STANDING COMMITTEES

[Stage Direction]
ALBERTA PROVINCIAL BANK-STANDING ORDERS_

[Stage Direction]
Mr, W. H. GOLDING (Huron-Perth) presented the first report of the standing committee on standing orders, recommending that the proceedings taken last session in respect of the presentation of petition, the filing of draft bill, and the publication -of notice relative to the proposed incorporation of the Alberta Provincial Bank, be accepted as sufficient for the present session; and moved that the -report be concurred in.
Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: I am not sure that I understand precisely the meaning of this report as it was read. Would it do any harm to have this motion stand until to-morrow?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: No.
Motion stands.



PRINTING-CHANGE IN PERSONNEL

William Lyon Mackenzie King: The War-Present Position
That the name of Mr. Dupuis be substituted for that of Mr. Cloutier on the joint standing committee on printing.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 5, to amend the Migratory Birds Convention Act.
He said:	This bill consists of a short
amendment to the Migratory Birds Convention Act. Under the act as it stands, the closed season on the migratory birds mentioned in the amendment is in force until September 1. It is proposed to have the open season commence on August 15.
These migratory birds, such as ducks, geese and snipe, begin to migrate from the Yukon around the first of August and are practically all gone by September 1. The result of the present provision is that the sportsmen of the Yukon are practically prohibited from shooting these birds.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, in my view, in the view of many hon. members of this house, and I feel quite certain in the view of many people in Canada, the war situation in Europe is more serious to-day than at any time since the fall of France. The virtual destruction of the cities of Birmingham, Bristol and Southampton, the loss of shipping as_ evidenced by press reports, and in particular the utterances of the Marquess of Lothian, his majesty's representative in the United States, particularly with respect to finance, indicate the seriousness of the position. Therefore in my view the Prime Minister should make a statement to the house and the country, if not to-day then not later than to-morrow, and tell the country just what the exact position is; because it will be understood that he has access to information which we have not. Let him tell the house and the country how serious the position is or, if we are wrong in our views, how good the position is; and especially I would request him to indicate what further, if anything, Canada can do at this juncture towards aid and assistance, whether it be in men, materials, supplies or equipment.
I am very serious about this, Mr. Speaker, and I ask the Prime Minister to give consideration to it. I do not expect him to make an immediate response, but I do feel that the situation to-day in the theatre of war over there is just as serious as it was at the time of the fall of France, and we are all very uneasy about it. I do not wish to be taken as an alarmist. The situation may not be as bad as I feel it is, but at any rate a statement from the Prime Minister would have a quieting effect upon the people at this time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I would say to my hon. friend that I have had in mind making a statement to the house before adjournment with respect to the situation. I should like to have a little time to think over what it would be best to say. I agree with my hon. friend in his view that the situation is a serious one. I think anyone reading the press would gather that opinion.
I would also say that such information as the government itself is receiving the press would appear to be reflecting accurately. Any statement that I may have to make will be practically in accord with what has already appeared in the press.
I may have something to say to-morrow about further proceedings before we adjourn.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Burpee Hanson: The Prime Minister has just referred to the adjournment. He has given notice to the house that when we do adjourn it shall be until the 17th of February. I would like to suggest to the Prime Minister that in my view that is too long. The Prime Minister knows the commitments of the government much better than I or the country can know, and having regard to the fact that the dominion-provincial conference is to be held beginning at a date about the middle of January, it may be necessary to take that long adjournment. But may I suggest to the Prime Minister and the members of his administration that we do not adjourn definitely to the 17th of February but rather that we follow the formula which was incorporated in the resolution of August 3 last.


Mr. POULIOT:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. We are now on the orders of the day and I do not see why the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) should be per-
Long Adjournment

mitted to make statements to the government at this time. There will be another opportunity for him to do so, and I am sick of listening to his sermons. I would ask the whip of the Conservative party to keep quiet. I am sick of these little sermons by the leader of the opposition at the beginning of each sitting. He has to give a lecture or make suggestions to the government all the time. He is at liberty the same as any other hon. member to ask questions of the government on the orders of the day, but to make suggestions is an entirely different matter, and I ask, Mr. Speaker, that he be made to conform to the rules.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not afraid of the howling or the groans.


Richard Burpee Hanson: After that little interlude, may I be permitted with the consent of the house to complete briefly what I had to say?


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. member has not unanimous consent. I object.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I was indicating that I think it would be desirable that when we adjourn-


Jean-François Pouliot: Sit down, please, I ask for your ruling on the point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I gather that it is the
sense of the house that these statements should be made by the leader of the opposition. He is dealing with a subject which is in the minds of all members of the house, and while I would not say he is strictly in order, yet I feel it is the sense of the house that he should make these statements and that the Prime Minister should reply to them if he thinks proper.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I shall
not take much more of the time of the house to finish what I have to say, and I hope I shall not offend the sensibilities of any member, least of all the member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). I was going to suggest to the Prime Minister that he adopt the formula of August 3 last, which would I think be satisfactory to all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon.
friend that if he will look at the Votes and Proceedings of yesterday he will see that I have already done what he has suggested. I had my motion amended so as to read:
That when this house adjourns immediately after the conclusion of the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, [Mr. pouliot.J
it stand adjourned until Monday, February 17, 1941, at 3 o'clock, p.m., provided always that if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with his majesty's government, that the public interest requires that the house should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the house shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am corrected; I -was not up to date. I predicated what I said on the previous notice of motion, and I am glad to see that the Prime Minister has anticipated my suggestion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I had intended when the motion came before the house to give hon. members the reasons for fixing as I did the 17th of February as the date for reconvening. It may perhaps not be out of place if I say just a word at the moment because in the minds of some there may appear to be reason for believing that the government is unduly delaying the time of reconvening.
I would point out first of all that two or three ministers will be absent from Canada during the month of December. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) will be in Britain throughout the month of December. The Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) also will be going to England for the purpose of conferences with the British government. I assume it will be some time in January before he will be able to be back in Ottawa.
The conferences that will be held in London by the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Munitions and Supply with different members of the British government will be important conferences, and legislation which may be introduced later, certainly the appropriation bill and the estimates, will in some measure be based upon the information obtained at that time.
I would also remind the house that the Christmas and New Year recess comes within the period of adjournment. That is a time when it is usually difficult to have all members of the cabinet together to discuss important matters. After continuous sittings that have lasted only a month there will 'be many matters held over pending adjournment which will require the special attention of ministers and of the cabinet before the ministers disperse even for a day or two at the Christmas season.
With respect to the conference with the provinces, the government has had to take into account and naturally would wish to consult the convenience of the different provinces, and the date fixed for the conference, the middle of January, was the earliest

Defence of Canada Regulations
that could be arranged having in mind the views expressed by some of the provinces as to a date that would be convenient to them.
I cannot say how long the conference will last, but it may be advisable not to try to conclude its proceedings too hurriedly, but rather to allow plenty of time in order that some phases at least of the report may receive detailed consideration, if there is not time for consideration of all phases. I should think that the government would be wise in keeping the last fortnight of January pretty largely for matters pertaining to the dqminion-provincial conference.
That leaves the month of February. It is true that I fixed the 17th as the date, but the 17th is a Monday. If we were calling a new session it would be called to meet on the Thursday, which would be the 13th. A fortnight will leave the government little enough time to confer after the conference with regard to the many matters that we wish to conclude before parliament reassembles and to bring before the house when it meets. Experience has taught me that it is better to have an extra week by way of preparation than to assemble at an earlier date and be running a little bit behind all the way with proceedings thereafter. I have tried to shape matters in a way that I thought would both before and after parliament reassembles best suit the convenience of members as a whole.
I might say that I gave notice when I did as to the probable time of reassembling because many members had inquired of me how long it would be after the conference before parliament would be reassembling. I thought that the sooner members generally could be advised as to the date, the better it would suit their convenience. I would also remind hon. members that we are not yet through this portion of the session. We have not reached the end of the debate on the address, and there are one or two matters, of which I shall have a word or two to say to-morrow, which will require further time and attention on the part of hon. members.


Richard Burpee Hanson: At this time?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: At this time, yes. For these reasons it seems to me that the date which has been fixed, everything considered, will be found eventually to serve best the convenience of the house, as well as to meet the obligations of the ministry while in particular the resolution as drafted will meet the views of both my hon. friend and myself as to the procedure which should be followed.



DEFENCE OF CANADA REGULATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):: A day or two ago the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) stated in the house that a special committee would be set up again this year to consider the defence of Canada regulations. That action is taken, I believe, as a result of a recommendation made by the committee which considered the same subject in the last session. But the special committee which sat last summer also recommended that the laws relating to naturalization and deportation should be considered by a special committee if one were set up at this present session. I should like to know whether it is the intention of the government to refer those two subjects also to a special committee.


Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: As my hon. friend knows, matters concerning naturalization come under the Secretary of State (Mr. Casgrain), and matters concerning deportation are under the immigration branch of the Department of Mines and Resources. But I have communicated with my colleagues the Secretary of State and the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar), and I am authorized to tell my hon. friend that when a motion is made for the appointment of that committee, the reference will include the two matters he has just referred to, in accordance with the wish of that committee as expressed in its report.



TRAFFIC CONTROL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Public Works) :: The day before yesterday the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) referred to the control of traffic around the parliament buildings, and complained about careless driving on the part of some people along the esplanade in front of the buildings. The control of traffic around these buildings is under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as a result of an order in council which has been passed. I do not see that any serious reflection can be made on the manner in which the mounted police carry on their duty. It may be that certain people are not ready to obey the orders and that the constables are not there to watch them when they disobey the law.
St. Lawrence Waterway

At all events the matter was taken up with the mounted police, and, as a result of the representation and discussion that took place, one additional constable has been appointed in order to watch more closely the traffic around the parliament buildings.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Thank you. ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY



QUESTION AS TO MEMORANDUM BY DOCTOR HOGG SUPPORTING A SINGLE-STAGE DEVELOPMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend the member for Grenville-Dundas (Mr. Casselman) asked me yesterday if I could ascertain whether there was a document signed by Doctor Hogg which was in the nature of a memorandum with respect to a single-stage development of the international rapids section of the St. Lawrence. I am informed that there is no such document in the department. This morning one of the members of the staff communicated with Doctor Hogg, and he mentioned that there is no such document on his part anywhere.
I might add, however, that it is a fact, as was intimated in the press notice which was published in all Canadian papers on January 25 of this year, that the engineering advisers of the two governments are prepared to recommend a controlled single-stage scheme which differs in some respects from both the singlestage and the double-stage schemes which were chiefly discussed some years ago.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. NORMAN J. M. LOCKHART (Lincoln) :	In pursuance of my own question,
and in view of inquiries I have received from anxious parents who, as Christmas is less than a month away, anticipate sending extensive Christmas gifts to their soldier sons if these soldiers are not to be allowed to come home, may I ask whether the government can give some intimation now as to whether these men will be allowed to return home, as has been suggested in this house, under a more liberal provision with respect to transportation? I have received four or five inquiries in the matter.
Hon. C. G. POWER (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister of National Defence for Air):: The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) has stated on several occasions the policy with respect to Christmas leave. Christmas leave will be granted for a 
period of six days. I am not familiar with the details. With respect to free transportation, it is not the intention of the department to provide free transportation during Christmas leave.
Perhaps some confusion may arise on account of the dual role which I am now endeavouring to fill. My statement that arrangements have been made for leave of six days' duration applies to the army. So far as the air force is concerned we are making no special arrangements whatsoever for leave. The men have to get on with their training.



DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. NORMAN J. M. LOCKHART (Lincoln) : A communication I have received, the substance of which I believe is concurred in in other urban centres, intimates that the continuation of daylight saving is causing some inconvenience as regards train times in the cities. Can the government say whether or not the present arrangement is to be discontinued?
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: It is not the intention of the
government to discontinue the present regulation affecting daylight saving time. It was put in force as a very important means of saving electric power. As a matter of fact it is accomplishing a saving of about 190,000 horse-power, which represents a considerable number of man-hours and a considerable productive capacity for the war industries. It is felt that the public, while somewhat inconvenienced by the change, will be willing to make the slight sacrifice involved in order to make this power available to our war effort.


Mr. LOCKHART:: In the light of the
statement made by the minister and the apparent value of the present arrangement, could we not make it general all over Canada and have train schedules revised accordingly?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The purpose for which the
measure was passed would not be further served by extending the area. In view of the fact that my hon. friend prefaced his first question by saying that the public were greatly inconvenienced, I see no purpose in further inconveniencing the public without some definite gain to the war effort.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: A revised railway
schedule would perhaps solve the difficulty.

The Address-Mr. McLarty



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. H. McGREGOR (York East):: Could the Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty) give us any idea as to when unemployment insurance will be put into effect?


Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Minister of Labour):: I cannot give any definite date.
The commission is working on the regulations, the transfer of employment offices, and various other matters necessarily incident to the introduction. But at the present time I am unable to advise as to the definite date on which contributions will be required.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, November 27, consideraion of the motion of Mr. Brooke Claxton for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Blaekmore.
Norman Alexander McLarty: Mr. Speaker, I believe I shall best meet the wishes of this house if in the statement which I am going to give this afternoon I refrain from dealing with all aspects of the labour situation, but deal only with those that are definitely related to our war effort.
The importance of the part which labour plays in production of war materials and equipment in a mechanized war was so well expressed by the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) in this house a week ago that it is unnecessary for me to repeat it. He pointed out the accelerated tempo of productive activity now existing in this country, and explained that that tempo will increase until, in the period which he estimated at eight months, the maximum of our productive activity will have been attained. The point at which that maximum is so attained and the limitations by which it is restricted will doubtless be determined largely by the availability of labour. For that reason the problem of labour supply is a vital factor in our war achievement.
It will, of course, 'be recognized that there are necessarily limitations to the productive capacity of any country comprising twelve million people, but within that maximum limitation it is our duty to ensure the very greatest possible production and to develop
our man-power capacity to the maximum degree of efficiency. This war imposes that definite imperative. It should, too, be borne in mind and appreciated that when we reach that high point in our production so envisaged we would be producing as much, per capita, as any other country in the world.
I know that it is unnecessary to deal with many matters which are as well understood and appreciated by members of this house as by myself. It is needless, for instance, to deal with the matter of the various problems which must arise from turning our country from a peace to a war basis and developing the economic participation which war necessarily entails.
In addition, I do not have to remind this house that prior to the war we were emerging from the world's greatest depression, accompanied by the unfortunate incidence which such a depression brings, not alone on the efficiency of labour generally but peculiarly upon skilled labour as well.
Labour in general in depression times loses some of its skill; it has not the same incentive; it becomes blunt; and in addition many of our highly skilled workers returned to the United Kingdom where they felt a wider field of opportunity was open to the particular skill which they enjoyed.
Nor will I deal to-day with a strange phenomenon, namely, that notwithstanding the increased industrial activity there are still, according to the latest available figures, 52,500 employables receiving unemployment aid, to which figure must be added those unemployed who are not in receipt of relief. The degree of employability of those employables receiving unemployment aid must be seriously questioned, but notwithstanding that the paradox exists.
A similar situation exists in the United Kingdom, and the paradox has been referred to by Sir William Beveridge, chairman of the advisory committee on unemployment insurance, and explained in the following words:
The explanation of this paradox of mass overwork and mass idleness in war time is not far to seek. War, while it abolishes some types of peace-time unemployment, such as that due to cyclical depression, enormously increases another type. This is the qualitative unemployment due to the labour demanded being of one kind while the supply available is of another kind. War adds a new type of unemployment which may be described as bottle-neck unemployment, arising from the fact that the demand for labour is never a demand for labour alone, but for labour in conjunction with particular machines and particular raw materials.

The Address-Mr. McLarty

This statement of Sir William Beveridge, too, explains the circumstance that in June of this year there were in Great Britain, when the maximum of war effort was admittedly being put forth, 800,000 unemployed registered.
This paradox of unwilling idleness of many citizens in the midst of the great demands in war is surprising, 'but it is a definite fact. Bad in itself as a waste of strength, it is even worse psychologically, as suggesting to those who are being urged to additional efforts and sacrifices that these cannot really be required.
But the cure of unemployment in war is not as easy as the statement that it exists. It raises technical problems of great complexity; it involves necessarily the intimate cooperation of service and supply departments and the ministry of war services and of the ministry of labour and of the educational authorities; the organization of man-power is in the last resort a replanning and reorganizing of our whole production. The state is compelled to exert a dynamic control in the interests of the community and with the supreme object of maximum production of war requirements.
The fact, therefore, that we still have unemployed in Canada does not mean that we can face the future with complacency. Our margin of reserve of skilled and semiskilled labour is growing steadily less; and our returns of unemployment among members of trade unions show that in this class there exists the lowest unemployment figure in many years; it stands to-day at 4-4 per cent. In addition, unemployed registered at employment offices and suitable for employment in industrial war work has gradually decreased from a total of 25,500 on July 15 to 19,443 on October 15.
Taking the skilled trades alone, we find that during the same period the number of those available decreased from 11,767 to 6,345, a decrease of nearly 50 per cent. In the metal trades alone in this larger group we find a decrease from a total of 6,361 available in July to 2,950 available in October, a decline of nearly 55 per cent in this important available labour supply for industry.
I do not suggest that there is existing at present a general shortage of labour. There is not. But I do suggest there are certain specialized branches of labour in which this shortage to-day exists and which, unless adequate measures are taken to deal with its growth, will produce a situation and create a condition which will be extremely difficult to meet.

Having endeavoured to paint a reasonably fair and accurate picture of the situation as it affects labour supply, there are only two observations I desire to make:
1.	While the shortage of labour generally is not yet acute, a shortage of tool and die makers and mechanics generally is imminent, if not already at hand in some occupations.
2.	In the second place I would point out that two methods are being followed to ensure the maximum use of available labour and the training of additional skilled labour: the first is by governmental action; the second is by industry itself.
Referring to the first, governmental action, it will not be necessary in this connection to deal with the circumstances existing prior to the last session of parliament. For this reason I will not discuss the work of the dominion-provincial conference which was held shortly after the outbreak of war, the purpose of which was to secure an effective registration of skilled and semi-skilled labour available to our war industries. This resulted in a list of over 30,000 of our citizens being prepared, and this list has been kept up to date and is at present available.
Nor is it necessary for me to deal with the supply of professional technicians, a canvass of which was originally initiated by the Department of National Defence, and was undertaken by the Engineering Institute of Canada, the Canadian Institute of Chemistry, the Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, and various other professional institutes. The result of the canvass so made by these societies was later made available to the government through the work which was undertaken by Doctor Tory, and thereby over
15,000	names were made available in the technical section and afforded a reservoir of the highest skill in this highly important branch of war industry. Over 2,500 of these technicians have been referred to employers in answer to requests, and many more of them have been utilized in positions where their ability and training will be used to the best advantage.
The general problem of labour supply resolves itself into three parts:
1.	What has been done.
2.	What is being done.
3.	What it is proposed to do.
I would first like to tell the house what this government has done in connection with the basic training and development of expert labour during this war.
Through an expansion and redirection of the youth training programme and through

The Address-Mr,. McLarty
the use of funds voted by parliament for that particular programme, and drawing upon the war appropriation, the energies and work of this branch of the Labour department were all developed to the end of promoting our war work from the outset. During this past summer every one of the sixty-four technical schools in Canada possessing the required equipment and the necessary instructors was utilized for the purpose of promoting the training in war work of the young people of this country.
To-day our annual rate of training is in excess of 26,000 trainees per year, and this number is being constantly augmented and increased.
In the four months' training, which is the average time afforded, young men of this country are being given an education which will form the basis of the technical work which they are called upon to perform. The training so provided comes under two main categories:
1.	The training which is being done in the aircraft mechanics' course for entry into the Royal Canadian Air Force will develop 6,000 trainees per year at the present rate of training.
2.	The training for work in the war industries will produce an additional 24,000 basically trained workers per year.
We are, of course, hopeful of exceeding this objective, and every effort is being made I believe to bring this about.
This programme has been and is being carried out by the Department of Labour in cooperation with the various provincial governments in Canada. And might I here pay a tribute to the provincial governments for the wholehearted and loyal cooperation which they have afforded in connection with this work. It has, of course, been necessary for the dominion to increase its contribution to the carrying out of this programme.
It has, for example, given to the province concerned an additional $100 for each trainee who has completed the course in the air mechanics' class and who has been accepted by the Royal Canadian Air Force. It has been necessary also for the dominion government to absorb a substantial amount of the expense involved in the use of the vocational schools throughout Canada. But I believe that without exception the provincial governments have cooperated wholeheartedly in connection with both the air training classes and the general training of workers who will take their place in our war industries.
May I make one further remark? There are, I am advised, some of these young men
who have taken these courses and who are prepared to enter into industrial employment but are reluctant to do so because they feel that their primary duty is to join the active fighting forces of Canada on the land, on the sea and in the air. This should not necessarily be so. No inferiority complex should be created. The young man who devotes himself to industry, who endeavours to promote productive activity, who works at making bullets, is as vital and as essential as the man who fires them.
A few nights ago in the course of this debate the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Jackman) suggested that of these trainees there were approximately 25 per cent who were not placed in productive employment. Naturally his information would be based upon a certain definite time. This is a continuous thing, Mr. Speaker, and if his information were based on a certain time he might well be correct. But that is not the situation to-day. Of those who were in the summer training in our vocational schools-and I would like to make it clear to the house that that training is not limited to the summer but is going on and increasing to-day-over ninety per cent have been placed in productive activity. There are certain trainees who were trained in what might not be regarded as highly industrialized areas. It has been: necessary, and this government is paying the transportation expense to take those men from those areas which are not highly industrialized and place them in industries where they are most badly needed. And the suggestion has been definitely made to me that within the space of two weeks practically one hundred per cent of the men who have received that training will be definitely in the employment of industry.
There is too, sir, a second and very vital consideration, and that is to the extent to which industry itself has been willing to undertake and participate in the training of men for war-time industry. The duty of industry in respect of this important work was emphasized some months ago. Speaking in this house on June 17 last I pointed out that while the government might do its share in the basic training of skilled mechanics, the primary responsibility in regard to this accelerated training rested upon the shoulders of industry itself.
A canvass has been made of industry by the national labour supply council to determine the number of additional employees which will be required in carrying out the war work and the number of men which each industry is training for this purpose. While the number being trained is somewhat disappointing, there
4S4
The Address-Mr,. McLarty

is definite evidence that industry is now cooperating both with the vocational schools and in providing the necessary training in their own plants. I am confident that with this cooperation the training of workers will greatly increase during the next few months.
In addition the government has appointed and is appointing officials whose duty it is to facilitate cooperation between employers and the trainees in vocational schools, as well as to promote and increase the training being given in essential industrial plants. The work in this regard is being increased as rapidly as circumstances permit.
Might I give an instance, a rather interesting one, of an experiment which was carried on by one industry which is engaged in shipbuilding in the maritime provinces. A little time ago they placed an advertisement in fifteen newspapers, spread from Winnipeg to Calgary. The3' advertised for mechanics skilled in the manufacture of ships. The result of the advertisement was that they had applications from 227 skilled men. They selected from that number those which they required. The advice which I have received from the president of that company indicates that most of those men, who received their training in the old country, are highly skilled mechanics, I believe in the highest class of shipbuilding work, namely platens. In addition, while they are not foremen in the plants, each of these men selected is capable of training from ten to fifteen other men in the less skilled work, thereby carrying into effect a plan which will be essential if we are to keep a labour supply for our war industries. That is an example of an industry, on its own initiative, undertaking to train the necessary measure of skilled labour it requires. I believe the example might well be followed by a great many other industries in Canada; and while perhaps it is not being followed along the same line I am convinced that every war industry is endeavouring in some way to increase the volume of skilled labour available for employment.
On June 19 last the government appointed the national labour supply council, equally representative of labour and industry. That council has as its chairman Mr. Arthur J. Hills of Montreal. There are five representatives of labour and five of industry, and an equal number from each of alternate members.
This council has been extremely helpful. I have already referred to the canvass of industries which it has made to determine future labour requirements and the training being afforded by each industry. It has,

too, prepared a list of reserved occupations; and has been of assistance in maintaining in industry those workmen whose importance in industrial work is greater than it would be in the military forces. It has in addition promoted a greater mutual understanding between labour and industry.
In addition it was this council which recommended to the government that the matter of labour supply was not one with which a particular department alone was concerned, but that it required the cooperation of a number of departments. For that reason a committee of labour coordination was set up under the chairmanship of Doctor Bryce Stewart, deputy minister of labour. The other members are:
Doctor W. A. Mackintosh-Department of
Finance; Colonel George S. Currie-Department of National Defence; Major-General L. R. LaFleche-Department of National War Services; Mr. R. J. Waterous, K.C.-Department of National War Services; Mr. H. B. Chase-Department of Munitions and Supply; Mr. Arthur J. Hills-Chairman, National Labour Supply Council.


Mr. JACKMAN:: If a list of reserved occupations has been set up, is it the intention of the government to honour that list?


Norman Alexander McLarty: That matter, Mr. Speaker, is receiving definite attention by the committee the personnel of which I just mentioned. No doubt what action will be taken by the government will depend on certain factors. It must be remembered, for example, that in the army itself nearly forty per cent of the men have to be skilled mechanics, because of the nature of present day mechanized warfare, and I have no doubt that a fair balance will have to be maintained between those drafted into the army and those left with industry.
The duties and responsibilities of this committee are of extreme importance. It has for its general objective the determination of labour required, especially in skilled occupations, for the war effort, and the devising of ways and means of meeting these requirements. In the determination of these labour requirements, the demand from three main sources must be satisfied: the recruiting services, government agencies giving civilian employment, and firms working on government contracts. I might deal with these individually.
1.	The demand from the recruiting services, such as defence, the naval and air services, will be enlisting men. The total number of men to be enlisted during the next six months' period, the skilled occupations necessarily included and the number of men in each is being ascertained.

