some medical service.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: More than the average?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes. That accounts for $8,000. Freight and express, $500. Then the large item is $193,000 for "professional; and special".


Ernest Edward Perley: Where is most of that being spent?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It is being spent all over Canada. Increased amounts of money have been required for the treatment of tuberculosis among the Indians and there has been an increase in travelling expenses of doctors and an increase in the cost of obtaining doctors because of the shortage of medical men owing to the numbers in the armed services.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Have you the relative amount that was spent last year for the treatment of tuberculosis?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The vote this year is up substantially. The estimates that were tabled the jther day for the year ending March 31, 1946, show on page 22 an item of $2,425,000 for medical, Indian hospitals and general care of Indians, as compared with 81,829,000 last year. The $193,000 in this particular item is to supplement a vote that was not sufficiently large last year.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: The minister said that some of this increase was due to the treatment of tuberculosis among the Indians, and I wanted the other figures.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am referring to the item of "professional and special" which provides an amount of $193,000 out of the $240,000.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: You said that included the treatment of tuberculosis?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Increased numbers of
Indians have been under treatment for various medical and surgical reasons, including those suffering from tuberculosis, and there has been a marked increase in rates of hospitals treating Indians. We have had to increase the per diem rate paid to hospitals for the care of Indians. In many cases doctors' fees have increased on account of doctors being absent from their regular posts on military service, and we have had to pay mileage charges for medical attention from more distant points.


Ernest Edward Perley: What portion of this
amount would be spent in Saskatchewan and also how many hospitals for Indians have you in that province?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: There is just the one at Fort Qu'Appelle.


Ernest Edward Perley: What portion of this amount would be spent there?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I have not that information here, but it would be available when the main estimates are under consideration some time in the future.


William Scottie Bryce: , Could the minister give us a break-dowm by provinces later on?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I just told the hon. member for Qu'Appelle that I have not that information here; these are supplementary estimates.


William Scottie Bryce: Could the minister let us have it at a later date?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I could have it made up and sent to my hon. friend if it is of particular interest.


William Scottie Bryce: The Department in Ottawa provided for special services for Indians but they never got them. It was not the fault of the department here because they made the arrangement to provide these services for the Indians in my constituency but they never got them. I want to trace why this was not done and I want the minister to help me.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not know what my hon. friend is referring to when he says-


William Scottie Bryce: I will tell you.
Questions


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Will my hon. friend sit down until I finish. I do not know to what he is referring when he says that arrangements were made for special services in his constituency but they were not carried out. Whom were they made with? Were they made with the hon. member?


William Scottie Bryce: The Minister of Mines and
Resources seems a little touchy.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I object to that.


William Scottie Bryce: You sit down now.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend is not a very old member of this house or he would not act as he is acting.


Gordon Graydon: I think both hon. gentlemen need to go to bed. Perhaps we might call it eleven o'clock.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I was speaking when my hon. friend interrupted me. We do not make very much progress in that way. I suppose the item can stand until to-morrow.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, March 29, 1945