The Address-Mr. McLarty
2.	The demand from government agencies giving civilian employment. Men will be taken on for work in the arsenals, shipyards, the construction of airports, and other direct employment under the government. The total number and the requirements in the skilled trades for the next six months is made available to the committee by the departments concerned.
3.	The third demand, namely from government contractors and sub-contractors, is no doubt the greatest of the three. The matter of enticing of skilled labour by employers, which, if allowed to continue, would have produced a chaotic situation in industry, has already been dealt with by order in council on the recommendation of the committee. The labour needs, more especially for skilled workers, of all firms on government contracts are being ascertained and placed before the committee. These returns give the skilled occupations and the numbers required in each for the next six months or until present commitments are completed.
The data thus secured will give the committee some measurement of skilled labour requirements at present and for some months ahead and will indicate in what occupations and locations the labour is needed. This information is being supplemented by reports from all departments of government concerned. As soon as the enlistment of a quota of men, or a new governmental project or a new contract, is decided upon, the committee is to be advised so that the necessary labour may be determined and measures to secure it considered before the project is launched.
In addition this committee is engaged in the determination of the present labour reserve;' and various possible sources of labour are being canvassed to learn the number and location of required workers available.
This is being done through the following channels:
1.	Through trade unions. The unions which have members in the occupations required are being asked to furnish the committee with lists of unemployed or partially employed members or members working in non-essential industries, or men with required skills now employed in other occupations.
2.	Through the use of the provincial employment offices. The cards of the active files in the employment offices are being examined to discover applicants in the required occupations or in allied occupations, and the result of this survey is available to the committee.
3.	The same procedure as has been adopted in connection with the employment offices
will be followed in connection with the national registration cards as and when they become available.
4.	The approximate dates upon which firms can complete their commitments is being given to the committee so that new contracts may be given them without any call on the labour market, so that if new contracts are not assigned them some part of their labour force may be used elsewhere.
The committee, too, is taking steps for the conserving and augmenting of the labour supply by the following methods:
1.	In the recruiting policy they are endeavouring to ensure that men in the required occupations should not be recruited unnecessarily, and any already with the forces not being used in their trades should be returned to war industries as needed. A survey of the number of enlisted men in Canada in the scarce trades is being undertaken and the results made available to the committee.
2.	Apprenticeship. As a rule apprenticeship training covers too long a period to afford any important increase in the number of skilled workers in the emergency. Intensive instruction may speed uip the completion of courses and make a number available to industry somewhat sooner. The character of the instruction is being checked to ensure that so far as possible the men are being trained in the required occupations.
3.	Pre-employment training in technical schools, to which I have already referred. A survey is being made to ascertain that the training is being directed to the scarce trades; that it is not putting undue stress on theory; that the men are being trained in a short range of skills rather than all the skills of an occupation; that the facilities are being used in shifts in order to train the maximum number; that there is proper cooperation with local industry for use of plant equipment, and to ascertain when students <vill graduate and in what numbers.


Howard Charles Green: In connection with the
matter of training, has the government any plan for training middle-aged men or training women for industry, or for training men who have been discharged from the army? Perhaps the minister was going to cover that point later, but he did not mention it in connection with his training plan.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Consideration definitely is being given to that point. We are training a limited number of middle-aged men, but the number is not at present great.


Howard Charles Green: 
Norman Alexander McLarty: I think that statement
would be generally correct, although we are now endeavouring to train some of those who are older. We are investigating the possibility of securing instructors. If I may say so the bottle-neck of the plan has been the shortage of equipment and instructors. In other words, we are training all that we can possibly train, given the number of instructors available and the equipment which we can obtain.


Howard Charles Green: Is there any training of
women for industry?


Norman Alexander McLarty: So far the Department of Labour has not trained any women as part of the project. Of course, industry itself is doing some training.


Mr. CHURCH:: Has the minister made any representations to industry about these forgotten men, the men of forty-five years and over? In the Toronto district no one will employ them. Has the minister made any arrangements to take care of the thousands of men who joined the army and then were turned adrift after three or six months because of some medical disability?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I think my colleague, the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie), will have some proposal to offer in connection with the latter part of the hon. member's question. As to the first part of his question, I would not want to say that definite representations have been made to industry to employ older men. I think that is something which industry will have to take upon itself. As demand increases and the supply diminishes, industry will almost automatically be required to take on older men and women.


Thomas Langton Church: Will relief be continued through this winter for the two classes of persons I have n*entioned?


Norman Alexander McLarty: That question covers too much ground to be answered offhand, and I should not want to make any commitments in connection with it. This is a matter of government policy which will have to be considered thoroughly before any answer could be given.


Howard Charles Green: Would it not be possible to train some of these women and middle-aged men in the technical schools, along with the youths?


Norman Alexander McLarty: The difficulty in that connection is in obtaining the necessary number of instructors. So far there has been no lack in the number of trainees offering themselves.

If a shortage of trainees should develop, then training could be given to those middle-aged persons who could perform useful service.


Howard Charles Green: If that were done you would get away from the conflict with the forces. The forces want the young men; they do not want middle-aged men.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Quite true. The committee is considering the training of older people.
4.	The fourth step that the committee is taking has to do with training in industry. Government contractors with proper facilities may be required to train stated numbers of workers in the scarce trades as a condition of the contract. This training should take the form of upgrading. Jobs should be broken down, and the trained mechanics should do only the most skilled part of the work. The rest of the job should be divided among a few others nearest to him in line, each of whom should be broken in on his part of the job with a few weeks' training. Others behind them should move into their places, and so on through the plant. New employees should be taken on at the lower levels and moved up as rapidly as their abilities and the circumstances permit.
A survey is being made to determine plant facilities for training in the required occupations, the instructors available and how their number may be increased, and the number of trainees that may be graduated in a given period. This survey will be first applied to war industries and then to others if deemed advisable.
5.	Training by federal government agencies. To meet their needs for skilled workers in the navy, army and air force, the arsenals and shipyards through the departments concerned must undertake to upgrade men as required of industry.
6.	Transfer of workers. Provision to facilitate transfer of available workers to points where they can be placed must be made. I have already dealt with this transfer of trainees.


Howard Charles Green: The government pays the transportation?


Norman Alexander McLarty: That is correct.
7.	A survey has been initiated to determine the number and locations of employees in the scarce trades now attached to non-essential or depressed industries who could be drawn into work on government contracts if that should become necessary.
8.	Recruiting of women for industry and war auxiliary to the services. The extent to which women may be substituted for men

The Address-Mr, McLarty
in war industries should the need arise is being studied with a view to provision for their training. As men are upgraded into higher jobs many women might be employed on jobs at the lower levels. Similarly in non-war industries, upgrading would release skilled men for war plants and, in many, women could be taken on to replace them.
9.	Labour priority for war industries. A survey is being made to establish a list of the non-essential industries which employ labour in the scarce trades and to determine the number of such workers employed. It may be found necessary to deny such industries the right to engage any additional men required in the essential occupations and, secondly, to transfer some of their skilled labour to war industries.
This gives some picture of the wide duties and functions of this committee. Its personnel is, I believe, the surest guarantee of its efficient performance of its difficult but exceedingly important task.
This brings me to another important function of this committee upon which it will have to report but which, being a matter of policy, becomes a direct responsibility of the government. We are all aware that to-day all our citizens are called upon to make sacrifices-sacrifices which will be all the greater as the war progresses and time marches on. This is a total war, and the primary duty of government in the matter of sacrifice is to see that it is equally distributed.
Many will plead that they are making more sacrifices than their neighbours. But our world to-day is inspired by those who bear their heavy griefs with patience; it pays little heed to those who parade their petty grievances with impatience.
In Canada to-day our war effort depends on two great services-our fighting services and our producing services. Each is essential, each is interdependent, and each is determined to back the other to the utmost degree. But maximum production depends on the most efficient possible use of the human and material resources at our disposal. Manufacturing plants must be well equipped with modern tools and machinery and skilled men and women. They must operate to capacity within the limits of sustained efficiency. Wherever possible they must operate on two or even three shifts and in many instances production is continuous so that operation subject to another day being finished even on Sunday is necessary.
These conditions do not obtain generally in peace time, and it is but natural that the transition to war-time conditions raises problems concerning relations between employer and
employee, principally the problem of remuneration for work done. In peace time, when the supply of labour has been plentiful, the tendency has been towards a shorter day and working week. That purpose has been twofold ; originally to reduce fatigue and provide leisure for recreation; and later to spread the work and reduce unemployment.
The working day has been reduced to eight hours generally and the week to forty-four hours. Provision exists for the working of hours in excess of those outlined above, under special conditions, and overtime rates of pay have been established. These rates usually provide for payment of rates fifty per cent higher than straight time and in the case of work performed on Sundays, one hundred per cent higher. These last are punitive rates, designed to discourage the working of a seven day week. We must now give careful consideration to the question of the application of such punitive rates when war conditions have practically eliminated the reasons which originally necessitated their introduction. In the case of work which has to be performed on Sundays, some employees will be so employed but if they* are given another day off during the week instead, it would be hard to defend the payment of punitive rates for Sunday work.
To-day we are approaching the point where, even generally speaking, a labour shortage will exist, and under the circumstances we must consider the question of lengthening the standard working week from forty-four hours to forty-eight or even higher, as the new basis for calculating what overtime rates shall be payable. We have reached the point at which, instead of planning to spread the work, we are actually seeking workers to man our rapidly expanding war industries.
With the distressing news concerning havoc wrought by the enemy in such centres as Coventry, Birmingham, Bristol and Southampton still ringing in our ears, and with the Minister of Shipping admitting that sinkings are going on at a greater rate than replacements, I suggest that this is no time for us to be thinking of maintaining standards which do not take into account the urgency of the situation.
In considering the possibility of lengthening the working week we appreciate that this involves the possible temporary-I should like to emphasize that, Mr. Speaker-the temporary relinquishing of certain standards which labour has established over the years. The only excuse for asking that these temporary concessions-and it must be admitted that they are temporary and for the emergency period only-be considered is that we must win the war, and sacrifice is unavoidable.
The Address-Mr.. McLarty


Mr. MacINNIS:: The minister says that
these concessions will be temporary. May I ask if it is the intention of the government to make that definite by legislation?


Norman Alexander McLarty: No. So far as I am
aware the government has no such intention.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It has the power now by order in council.


Norman Alexander McLarty: We could do it but it will not be necessary. If you start from the fundamental basis that labour is willing and anxious to cooperate, you do not need legislation; you do not need to wield the big stick to get them to do it. I am going to read three resolutions before I get through to show-


Angus MacInnis: The minister misunderstood me. Labour will be willing to make the concessions, but after the concessions are made will labour have to go through the same fight as they have had over the years to get those rights restored? In Great Britain every concession is registered, and it does not come into effect until it is registered.


Georges Parent: Order. If the*hon. member wishes to ask a question he may do so with the minister's permission.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I can answer that quite readily. In the order in council passed by this government on June 19, in which we made certain observations as to what we considered was the best method of preserving the best possible relations between industry and labour in war time, we made it very clear that any concession made by labour in this emergency period would be for the emergency only. In his address a couple of weeks ago to this house the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) reinforced that statement of policy by stating that when labour was making these concessions it was our definite duty when the emergency was over to see that labour did not suffer as a result. I do not think there can be any question about this government's attitude.
If lengthened, the working week must not be made inordinately long, as experience has taught us that beyond certain limits, fatigue more than offsets any advantage gained in production as a result of longer hours. The present working week is short of the point at which fatigue becomes a factor, and it may be found desirable to lengthen progressively the working week as the available labour supply diminishes.
Should these steps be found desirable, the sacrifice involved will be offset to a very large extent by increased incomes due to steady work and longer working hours, and by the controls 
adopted which have effectively protected all from unduly increased living costs. A study of workers' incomes in certain industries reveals the fact that where wage increases have been ten per cent since the outbreak of war, actual incomes have increased much more, and I suggest therefore that it is a problem of adjusting labour standards in the war effort by rational and logical approach on the part of all concerned.
The interest of the public in the situation is a very definite one indeed, exceeding in some cases the interest of the employer. This interest is, of course, evident from the fact that the government is the principal buyer, and in addition because of the policy which the government has followed to prevent the exploitation of war-time needs by any form of profiteering. One of the means to this end adopted by the government was to require all those who tender on government orders to do so on the basis of existing prices for labour and material, the government undertaking in some instances to protect the contractor against increases in either labour or material. This has saved the taxpayers of Canada a considerable amount of money.
I should like to put on Hansard-l am reminded of it by the question of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis)- one or two resolutions to show the attitude of labour and the cooperative viewpoint that now exists. Here is a resolution from a group of working men which indicates clearly their attitude of cooperation and willingness to accept their share of sacrifice in making common cause against the enemy. It is from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers in Toronto, and reads:
That we notify all employers of our members we have decided to temporarily suspend the provision of our now existing agreement, which limits the hours of work, and will work eight hours per day, six days per week at straight time, during the present crisis, these to be between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday (holidays not included). It being distinctly understood that our agreement, as at present constituted, shall remain unchanged and the suspended provision shall immediately, at the end of this crisis, automatically become effective.
A few days ago a friend of mine was talking to the general manager of a large industrial plant. He asked the general manager if they were experiencing any difficulty in stepping up their production. The general manager replied that they were not. They called a meeting with their employees, told them the facts of the situation, and asked for suggestions. The outcome was a voluntary
4S9

The Address-Mr. Homuth
arrangement whereby employees in that plant are working at more than prescribed hours per week for straight time wages.
I could give a great many examples, Mr. Speaker, of plants in which the same thing is happening. But the point is, when it is suggested that this be done by some arbitrary method, that the best way to do it is by mutual local agreement, and this method has been followed in a great many instances.
I have here another resolution passed by the carpenters' union of the city of Regina:
Therefore be it resolved that we, the carpenters of Regina, represented by the above mentioned local union, do hereby promise, from this date and until this present war is won by the British empire of which we are proud to be a part, "to work on government war work only for straight time for ten hours each day and for six days per week, including Sundays and holidays, for the rate of wages as set out in the agreement and signed by all parties concerned" for all carpenters and for all carpenter work.
I merely give these, sir, as typical illustrations of the willingness of labour to cooperate voluntarily.
There is, sir, a right way and a wrong way to deal with and adjust every problem of human relations. It has been urged upon the government that by some fiat, by some ukase, we should order labour to do certain things in the matter of wages paid or hours of labour worked. There might be conceived some circumstances in which the government might be required to take such action. But those circumstances do not exist to-day. What labour is looking for is not regimentation but direction. It has made that abundantly clear. Dealing as we are with a cooperative body, why should such action be necessary? That is the wrong way.
I was interested in reading a report of the remarks made by the Minister of Labour in Great Britain, in the House of Commons yesterday, in which he said:
Had we applied conscription of labour in the manner suggested, we should have made direct for defeat. Compulsion does not give the desired result.
The right way is to assume that this is fundamentally labour's war, and that being so, that labour-organized and unorganized- is willing to contribute its maximum effort in this critical time. It involves a definite consultation with labour, a testing-out of the viewpoint of labour. The use of the big stick is unnecessary when we are all engaged in a common purpose. I am convinced that that is the right way. And I am equally convinced that if we adopt it, it will redound to the benefit of the Canadian people during war time, it will be of definite assistance in 14873-32
the aftermath of war, and it will immeasurably promote the happiness and prosperity of our Canadian people.


Mr. BRUCE:: May I ask a question of the minister? I did not wish to interrupt him while he was giving his excellent address, but when he was dealing with the difficulty of obtaining instructors for the technical schools I wondered whether anything had been done to enable the release for that purpose from the army of men who are skilled mechanics. I have been told that our technical schools in Toronto could train two to three times as many young men and women as they are doing if they had sufficient instructors. Has anything been done in that regard? .


Norman Alexander McLarty: Nothing definite has been done in that connection. It is receiving consideration at the present time, along with the problem of withdrawing those who might be more useful in industry than in the army. One practical thing we are endeavouring to bring about-I cannot say that it has been definitely done-is to obtain highly skilled employees of the railroads who have been retired, so as to utilize them as instructors. We know that it will not be difficult to interest them, and we hope to be able to use a great number of them if they are available.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In the matter of the enlisted man, as I understand the position now, it is left to the man himself to say whether he will ask for his release, and without that the army officials cannot act; they cannot peremptorily take him out of the army and put him in industry. Is that not the position to-day?


Norman Alexander McLarty: The leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) is dealing with a matter on which others are probably better qualified to speak than I am, but my impression is that his statement is correct.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The man himself decides.
Mr. KARL K. HOMUTH (Waterloo South): First, I want to congratulate the Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty) on a very enlightening address to this house. An address like that is the sort of information which this house wants from the ministers who have the responsibility of carrying on our war effort.
I wish also to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on the attitude you have taken with respect to the reading of speeches in this chamber. I would hesitate to interrupt a speaker who is reading a speech, to draw the fact to your attention, but on several occasions I have spoken to you personally,

The Address-Mr. Homuth

because I do feel the practice is unfair. In my opinion the same rule should apply to cabinet ministers. I say that in fairness to the private members of this house. Cabinet ministers should not be accorded any more consideration, except on occasions when, for example, they are making some statement which deals with a new policy, or dealing with some matter of international importance, or reading exhaustive figures. I congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, upon your attitude in this respect, although I think that, as regards new members-and we can leave this to your judgment'-they should be given more leeway in their maiden speeches than those who have been in the house for some time and have previously taken part in its debates.
Before I enter upon the general subject matter of my remarks, I feel constrained to make emphatic reference to something which has happened in the last two or three days. I refer to the decision announced by the board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to defer action against the Transradio press service. To my mind this is a serious matter. A few days ago the Dies committee in the United States issued a white paper in which they showed that this service received some $44,000 for the purpose of broadcasting nazi propaganda throughout Canada and the United States. It was as a result of this disclosure that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's governors decided to appoint a committee and take action. I believe they have now referred it to a subcommittee. I am sorry that they have not taken definite action and ruled these people off the air. We have enough to contend with in this country without having that insidious nazi propaganda going over the airways of Canada, and I hope that the minister will decide to take definite action in this matter. It is a serious thing. Propaganda of this kind can do a great deal of harm to our war effort.
There is no one who would at any time question the courage of the men in our army, our air force, and our navy. The fact that they are in the service is sufficient evidence of their courage. But we must have courage in other places in this country. We must have courage in this house. We must have courage in this government,-courage to do the things which are necessary to the war effort, courage to pass such laws as are necessary to give the greatest help we can to the mother country in this hour of extreme peril. I feel that sometimes we are inclined to soft-pedal some of our responsibilities because of some political effect that action might have on portions of our population. That thing must not be. Here in this 
house, and particularly with the ministers, there must be courage to face these issues as we have never faced issues before.
I have heard during this debate rather alarming things from some hon. members. Two or three, for example, have referred to an undergrading of wheat going to the elevators in western Canada. For many years I have heard these charges; I do not know whether they are true or not, but statements to this effect have been made on the floor of the house. It is a serious matter. Goodness knows the farmer gets little enough for the products he raises. If undergrading is going on, the government should have the courage to have it stopped and to see to it that wherever cases of the kind can be traced, farmers are reimbursed for anything out of which they have been cheated.
The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Esling) made the statement yesterday that many of the British Columbia Doukhobors have not registered, that they defy our laws. There can be no neutrality in Canada in regard to the war. We are either for our war effort or against it. If there are in any community in this country people who are not prepared to play their part, this government and the authorities must take action against them. Any man in my district who failed to register-and there have been a few-has been taken into court and fined, or, if he cannot pay the fine, he must go to gaol. They tell me that some of these people would be glad to go to gaol. Well, perhaps gaol is too good for them. If so, they should be put in an internment camp and made to work. At any rate, they should be compelled to live up to the laws of Canada. These are some of the things in which we must show courage, particularly at a time such as this.
The other day I was amazed when the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) raised a question with reference to the men who had been arrested at the Chrysler plant and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) stated that it was under an order in council passed by the government that this plant had been declared a protected area. The hon. member for Cape Breton South inquired whether the Department of Justice had ordered the arrest of these strikers, and the reply of the Minister of Labour was:
My information is that the arrests were made by local and provincial police, under the instructions, not of the dominion government but of the Attorney General of Ontario.
These men were arrested because of the violation of a law passed by this House of Commons. The police officers, whether they

The Address-Mr. Homuth
be municipal, provincial or federal, are sworn to uphold the law. This law is our responsibility ; it was passed by the government of the day. It was under this law that these men were arrested. Let us, then, take responsibility for it. Let us show that we have the courage to stand by the things which we believe are necessary in our war effort.
I have been particularly pleased during this session to listen to the tolerant speeches which have been made. Only on one or two occasions have there been speeches that savoured perhaps of politics. I do wish however to associate myself with the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) in his mild, yet, I think, deserved criticism of the government or of some members of the government wYho, when we offer certain criticisms of the government, are inclined to yell something across the floor of the house to the effect that we are sabotaging the war effort. I realize it only comes from two or three sources, but it is rather unkind, because there is not a member of this house who is not definitely behind the government in everything it is willing to do in this war effort.
I wish to refer for a moment to one-third of the speech made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). I have a very high regard for the Minister of Agriculture. No one loves a political battle more than I do; no one will fight any political battle harder than I will; and I like to hear the Minister of Agriculture, at other times than the present at any rate, when he is making very strong fighting speeches. I say, I like to hear him, and therefore often, when we have dented the armour of the government, I have watched private members turn their faces pleadingly to the Minister of Agriculture, waiting for the moment when he will get up and rescue the government from the criticisms of the opposition.
The Minister of Agriculture referred to the election of March 26 and rather prided himself on winning his riding and on the fact that the government had come back with such a large majority. Perhaps we are all willing to admit that at that time the war efforts of this government were considerably beclouded-*


Richard Burpee Hanson: Were
there any?


Mr. HOMUTH:: Of course, what there
were. But later on in the following session a certain truth came out that more or less substantiated the stand we had taken. The people of the country are not interested in political speeches; they do not want political speeches. We are at war. Let us therefore fight our political battles when the proper time 14873-324
comes, but while we are at war, let us show that tolerance that has been so prevalent throughout this session, and let everyone do his utmost to further our war effort.
There are rumours. We all hear rumours, rumours that are sometimes disturbing, and in my opinion if the government were a little more frank with the people many of these rumours would disappear. Greater frankness will dispel these rumours, and that is one thing we must make sure of. I have listened carefully to the minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power), the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald) and the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe). One of the unfortunate things I find-and it is more prevalent in some departments of government-is that we still have our peace-time set-up, and our peace-time set-up is not good enough. Some of these men cannot adapt themselves to the war-time tempo and when problems arise which the minister feels perhaps are too much for him to handle he creates another board. Board after board has been set up in Canada and I doubt whether a member of the cabinet can get up and tell us how many boards there are operating in	the city	of	Ottawa	andthroughout the country. The question is: Are these boards	coordinating	their efforts,
and are they doing the job they are intended to do? How many of these boards are clashing with each other in the work they have to carry out?
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) the other day told us of the great need for money. We all agree with him. There is an old saying that if you take	care of	the	pennies	thepounds will take	care of	themselves.	We
have wasted a lot of money in this war effort, and I say this not in any spirit of criticism. What I have to say to-day is said entirely because I wish to assist in every way I can and to help the government in its war effort. But we have wasted a lot of money because we have retained for many months the peacetime set-up which was disastrous to the work we had to do in preparing for this war. At the beginning of the war-and to some extent this is still taking place-goods manufactured hundreds of miles from Ottawa were shipped into Ottawa for inspection and shipped back to the very town or city from which they came, to be distributed to the troops. I have seen cloth from a mill hundreds of miles from this city sent 'here for inspection and shipped back to within two blocks of the mill to be made into overcoats. It was the peacetime set-up that was the cause of the waste of so much money. I say to the government that if they would look into many of these
The Address-Mr. Homuth

smaller things they could save far more money than they are getting in from their war savings stamps.
I have seen ten trucks waiting at the freight shed to take a load a distance of half a mile, and they took two loads in a day when two trucks could have taken ten loads in the day. These are things for practical men to deal with, men who have the ability to organize, and they could be the means of great savings to this government.
The people are being taxed as they were never taxed before, and what they are being taxed to-day will be almost nothing in comparison with what they will have to pay in the future. They are not complaining, and they are not going to complain, but they do ask whether the government is getting a dollar of value for every dollar spent. In so many areas they have seen such waste of money that they become a little suspicious of our war effort.
The Minister of National Defence spoke of the building of barracks. I have no hesitation in saying that was one of the most extravagant jobs ever carried on in this country. By letting the contracts to local contractors, who would have bid on them and put them up in just as quick time, there would have been a saving of hundreds of thousands of dollars. But the army went ahead and built these things and the carelessness and waste of money and time was enormous. I say to the government that this peace-time organization is no good. Get the best men you can get. particularly practical men, men who know something about these jobs, not men who have sat behind mahogany desks in offices but superintendents of plants, builders and men who can be very useful to this government and are only too anxious to be so.
For the first time in the history of this country, I suppose, we had a civilian as master of the ordnance. On several occasions I went to see him with certain suggestions which I thought would save the government money and also save foreign exchange. I never knew a man in a government office more responsive to suggestions. than Mr. Chester was. Sometimes within a week the new order went out and the change was made, meaning an immense saving to the government. Now I understand Mr. Chester is leaving, and I think a newspaper man is coming to take his place. Mr. Chester is a practical man; I am sorry he is going. I believe that those of us who have had associations with him, who know of his ability and what he was able to accomplish. are entitled to an explanation from the Minister of National Defence as to why that man is leaving the service of the country.
Mr. Homuth.]
Now for a moment I should like to deal with finance, and particularly with the last war loan. I was very much interested in what the Minister of Finance said the other day. But I do believe, as my leader and other members of this house believe, that the last war loan was not the success it ought to have been, in spite of the fact that we may have received thirty or forty million dollars more than we asked for. We did not get the money from the sources to which we were appealing. I believe that right in the middle of it the government changed its mind as to its policy in raising money. Prior to the war loan being advertised prominent men from one end of this country to the other received a telegram from this government asking if they would cooperate and organize for the purpose of selling the war loan. I venture to say that in every instance the government got a reply expressing every willingness to cooperate, just as men were willing to cooperate in the last war. But that was the last these men ever heard of it. They were never called into conference; they were never asked to get together and organize. Apparently after sending out the wires the government decided to sell the war loan through the brokerage houses. So that in every village and town and city in this country every insurance agent, anyone at all who knew a brokerage house, could write in and ask for the privilege of selling the bonds. There was no enthusiasm stirred up; there was no local committee, nothing done to encourage the people, particularly those with the smaller savings in the banks, to participate in this loan.
I hope that when subscriptions to the next war loan are being asked from the people of this country the government will go back to the system we had in the last war, when nrominent men throughout the country held public meetings, stirred up enthusiasm, brought home to the people their responsibility to subscribe; also that it will be in such denominations that people can buy S50 and $100 worth, as they did in the last war, and that they shall be able to get them through the offices of the industries with which they work.


An hon. MEMBER:: And get six per cent.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: My hon. friend says six per cent. I am sick and tired of hearing about the percentage being paid on the war loan. I have enough confidence in the people ot this country to feel sure that if they have to lend their money for nothing they will do it, if only we give them the leadership.
Another suggestion I want to make to the Minister of Finance and the Minister ot

The Address-Mr. Homuth
National War Services is in respect to our Red Cross and allied services. In our town-*
I think we were the first town in the country to do it-we put on a joint drive last year. We assured the people of our municipality that they would be asked only once in the year to subscribe to these various war services. We linked the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, the Knights of Columbus, the Y.M.C.A. and local requirements all together. Our people, knowing that they were not going to be asked to subscribe to some different service every two or three months, contributed exceptionally well, oversubscribed what we asked for, and thus we were able to take care of our allotment for all these various services. The government should give leadership in seeing that that same thing is done throughout this whole country. It has worked exceptionally well, and many municipalities are taking it up. Why the Red Cross object to it I do not know, but I understand there is an objection. It has worked well, and people subscribed freely; whereas if you make four or five appeals in a year they get tired of the continuous pleading for money. I suggest that the government give leadership in this matter.
I thought perhaps this afternoon the Minister of Labour would make some reference to what was said by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) in his broadcast a week ago last Sunday night. I thought perhaps the Minister of Munitions and Supply would make some reference to it. Apparently this famous master mind from Saskatchewan, who spent most of his life on a farm or teaching school, tells his fellow ministers, the heads of industry in this country and the great mass of industrial workers just what should and can be done so far as trained industrial workers are concerned. He went to England; I believe he was away for six weeks. So far as he could he settled all problems with regard to wheat, pork, cheese and fruits. He did all those jobs; he did a little travelling round the country; he inspected the ruins; I believe he had an audience with his majesty. Undoubtedly he was invited out for luncheon and dinner on various occasions. 1 do not know whether he slept at all, but certainly when he returned hs gave us to understand that in the course of the time that elapsed between leaving here and returning, he had done all these things and, in addition, had become an expert on industry. He told us that industry in this dominion needed to have only five per cent of its employees skilled workmen.


Mr. McCANN:: He did not say that.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Yes, he did.
Mr. McCANN; No; that was in Great Britain.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: He said that was all we needed here, or in any event that certainly was the inference. Of course he says things he does not mean; in fact, sometimes I think he does not know what he is talking about.


Mr. CLEAVER:: He is not alone in that.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: The lone voice from Hal ton is heard again. I do say, however, that the statement the minister made was serious, and both industry and labour are wondering whether the remarks of the Minister of Agriculture represent the considered ideas of the government of the day. Men who have spent three, four or five years as apprentices; men and women who have spent two or three years learning, and then gone on for many more years before becoming absolutely efficient in their jobs, want to know if that is the attitude of the government. Is that what the government thinks of skilled labour in this country?
The Minister of Labour himself comes from a district in which there are industries employing highly skilled men, doing some of the finest work; industries in which nearly every employee is highly skilled. The Minister of Labour knows the statement of the Minister of Agriculture is not correct. Therefore I feel that before this debate is over, some member of the cabinet ought to clear the air. If the Minister of Agriculture made that statement on his own responsibility, without giving the matter adequate consideration, let him admit it. Everyone makes mistakes; we are all bound to make them, but this seems to me rather a serious mistake. I come from a highly industrialized county, and I can say that the heads of our industries have been only too willing to cooperate in every way with the Department of National War Services, and have been willing to do everything possible in order to permit their men to take military training. They feel, however, that a policy or idea such as this will be disastrous to our industrial set-up and to the tempo of industrial life in Canada.
For a moment I should like to deal with a particular activity in my own riding. I was interested in what the Minister of Labour said about the training of youth. I do not think in this country there is a youth training scheme that has done as good work as is being done at the Galt aircraft school. Here I should like to pay a tribute to the minister of labour of Ontario, who is doing a wonderful job there. As a result of his practical knowledge of industry and labour, and of this sort of work, he has built up at Galt a school
The Address-Mr. Homuth

which has turned out about 1,100 aircraft workers now employed in the aircraft factories of this dominion, as well as about 1,000 young men who have taken their places in the air force. That school started in September with 200 men. The next class numbered 300; these were for the air force only. The third class numbered 613. Every time they have been asked by the government to double the number of students they have done so, and I believe the government might ask them once more to double their number. I believe they are able to do so; I think they have the necessary instructors with which to carry on. I would suggest that the number of students be greatly increased, because this is one of the sources from which we are obtaining not only our air mechanics but also the skilled workers for the various aeroplane factories in Canada.
I am told by industrialists who have taken these boys into their plants that within three months these boys are as far advanced in machine-shop practice as an ordinary boy taking three years of instruction in a technical school. That of course is because of the intense training these boys receive. I feel that a few more of these schools throughout the country would do a great deal towards looking after the boys who are coming out of school who are too young for the army but who may be able to supply the great demand for skilled labour that is gradually becoming felt.
There is however one disquieting rumour which I have heard on more than one occasion. It is that the government has been considering the erection of a factory for the purpose of training these students. I do not know whether or not that is true; I hope the minister will tell us. I hope it is not true, because we have throughout Canada hundreds of factory buildings that could be utilized for this purpose. I feel that perhaps in our war effort we are putting into bricks and mortar too many dollars that we ought to be putting into the things we require to fight this war. I travel across this country two or three times a year, and I know something of the various industrial centres. There are those who say that it does not matter how much money we spend in our war effort; that if we lose the war, our money will be gone anyway. Well, I say it is not so much a question of how much we spend but how we spend it. We are not going to lose the war; we are going to win it, but in whatever we do now let us have some sort of planned national economy. Let us make use of the vacant factories there are down in the mari-times, in Quebec, in Ontario and throughout western Canada. We have vast quantities

of gas and coal in Alberta and in Saskatchewan, and we should make full use of all these things which are requisite to industrial production.
Instead of building Up vast industries as we are doing-I am rather fearful of the millions and tens of millions which are being put into new factories-we should spread out this work. I understand that the capitalization of these industries is to be wiped out in a period of five years. We should attempt to decentralize industry; we should spread out this w'ork through all the cities, towns and villages of this country. If that were done, we would be doing much to help our national economy when this war is over. Where there is a concentration of industry in a few centres we accentuate the housing difficulties. The first thing we know we shall be building shacks for the workers and their families to live in. If there is such a thing as war-time prosperity, how much better it would be to take this prosperity to all our cities, towns and villages. We could thus take advantage of housing and factory accommodation that is available and provide the farmer wTith a local market, which he does not get with the concentration of industry we have under the present set-up.
The minister should have given us some idea of how all these plans are working out and of just what arrangements were being made with regard to profits where an industry is already established and is being given millions of dollars with which to build additions. These are matters which we should watch very carefully. This house should be given some explanation of them, and that is why I had hoped the estimates would have been down before this. If we had this information it would not be necessary to interrupt the ministers when they are making their statements.
I appeal to the government to give hon. members and the people throughout the country an opportunity of serving in this W'ar. AVhen the government decided to hold a national registration, they came to the members of this house for help, and every member responded. They went home and did their utmost to see that the registration was carried out properly. Give us something to do, in connection with either a war loan or some other activity. There are no politics to-day. The only politics we have now is the winning of this war. When the war is won, then we can go back to the political battles we have had in the past.
We are spending $100,000,000 in this war compared with every $10,000,000 we spent in the last. This is a tremendous amount of money to be spending. Unfortunately in

The Address-Mr. Lizotte
every country there are people who, regardless of its dire need, regardless of how freedom is being threatened, are prepared to take advantage of the times and become rich at the expense of their country. There are undoubtedly some such people in Canada, and we should be very careful in making these tremendous expenditures. I have always abhorred the word " scandal," and in my political career I have never resorted to its use or to personalities of any kind. Perhaps one of the worst things that could happen in our war effort would be to have a scandal develop. I ask the ministers to do everything possible so that, whatever expenditures are made, the Canadian people will feel assured that such expenditures are being made properly and that no opportunity is being given to those vultures who are so often ready to feed at a time like this.
Nothing could be more devastating to our war effort than to have something like that happen. I am a Conservative, I believe in Conservative policies, and when the time comes I am going to fight to put my party into power. But now we are Canadians; that is the only term we should know. If any hon. member should learn of anything at all suspicious, he should go to the minister concerned and tell him the story. Then, if there is anything to the rumour, the minister will have an opportunity to clean up things. Mistakes are bound to be made, but I think that hon. members should see to it that such matters are brought to the attention of the particular minister who is responsible. It should be done quietly. These things are bound to happen and we should be most careful. I say to the government that so long as they carry on and do everything they possibly can, I am behind them and will do everything I can to assist them in their war effort.


Mr. L. P. LIZOTTE (Kamouraska) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, in rising from my seat I recall having read somewhere in the Bible-a book which has no secrets for my reverend friend the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor)-that there is a time to speak and a time to remain silent. I fear that the hon. members of this house will tell me, now that the Christmas adjournment is approaching, that this is a time for me to remain silent rather than to speak. However, seeing in front of me and around me such examples of eloquent loquacity-especially my good friend the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot)-I cannot resist the pleasure of saying at least a few words during the present debate. Besides, as the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) has said, it is proper that, as the
representative of a certain section of the population, a member of the House of Commons should give utterance to his views and those of his constituents. In keeping with my life-long habit, I shall be brief.
I cannot let this occasion go by without adding my congratulations to those which have been so justly offered to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Both hon. members represent a minority group in their respective provinces. Both do so with distinction. I particularly congratulate my excellent friend the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras), whose truly French name is frequently encountered in the province of Quebec, on the good French accent he has retained in the English-speaking province where he lives.
During the last session, when I was a newcomer, I was somewhat struck by the morbid irritability which prevailed in this house, especially on the opposition benches. I wondered whether our parliament was always the seat of a war of nerves. I am ready to believe that the tragic events then occurring in Europe with lightning speed were to a certain extent the cause of this nervousness. Those who did not share the government's views, the members of that party which at the recently held general elections had been weighed by the people and found wanting, were loud in their cries that our war effort was worthless, that the defence of the country was poorly prepared, that the government was slumbering instead of rushing to arms and sending Canadians to do battle-they knew not where, but, anyhow, across the seas, even if England did not need them.
I was glad to see that the government was not letting itself be impressed by this rash criticism. Indeed, amid those loud cries and passionate appeals, those who presided over the destinies of the country continued to work calmly and silently, as is proper in war time, devoting all their energy to the task of ensuring the security of the Canadian people.
Today, to the utter amazement of our opponents, who can hardly credit their eyes or their ears, we are witnesses of the prodigious, indeed the miraculous effort accomplished by the government in order to provide our country with the necessary armour to fight victoriously on land, on sea and in the air, and to help Great Britain to win this war which is the war of all those who cherish their traditions, their civil and political liberties and their physical and moral existence.
I listened with deep attention to the speeches recently delivered by the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Gardiner), the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), the Minis-
The Address-Mr. Lizotte

ter of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power), the Minister of National Defence for Naval Affairs (Mr. Macdonald), the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), and, to-day, to the speech of the Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty). They have given us detailed stalaments-as detailed as is possible in time of war-of the prodigious efforts put forth and the magnificent results obtained. I was satisfied and deeply impressed.
I then read their statements as recorded in Hansard, and as all those who have taken the trouble to do so, I became convinced that they had, in less than one year, written glorious pages which more advanced countries would be proud to have written in several years.
The government having put forth an effort greater, in my opinion, than our means justify, those who publicly proclaim that we have not done enough must be utterly lacking in responsibility and generosity. Our prodigious effort will continue, and glorious pages will still be written by those to whom the Canadian people have entrusted the preservation of their security, their democratic principles and their liberty.
Mr. Speaker, a question frequently brought up is that of national unity. It has been broached on many occasions in recent months and again during this session. We must never cease thinking of it. So far, in spite of our prodigious effort, in spite of the enormous sacrifices laid on the Canadian people, the national unity which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) have striven so hard to build up has been preserved. May the government ever continue to direct its policy, to steer its course, towards that goal, that promised land of the Canadian ideal-national unity. May the government ignore threats and intimidation and carefully refrain in its war effort from moves those who hear me and will read my speech will understand what I mean-from moves capable of destroying in a single day the work of many years and the national unity which the leader of the party at present in charge of the affairs of the country has, in cooperation with the recognized leader of the province of Quebec, spent his life in building up.
The mobilization act was voted by the representatives of the province of Quebec as by those of the other provinces. We all understand, in Quebec as in the other provinces, that it is our bounden duty to defend our mothers, our wives, our children, our homes and our land. Therefore, the people of Quebec, just as the people of the other prov-[Mr. Lizotte.3
inces, have agreed willingly and even enthusiastically to lend their sons for military training for the defence of Canadian territory. They will likewise agree to give them to the country when the country will be in danger. But the people of Quebec, who are attached to their land, object to all uncalled-for zeal likely to prove unnecessarily harmful, especially to the farming class, the class which interests me most, since my constituents are mostly farmers. There is some talk of amending the regulations made under the mobilization act with a view to extending the training period from one month to four months. The members of the house will not be called upon to deal with this question, but I humbly urge upon the government to take steps to see that agriculture is not harmed and that the farmers and farmers' sons are not taken from the land where their services are required. It has been suggested that the farmers would be trained during what is called the slack season. But, Mr. Speaker, there is no such thing as a slack season of four months in farming. And should the farms be deprived of the labour required to operate them, confusion will set in and agriculture will be seriously inconvenienced.
I have sufficient confidence in my leaders and in the government which I have always supported and will continue to support to know that they will carefully consider this problem and see that this difficulty does not arise.
I fully agree with the view expressed by the hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. McDiarmid) on Tuesday last in the following words:
In my opinion food was the chief factor in the winning of the last war, and lack of food was the cause of the collapse of Germany. The food blockade of enemy countries and the production of food in the allied countries constituted one of the chief means of winning the last war, and we are all of the opinion that the same means will be responsible for victory in this war.
I am sure, therefore, that the government will not take amiss the humble suggestion of the humblest of representatives of a rural constituency. I am confident that the necessary measures will be taken to avoid harming the agricultural class and the country's food production.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the people of Quebec have insisted, still insist and shall ever insist that the sacrifices they have accepted to make must be voluntary and must remain voluntary. Besides, this attitude is general throughout all the provinces of the dominion. On that condition and that condition alone will the old province of Quebec continue to give its men to the

The Address-Mr. Douglas (Weyburn)
country for the defence of Canada and voluntarily send many of its sons for service overseas, for it is a fundamental tenet of our democratic belief that freedom should be defended by free men and that it is free men who can best defend the empire which protects us and our own country, Canada, whose interests we wish to safeguard first and above all.


Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Mr. Speaker, owing to the fact that I was qualifying at Dundurn military camp for a commission in the Canadian Army, it was not possible for me to hear the speeches made by the mover and the seconder of the address. I have, however, read their speeches, and I want to offer to both those gentlemen my congratulations upon launching this debate on so high a plane.
My remarks will naturally divide themselves into two main themes: first, some of the problems inherent in our war effort; and, second, the need of an agricultural programme to prevent the complete economic collapse of western Canada.
The first and most pressing matter witt reference to our war effort is the lamentable shortage of essential equipment for the fighting services. No useful purpose can be served at this time by dwelling unnecessarily upon some of that lack, nor by drawing a picture which can serve only to give comfort to the enemy. Nevertheless I, with every other member of this house, have a responsibility to the men who are in the fighting services. I had the privilege for several weeks of living with some of the men who are training for the purpose of fighting in defence of freedom. I cannot speak too highly of the instructional personnel or of the morale of the young men who are being trained. But I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that excellent instructors and enthusiastic youth are not enough when men are asked to drill with obsolete Springfield rifles which cannot even be fired, when artillerymen are working with imitation guns hewn out of trees, and when many of these units have had their only contact with modern equipment consist of fleeting glimpses of a Bren gun being whisked from unit to unit and from camp to camp.
As I pointed out to the house last year, this is a delicate subject, both for the members of the opposition and for the administration. There are questions which we cannot ask in this house without arousing fears and suspicions. and, believe me, sir, that is the last thing I want to do. At the same time we fare not refrain from asking certain questions, lest we be derelict in our duty to the men whose lives may be jeopardized through lack of that equipment. That is why I asked the
government last year to consider the appointment of a committee of the house to which confidential information could be given from time to time regarding the progress made in securing equipment very much as was done in Great Britain yesterday, where a secret session of parliament was held in order to give information about the organization of the army. The government has not seen fit to comply with that request. We have, therefore, no alternative than to raise these matters on the floor of this house.
To say the very least, the supplying of war equipment has been far from satisfactory. We ought to be told, for instance, why it is that we are not in production of the Lee-Enfield rifle in the Dominion of Canada. We are told that we shall be in production in 1941-which means that by the time we have been at war for a year and a half or two years we shall be producing that most elementary of all weapons, the infantry rifle.
This house has a right to know when we shall b.e in production of anti-tank guns. I am told by those who are in a position to know, that the anti-tank rifles with which Canadian troops are now being trained are about as effective as pea-shooters and as obsolete as the bow and arrow. When do we expect to be producing an effective anti-tank gun, and in what quantity?
We should be told what steps are being taken by the government to produce Bren light machine guns in other plants than the John Inglis factory-either in other private plants, or in government arsenals, as the British are doing in the Woolwich arsenal. From time to time glowing reports have been given to the effect that the production of the Bren machine gun was far ahead of schedule. But until recently it has been almost impossible to get figures. The other day the minister gave them to the press, but not to the house. The statement is that we are to have 1,750 light Bren machine guns by next March. May I remind the house that the contract which was drawn up with the John Inglis plant in 1937 called for 1,000 light machine guns by the 1st of April, 1941. But the government's announcement means that by next March we shall be 750 guns ahead of a peacetime schedule which was drawn up four years before.
I am not blaming the John Inglis plant. If we take into consideration the fact that they started from nothing, they have probably gone into production as quickly as possible. But I would suggest that the fact that by next March we are going to be able to equip fewer than thirty^five infantry battalions, fewer than 35,000 men, when we have 150,000 men in training in Canada-and that is on the
498	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Douglas (Weybum)
basis of only one light machine gun to a section-indicates a Sony example of muddling and inefficiency. The house has a right to know whether the government contemplates putting other firms or some of the other government arsenals into the production of the Bren machine gun.
The committee which I suggested should be set up ought to be given information about the production of 25-pounders. So far, I understand, we are not producing any. Above all, we have a right to know something about the real facts as to aircraft production in Canada. Some of the glowing statements issued to the press about the number of aeroplanes being produced each month omit to tell the public that, of course, these are planes without engines. There is a growing feeling among men who are acquainted with the aircraft industry that something is seriously wrong. I am told by experienced pilots that the Boeing aeroplane is one of the four best aircraft in the world. If that is true, why is the Boeing aeroplane factory in Vancouver being allowed practically to close its doors? I came down in the train with aircraft mechanics let out of the Boeing plant because the plant officials said they could not get sufficient raw materials and, therefore, must curtail production. Surely there is something wrong there. Further, may I refer the house to the Malton plant near Toronto owned by the National Steel Car Corporation. This is said to be one of the best equipped plants in the country. The Canadian government's original educational contract was for twenty-eight Lysander planes. This plane, it is said, is regarded by authorities today as being the best army cooperation plane produced, and the need for mass production of these planes is most urgent. As I understand it, the educational contract called for the first planes to be completed and delivered by November, 1939, but up to December, 1939, only twenty-four of the twenty-eight had been completed for delivery, and the last four were not finished until March, 1940. Since January, 1940, three contracts for Lysander planes have been begun, but prior to October 5 not one Lysander plane under the new contracts had been completed for delivery from the Malton shop.
Hon. members have a right to know what is wrong. Men who have worked in that plant are enthusiastic about its equipment, but in the last few months at least a dozen key men have quit their jobs, among these men being the plant manager, the chief plant superintendent, the chief plant inspector, the erection and shop foreman, the machine-shop foreman and the plant's test pilot. The estimate given to me is that the employee turn-over at Malton during the past year

has been from 75 to 90 per cent, and that more than 900 men have quit their jobs in the plant during the past six months.
I have a great deal more information about that plant, but I refer to it now merely to point out that there ought to be some representative body of this house to whom such information could be given and before whom such matters could be discussed. Let me tell the government now that the people of Canada are in no mood to stand for bungling and inefficiency, and that we in this house have a responsibility to see to it that the men who are going to risk their lives in defence of democracy are getting the very best equipment that human ingenuity and skill can produce.


Thomas Langton Church: And proper leave at Christmas.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: Last year I
suggested to the house and to the government that the public accounts committee or some similar body representative of all parties in the house ought to be allowed to examine war contracts. This has not been done. It is true that the Department of Munitions and Supply have issued long lists of contracts, but they have neither meaning nor value, because they are not classified and do not give the amounts obtained or the unit prices. It is of little value to any member to know that the government has spent half a million dollars in buying boots unless we know what the boots cost per pair and the basis upon which the contract was let. After the experience of the last war, it is only natural that the Canadian people should be suspicious on the question of war profiteering; and the government, for its own sake and for the sake of the morale of the public, ought to bend over backwards in handling this matter.
Something has already been said with reference to sessional paper No. 121 tabled in this house on November 20. There are two significant facts about it. One is that, so it is said, it is not considered in the public interest to give unit prices on an order of 26,000 garbage cans ordered by the Department of Munitions and Supply earlier in the year. That is quite a number of garbage cans and they ought to hold a great deal of garbage. Since then, we have been given the unit prices, but I would call attention to the explanation of the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe). He says that the reason why they are reluctant to give unit prices is that competitors will see what the figures are. Well, do we not want competitive bidding? Do we not want to buy articles at the lowest prices at which they can be purchased on

The Address-Mr. Douglas (Weybum)
the market? Why should the house not be given unit prices on any of these commodities, except with regard to those of secret design? The second and more significant fact is that, of the 26,000 cans ordered, 20,950 were ordered from General Steel Wares Limited-four-fifths of the order-and the assistant general manager of Steel Wares Limited is or was Mr. G. K. Sheils, deputy minister of the Department of Munitions and Supply.
I suggest that this sort of thing does not make for confidence and enthusiasm on the part of the Canadian public, who have been bled so often in days gone by. Therefore, at the risk of wearying the government, I will repeat the request I made last year: first, that the government consider setting up a committee to receive information with regard to the success that we are having in producing war material; and, second, that the public accounts committee or some other committee be allowed to examine war contracts.
I know the government does not like criticisms of this sort and is inclined to view them as a personal reflection. No such reflection is intended. I would remind the house that a year ago in the French chamber of deputies similar criticisms were met with indignant denials and soothing assurances that all was well. We know now that all was not well. A similar set of conditions obtained in Great Britain, where for years Mr. Winston Churchill was a voice crying in the wilderness against mismanagement and incompetence; but his criticisms were labelled unpatriotic and subversive, and were taken by some cabinet ministers as a reflection upon their personal integrity rather than as an indication of their unfitness for the positions they held. That attitude should not prevail here.
If all is well in our war effort, then the government should not hesitate for a moment to make the facts available, if not to the house at least to a committee of the house. And if all is not well, then we had better find it out now rather than wait until our house lies in ruins about us. In France and the United Kingdom it took a series of reverses to bring the people to their senses. Surely in this country we can learn by the experience of others and not wait until catastrophe jolts us out of our complacency. If there is a bottleneck somewhere; if lack of certain essential equipment is due to the organization of the Department of Munitions and Supply, then that department ought to be overhauled and overhauled immediately, because the Canadian people will hold this government and every member of this house responsible if they discover that incompetence,
bungling or partisanship has caused us to do less than we ought to be doing in the prosecution of the war.
In dealing with Canada's war effort I wish to add my voice to those of others who have asked the government to give free transportation to members of the Canadian active service force. I hope the statement of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) will not be taken as final. Coming down on the train, I met a'ycnmg man from Nanaimo, British Columbia, who for over a year has been a member of a forestry corps which is now stationed at Valcartier, Quebec. He has been away from home for a year. He finally got his furlough, but found that, to go home, it would cost him about S100 for travelling and incidentals. Only the fact that some friends sent him the money made it possible for him to go home and see his wife and family.
The unit in which I am especially interested is the first battalion of the South Saskatchewan regiment which is now stationed in Toronto. I have over a score of letters from men in that unit and units similarly situated telling me there is being circulated among the men a list asking whether they want to go home for Christmas or New Year's, and the answer is invariably the same:
" It does not make any difference because we cannot afford to go home anyway." It would cost these men at least $35 to $50 for transportation, and on a soldier's pay, particularly if he is married, he cannot possibly raise that money.
I would remind the house that some of these men will be going overseas shortly, and the forty-eight hours' fembarkation leave is not enough to allow them to go home; thus for many of them this Christmas or New Year's leave will be the last opportunity they will have of being reunited with their families prior to crossing the ocean and facing all the dangers of war. Surely the government which is finding money for so many other things can see to it that these men are able to go home and spend what for some of them may be their last Christmas with their loved ones round the family hearth.
I wish now to deal with a problem which is the very opposite of that of the fighting forces. I refer to individuals across this country who are known as conscientious objectors. I have never been a pacifist. As hon. members know, ever since coming to this house in 1936 I have advocated economic, and, if needs be, military sanctions against aggressor nations.	I have never been a
pacifist because I believe that, in the Christian concept of society, "those who are strong ought to bear the burdens of the weak", and
500	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Douglas (Weybum)
that those who have the strength and the will are responsible for defending the helpless and the weak from injustice and oppression. For that reason I have never been able to accept the pacifist philosophy.
But while I do not agree with the pacifists I am prepared to fight to the death for a man's right to be a pacifist. The right of conscience is as old as Christianity, which has taught through the centuries that we must render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's. Christianity has taught that the individual has a right to determine where his duty to Caesar ends and his duty to God begins. Some of us in this house are descendants of the Scottish covenanters, of whom it was said:
They counted their faith so grand a thing They scorned to yield it to a king.
The reason why we are opposing Hitler to-day is that he has denied that right of conscience, and has said that the will of the state is supreme over the will of the individual. We do not believe that. But we cannot defeat Hitler by emulating Hitler.
In the regulations set out under the National War Services Act there is a provision for conscientious objectors. It is regulation 18, which reads:
Conscientious Objectors 18. (1) Any man who, from the doctrines of his religion, is averse to bearing arms or undertaking combatant service, may apply for an order deferring or postponing his military training indefinitely, provided that it is established that such man conscientiously objects to the bearing of arms or the undertaking of combatant service and-
I draw the attention of hon. members to that word "and", which I think ought to be "or".
-is prohibited from the bearing of arms or undertaking combatant service by the tenets and articles of faith in effect on the first day of September, 1939, of any organized religious denomination to which said man aforesaid, in good faith, belongs.


Mr. DUPUIS:: May I ask the hon. member
a question, to help the house to understand? Could he give a list of the denominations that are conscientious objectors?


James Lester Douglas: I could, but I do not propose to take the time to do so.


Vincent Dupuis: The house would perhaps allow the hon. member to do that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I draw this to the attention of the house because in the city of Saskatoon a group of young men appeared before a government tribunal and were refused the right of exemption, not because they could not establish that they

had conscientious objections to bearing arms, but because some of them did not belong to a church which prohibits the bearing of arms. Most of them belonged to the United church, I think one to the Anglican church.
I am asking the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Gardiner) to consider in this matter three things: first, that regulation 18 should be amended to give the individual the right of exemption because of his conscientious scruples, irrespective of the stand of any church to which he might or might not belong; second, that the minister should consider the advisability of giving to divinity students studying for the Protestant ministry the same right of exemption that may be given to those in any other religious order; and, third, that a list of alternative non-combatant services be set out and that training be given along these lines for those who have conscientious objection to the bearing of arms, because I do not believe that in this hour of crisis any man has a right to exemption from service, but I do believe that he has a right to determine what service he can conscientiously perform.
I turn now to the defence of Canada regulations, as having an important part in our war effort. I recognize, as must every hon. member, the need for taking strict measures against espionage and sabotage if we are to prevent our country from being undermined. At the same time I must insist, as have other hon. .members, that these regulations shall not be used to repress freedom of speech or of the press or to interfere with workers or farmers who are seeking to organize with a view to bettering their economic standard of living. I am in accordance with the suggestions of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) and the views of the hon. member for North Battleford (Mrs. Nielsen).


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would the hon. gentleman allow me to ask a question? Has he given any consideration to the question of the entire suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, so far as internees are concerned, under the defence of Canada regulations? That is very important.


James Lester Douglas: As the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) will perhaps remember, in the discussion last year of the defence of Canada regulations, when the committee was being set up to study them, we objected to that right being taken from internees. We contend that it is so easy in times like these when we are all naturally susceptible to some hysteria, to let our fears of fifth columnists become a screen behind

The Address-Mr. Douglas (Weybum)
which we allow reactionary forces to destroy some of the very things for which we profess to be fighting.
I have a concrete example that I wish to place before -the house. I have a brief here from the legal counsel who was concerned with this case and who, I know, would be glad to place this material personally before a committee of the house.
A short time ago relief recipients working for the city of Regina went on strike. Consequently, the relief committee of the city council and some members of the council invited a delegation of three from the relief recipients to interview them at the city hall. At that meeting there were none present except the delegation of three, the relief committee of the Regina city council and the officials of the provincial government interested in relief matters. Therefore there was really no one there except those definitely interested in the submissions to be made by the delegation from the relief recipients.
The three men submitted their case, the first two members of the delegation putting forth their claims for wages and work, and the third member, Mr. Florian Stephan, drawing particularly to the attention of the committee how the relief recipients felt about the relief situation. As soon as that meeting was over, two members of the Regina city council went to the police station and laid a charge against Stephan under the defence of Canada regulations, more particularly under that section which deals with the making of inflammatory statements with a view to causing disaffection towards his majesty. No summons was issued, but this man was arrested and thrown into gaol.
The only evidence put forth by the crown at the trial was that of a very third-rate stenographer who took notes of the speech. She admitted that she did not get down correctly the statements made, and that she had not had a great deal of experience as a stenographer. Mr. Hark MacPherson, chairman of the relief committee, admitted on the stand that there had been the friendliest atmosphere possible at the meeting and that he saw nothing in the speech that would alarm or disturb him. Other witnesses gave evidence to the same effect. The members of the relief recipients' delegation swore on the stand that the speech given by Stephan was quite different from the copy under which he was charged. I have a copy here of what he is alleged to have said; and in spite of the fact that the witnesses declared that it did not represent a fair report of his statement, personally I can see nothing wrong with it.


Vincent Dupuis: Were there any other
witnesses to the contrary at the inquiry?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Not to my
knowledge. I should like to take this opportunity of reading this statement to the house It is a little lengthy, but I think it necessary to read it in order to state the case fairly. This is taken from the evidence; it is a certified copy. Mr. Stephan is alleged to have said:
The only thing I wish to state, and I want you people to take this seriously. These people who walk off these jobs did not do it for fun, and do not underestimate these people. It is a serious matter to them. They have suffered to an extent where continuance was unbearable.
I know, and everybody knows, that since this war we have been pinched, and millions made by certain people in the war. Therefore, there is an attitude among those people. These people have nothing but suffering, and they are prepared to suffer much more in order to get the elementary basis of living, and they are not getting it, and I can say that they are willing to suffer much more in order to gain. They will insist upon this. They were free once. In plain words, they are fed up by being demanded by rules and regulations, for when a man is earning his money, for God's sake give him that money and let him be free. That is the general opinion of the people, and they believe they earn everything and get nothing for it. There is a lot of sentiment and sympathy, in the way of donations of a department store already received. There are a number of grocers and stores who have shown favour, and feel that we have a just ease. And the people who have suffered are willing to suffer more and knowing of the support of the average man and citizen in this city, they are prepared to continue and carry on. I do not wish this as a threat, but just realize the gravity of the situation and how they feel. They know you can use a strong arm, but I know they are absolutely sincere and I know that is their stand with no idea of threat and I sincerely hope some agreement can be made.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is that
the complete statement?


James Lester Douglas: That is the complete statement, as I have it from the counsel. For making that statement, a nominal fine of $10 and costs was imposed on Florian Stephan; a conviction has been registered against him, and he has been photographed and finger-printed like a common convict. Apparently his only crime was that he made an appeal to the relief committee of the Regina city council to prevent schisms and divisions among our people, pointing out that there was need of a better feeling between employer and labour, and that those who exploited the common people were doing far greater disservice to the state than the fifth columnists themselves. Surely it is indicative of the road along which we are travelling when a man whose only crime is seeking to get better conditions for himself and his

The Address-Mr, Douglas (Weyburn)
fellow workers can be hauled into court, merely by some local body under the authority of the provincial attorney general, without any representation having been made to the Minister of Justice or the federal government. I would not like that in Germany, Mr. Speaker; I like it a great deal less when it happens in my own province. On behalf of our group I wish to say that we will continue to demand that these regulations be amended. We do not want to make it easier for the fifth columnists. If we had our way we would make it a great deal harder for the fifth columnists, but we desire to make sure that innocent people cannot be prevented by these regulations from exercising those prerogatives which, under democracy, belong to every citizen of the state.


Vincent Dupuis: Is what the hon. gentleman read a transcription by the stenographer?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is the transcript submitted to me together with the brief of the counsel.


Vincent Dupuis: A transcript by the
stenographer?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes, a transcript by the stenographer, submitted to the court as evidence.
I come now to the second part of my remarks, which have to do with agricultural policy. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if you would call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock I was asking the house to give consideration to a programme for western agriculture. Before continuing with my remarks, I should like to refer to a rather sneering reference which was made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to members of this group. He said that only one of us had ever earned his living on the farm. Surely the Minister of Agriculture is not going to pose here as a farmer who has turned politician. Those of us who come from Saskatchewan know perfectly well that he is really a politician turned farmer. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Agriculture began his public career as a school-teacher. It was only when he had entered the Saskatchewan legislature that he took up^ farming, which he has used ever since as a shield for his other activities.


Mr. TRIPP:: Was he not a farmer before he was a politician?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Not to my knowledge, except that as a boy he probably lived on the farm. I should like, however, to tell the minister that there is no disgrace in not having lived on the farm. In my opinion, the only disgrace is to have been elected by farmers and then, after coming to Ottawa, to have turned round and sold them out, as they have been sold out for the last twenty-five years.
The minister said that his agricultural policies were endorsed by the farmers in the last federal election. If there is any man in the government who ought not to mention the last federal election, it is the Minister of Agriculture. He represents Saskatchewan in the cabinet, and Saskatchewan was the only province where the government came out of the election with fewer seats than they had before. They went into the election with seventeen seats and came out with twelve. No small part of that reduction was due to the same minister and his policies. An examination of the results from the rural polls will show that the minister was ignominously defeated by the farmers of his own constituency. He was rescued by the vote of the town people and by the fact that a third candidate was kept in the field to split the vote. The minister says that he was elected by agriculture, but the fact is that he was elected in spite of agriculture. In my opinion, agriculture in this country is important enough to deserve the full time and exclusive attention of one minister of the crown. I do not think the Canadian farmer will take well to the fact that he is represented by a minister who is half-time Minister of Agriculture and half-time Minister of National War Services. From now on we shall have to call him "minister of half and half".
The problem of agriculture divides itself into two parts:	First, there is the problem having to do with those who have no crops, and, second, there is the problem having to do with those who have crops.
Like most western members I was delighted when the Minister of Agriculture announced that 1940 would be declared an emergency year under section 3 of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. That is excellent, and I hope the government will accede to the application of the province of Saskatchewan to have a crop failure area declared under section 4 of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. There are in Saskatchewan somewhere between 170 and 200 townships which ought to qualify under that section of the act. If they do not qualify,

The Address-Mr. Douglas (Weyburn)
then the people living therein will have to come under section 3, which means that they will receive 50 cents an acre less by way of bonus. But what is more important, they will receive no benefit from the $200 minimum which applies only if a crop failure area is declared.
I would remind the government that there are people who will not get the bonus, and there are others who will need some assistance until they do get the bonus, especially if it is as late as it was last year. In many districts the people cannot get relief because the municipalities in which they live cannot afford to pay their 20 per cent share. I still think there is need for an emergency relief fund to provide for people who cannot be taken care of by their local municipalities.
I should like to say a word about those people who have a crop. The acting leader of this group, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), has already outlined an agricultural programme and I intend merely to touch upon it. The first suggestion was that the government should make an interim payment on the 1939 wheat crop. Farmers of western Canada were led to believe that they would get this if the present government were elected. Second, I urge that consideration be given to paying an advance for wheat stored on the farms. I would remind the government that in the latter part of July and early in August of last year the groups in this corner and the official opposition advocated such an advance being made. Replying to us, the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) is reported as follows at page 2420 of Hansard:
I say to them once more that the government are not unsympathetic to the suggestions they have advanced.
As reported on page 2421, I put the following question to and received the following answer from the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon):
If the minister will get up and say that the farmer will get a cash advance on the grain which he is not able to sell to the wheat board I am prepared to stop debating the matter.
Mr. MacKinnon (Edmonton West):	All I
can say is that the wheat committee of the cabinet is seeking a solution right along the line indicated by the hon. member for Weyburn.
We left here with the impression that something of that sort would be done. Nothing of that sort has been done, and no reason has been given why it could not be done. We heard the other day from the Minister of Trade and Commerce that the farmers had a reserve of some $100,000,000, but this wheat is not a reserve. This wheat represents frozen assets; it represents money
which the farmer cannot get; it represents goods which he cannot sell. But in the meantime his debts are going unpaid.
Third, we advocated the closing of the Winnipeg grain exchange during the war. Fourth, we advocated the handling of all wheat through the wheat board and, fifth, the bringing down of an agricultural policy for the handling of the 1941 wheat crop. I am in agreement with the suggestion made by other hon. members in this and othei opposition groups that it might be wise tc have a higher initial payment on a limitec quantity of wheat, and then lower the price to a fixed minimum, as the amount of wheal increased. In other words, allow the farmei to deliver his wheat at a graduated price This would encourage the farmer to produce a certain quantity of wheat, but would not encourage him to overproduce.
I hope the government will give some consideration to this problem, because to ask the farmer to continue to produce wheat at a price which is admitted by the government itself as being inadequate is to ask western Canada to assume almost certain economic bankruptcy in the next few years.
I should like to close my remarks with just one more observation. If this war has done nothing else, it has given a new sense of dignity to the common man. Speaking over the radio the other day, J. B. Priestley said:
It is not the British ruling class, which wobbled and whined for years until Herr Hitler was firmly established, that has aroused the admiration of the world, but the common people of Britain, who have come out of their sleep not only to defend such liberties as they already have but also to demand more liberty.
I think that is true. I think we have come more and more to appreciate the common man, the sailors who sail the sea and the people who work in our factories. We are beginning to realize the courage, the endurance and the high idealism of the man on the street. I think we all realize that this war cannot be won unless we have the support and enthusiasm of the common people.


Thomas Langton Church: How are we going to get that when the government refuses to give Christmas leave to the soldiers?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am very
much in sympathy with my hon. friend's recommendation for free transportation for the soldiers. I do not think the government could do anything which would go further toward raising the morale of the personnel of our fighting services than to carry out the recommendation of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church). In the winning of this war morale is one of the all-important factors, and that morale can best be main-

7 he Address-Mr. Douglas (Weyburn)
tained by dealing with the very things I have mentioned-fair prices for the fanner, better working conditions for the common people, the rights of labour to organization and collective bargaining.
These are difficult days through which we are passing. I remember two years ago listening to a professor friend of mine in the city of Chicago who had spent some time with Doctor Charles Beard, the great American historian who wrote the "Rise of American Civilization." One night my friend said that he and another professor walked home with Doctor Beard and one of them asked him, "How long would it take you, Doctor Beard, to write and tell the world what you have learned from a lifelong study of history?" "I could do it," said Doctor Beard after thinking for a minute, "in three years." He walked along for a while and then said, "I could do it in three months." A few moments later he said, "I could do it in three days," and finally he said, "I could do it in four sentences." He wrote those four sentences down, and I pass them on to this house.
The first one was: "Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad." I ask the house to think to-night of some megalomaniacs who have plunged the world into war and bloodshed and tears.
His second sentence was: "The mills of the gods grind slowly, yet they grind exceeding small." I ask this house to think how the forces of righteousness and justice have triumphed down through the ages in spite of opposition and betrayal.
His third sentence was: "The bee fertilizes the flower that it robs." I ask this house to think of China to-night and of all the other countries that are being despoiled and robbed and which, even yet, out of their hour of tragedy, may find the dawn of a better day.
His fourth sentence was this: "Sometimes, if it is dark enough, you can see the stars."
I submit that out of the darkness through which this country, in common with other parts of the world, is passing, we may see the stars, and two of those stars are the dignity of man and the worth of human brotherhood.


Mr. D. KING HAZEN (St. John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has spoken of the earnestness of the Liberal government's war effort, and other ministers of the crown have told us of the rather slow growth of our armed forces, but no minister of the crown has told us whether the government has a policy of coordination of our war effort based on a strategic plan. I think the members of this house should be informed whether or not the government has a policy of coordination 
among the war departments responsible for the development of our army, navy and air force based on a strategic plan. If the government had no such policy, I would suggest that it give the matter its very earnest consideration.
We are now, I believe, in a position to take a clearer view of our military situation than we were when the house adjourned on August 7 last. The battle of Britain, or rather the first phase of that battle, has been fought and the attempt at invasion has for the time being been defeated. It must now be apparent to all of us that if this war is to be brought to a successful conclusion, it is of the utmost importance that we obtain superiority in the air. That is essential. Up to the present time I believe we have not obtained parity in the air, despite the wonderful achievements of our heroic air force.
The Right Hon. Winston Churchill, speaking in the British house on the 5th of this month, said that Great Britain was on the road to parity in the air. It will be noted that he did not say that we have achieved parity in the air. Then he added that superiority in the air was indispensable before we could gain victory. That being the situation, it seems to me that the government at the present time should direct its major effort to the development of our air force. The development of our air force should be given priority, and if any conflict of interest arises between the demands of our army, our navy and our air force, the government should insist that the requirements of .the air force be given first consideration, that the department presided over by the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Powder) be given the right of way. I came across an extract from an article published recently in the Winnipeg Free Press which has some bearing on this matter, and I propose to read it to the house. I quote:
Is Canada doing the right thing in spending almost two dollars on her army for every dollar spent on the air force? The big army school of thought seems to dominate our military thinking. Is it wise that this should be so? Has the government thoroughly thought out all the implications of our present war plan m relation to the broad needs for victory? Under what circumstances do they envisage the need to have a bigger army than air force? Is it for the defence of our own shores? Or is it to contribute the needed infantry and mechanized divisions for the land attack on the continent of Europe envisaged by General Crerar, our chief of staff, in a recent address?
When all is said and done, our material resources and our man-power are not unlimited, and ever-increasing demands are being made upon them. If these demands should result in any conflict of interest between the differ-

The Address-Mr. Eaten
ent branches of our fighting forces, in my opinion the demands of the air force should have first consideration.
I am not unmindful of the importance of the services that have been and will be rendered by our army and navy, but I submit that at the present time our greatest effort should be directed to the development of our air force and that this effort should not be hindered by any demand by our army or by our navy.
I should like to draw the attention of the government to the waste that has been going on in the construction of military camps in New Brunswick. I believe some waste is going on in some of the other provinces. This matter was brought to the attention of the government by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) when he spoke in this debate, and I thought that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), when he replied, treated that matter with less seriousness than it deserved. The day after I returned to Saint John on the adjournment of this house in August last, I was approached by a man whom I knew but slightly, the manager of a local insurance company, who told me that he had just got back from the camp at Sussex and that he was shocked at the waste that was going on there. His chief complaint was that the lumber which was going into those camps was planed on the four sides.
A day or two later I had a visit from a prominent farmer, a thoroughly practical man from Elgin, in Albert county. He told me that he had been to the camp and that the waste which was going on there was terrible. He said that the specifications required the lumber which went into the huts to be planed on four sides, and that this meant that after the lumber was manufactured in some mills it had to be loaded on trucks, carted away to other mills where it was planed, reloaded on trucks and brought back to the camp at Sussex. He told me also that the water system and the sewerage system for those huts were laid down in two different trenches, when, he said, one trench would have been sufficient.
I visited the camp at Sussex. The Minister of National Defence has told us that the camp, which consists, I believe, of 148 huts, is costing $1,800,000. While I am not a builder or a contractor, I could see no reason why the lumber which was going into the camps had to be planed on four sides, and I believe that thousands of dollars have been needlessly expended because of that requirement. The matter,. I submit, should be investigated.
The Minister of National Defence told us in the course of his speech that he had obtained a very competent engineer and that this engineer, with certain officers from the quartermaster-general's branch, was going to visit practically all the camps for the purpose of making a comparison between the cost of the camps which were put up by contract and the cost of the camps which were put up by the engineering service of the army. I suggest to the minister that he employ a competent architect and a competent accountant to make an investigation, without any officers from the quartermaster-general's branch, for the purpose of ascertaining what waste has resulted from the unnecessarily high specifications which were called for by the army in relation to those huts.
I realize that waste in war time is unavoidable, on account of the haste with which work has to be done. But there should be no waste as a result of stupidity, and it seems to me that when the army calls for too high specifications in connection with the construction of huts which will be needed for only a comparatively short time, there should be a check-up and the practice should be stopped as soon as possible.
One of the unfortunate consequences of this extravagance is that many people visited these camps when they were in course of construction and saw the waste which was going on, and their reaction was:	" The
government tells us to save our money and invest it in war securities, but why should we lend our money to the government to be wasted in this manner?" That is one regrettable result of wasteful expenditures by governments in war time.
I thought it possible that this waste was confined to one or more camps in New Brunswick. But the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling), who addressed this house the other day, spoke of the waste and political patronage which accompanied the erection of the camp at Vernon, British Columbia. We may be right in concluding that there has been waste in all the camps constructed throughout the dominion by the government for army purposes.
Another matter to which I should refer is political patronage. My information is that the practice still continues. I know that some members of the government-the war committee, I believe-issued last summer a statement to the effect that there was to be no more patronage in connection with war contracts. That was a very proper statement, and I believe that the ministers were sincere when they issued it, although I am not prepared to say that staunch party men,
The Address-Mr. Hazen

such as they, are not apt at times to be influenced both consciously and unconsciously by political motives. But make no mistake about it, in spite of that statement political patronage has not ceased to exist. Political patronage continues. The political machine is very difficult to control, and it has not been controlled. The unfortunate result is that people in this country still speak of the effort we are making as a "Liberal war." That is much to be regretted, but until we have some form of union or national government, that opinion will continue to exist.
I submit that it is a very strong argument for some form of union or national government, despite the fact that when it is brought about, the Prime Minister may run the risk of being " stabbed in the breast."
I had intended to speak this evening about free transportation for soldiers going on leave, but so many members have done so already, all of them being of opinion that soldiers going on leave should be given free transportation, that I will not elaborate on the matter. From what was said to-day, apparently the government cannot see its way clear to grant this concession, but I hope it will be able to reconsider its decision. If it cannot, I suggest that it give attention to reducing still further the price soldiers have to pay for their transportation; and if that cannot be done, at least let the government consider the desirability of arranging that, when soldiers go on leave, the paymasters of their units will give them advances, which can later be gradually repaid.
The only other point to which I wish to , refer in connection with soldiers' leave is that the matter was brought to the attention of the house and the government last May by two hon. members who sit on this side, and the then Minister of National Defence, Mr. Rogers, promised it his consideration. But evidently nothing was done, and the only decision which has been arrived at, the one reached lately, is that soldiers are not to be given free transportation when they go on leave. I think that is very much to be regretted.
I intended also to bring to the attention of this house the suggestion of a further reduction in rates on letters and parcels which are sent to our soldiers overseas. But that matter has also been brought to the attention of the government in the course of this debate, and I will not enlarge upon it.
I would urge that the government give the matter further consideration and that, if at all possible, a reduction be made in the postage on parcels that are sent to our soldiers overseas.

I would urge also that the government expedite the handling of mail both to and from these soldiers. I am under the impression, from my own experiences, that civilian mail to and from Great Britain is handled with greater expedition than the mail sent to our soldiers or the letters they send back to us. I understand that the government have this matter under investigation and I hope they will take such steps as will ensure that mail to and from the men overseas is delivered more promptly. It is a continuing source of uneasiness to parents, wives, children and, I fancy, to the soldiers themselves that mail is not delivered more promptly.
While I am on this subject I would suggest that the government see to it that the parcels which are sent to our soldiers overseas are given better protection and are delivered to the persons to whom they are addressed. Too many parcels disappear in the mail, not through any enemy action but from other causes. They do not reach the soldiers to whom they are addressed. Not long ago I received a letter from a private serving overseas in an infantry unit. In this letter, which is dated September 29, he says:
I have not received a parcel yet and I know some were sent on August 1. We have had parcels sent from home, cigarettes especially, and have been here two months and none of us have received any cigarettes yet.
This matter was evidently preying on his mind, for later on in his letter he refers to it again. He says:
I have not received a parcel yet and I know some were sent on August 1.
He continues:
Here is a good chance for you to go to town on better protection for mail and parcels.
I do not know whether I am "going to town", but I do urge the government and particularly the Postmaster General (Mr. Mulock) to see to it that better protection is given parcels sent overseas to our soldiers.
I have discussed one phase of this letter; may I refer to it from another point of view. The hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) this afternoon called attention to a certain excess of zeal that had developed under the defence of Canada regulations. He told us about a committee of three, representing the unemployed in Regina, having conferred with the relief committee and with the Regina council. One of the people on relief made a speech outlining to the council and the relief committee the feelings of the men who were on relief, and the result was that a charge was laid against him under the defence of Canada regulations. He was brought before

The Address-Mr. Hazen
a magistrate and fined ten dollars. That is not what the defence of Canada regulations were intended for.
The other evening the hon. member for North Battleford (Mrs. Nielsen) told us how the provincial police of Saskatchewan had gone from house to house-I do not know what authority they could possibly have- collecting copies of a leaflet which had been distributed, and which contained a synopsis of a speech she had made on the budget in this house at the last session.
Freedom of speech and freedom of the press must be preserved in Canada. The defence of Canada regulations should not be taken advantage of and should not be carried out stupidly. Read any ordinary English newspaper like the Daily Mail and you will see from time to time the severe criticism that appears in it against the actions of the British government. Free speech is permitted in England, as this letter which I hold in my hand will show-I propose to read it into the record. It is written by a private serving in a Canadian infantry unit overseas. He is a married man, and before the war he made a living working longshore, driving a truck, doing whatever he could. Sometimes it was pretty hard to get a job, but he did the best he could to support his wife and family. He says:
Was to London for a week-end and was in Hyde park all p.m. and until twelve then had to walk to Union Jack club in an air raid and sleep on the floor of the club.
I believe we have talked of free speech in Hyde park and now I'd believe any story I heard of Hyde park. Can you imagine a country practically an armed camp yet a speaker with a red flag preaching communism unmolested, a Sinn Feiner from Ireland calling Churchill anything but a gentleman. A speaker freely admitting that he was a fifth columnist, and would be as long as capital crucified labour as at present. A speaker from the bureau of information, a woman on moral and sexual hygiene, and religious sects of all sorts . . . a Catholic priest. Then, the cream of the crop, an Abyssinian prince, educated at Oxford, he had about 3,000 people for an audience and kept them singing, laughing or crying, as he willed. He is often quoted in the press and referred to as "Prince Brotherly Love". He wears a colourful costume and turban, carries a union jack over one shoulder and a tricolour over the other, and he kept waving them at the other speakers and shouting "There's enough red in this flag for anyone". He told jokes that he made up himself. One of his remarks was "The best flag on earth, the sun never sets on it and wages never rise under it". Another was "Hitler says we are starving here, we're rationed on everything yet no one is hungry," then said he wras dry and in a minute be had about a bushel of sweets and even a bottle of pop, then he says "and Hitler says we're starving".
While this crowd were in one end of the park, bombs were dropping at the other end and no one moved away until midnight.
I have met a lot of people who have moved out of London, homes lost, business men who have been ruined yet all are cheerful and determined that Britain must win.
In the speech from the throne we were told that the government intended to introduce measures at this session of the house "for the prosecution of the war to the utmost of our strength." What these measures are, we do not know. Although three weeks have passed, the order paper remains a blank. Apparently the government have no legislation ready for us. They are proceeding in this matter with the same lack of energy that they displayed during the first eight or nine months of the war. The powers that have been conferred on the government by the War Measures Act and thq orders in council passed under its authority, together with the National Resources Mobilization Act passed at the last session of this house, have given the government almost dictatorial powers. The government have been given power to carry on this country's war effort "to the utmost of our strength", with one important qualification to which I shall refer in a moment. The government has been given power, to use the words of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin) in the eloquent and powerful speech he made in this house last June, the broadest blank cheque ever given to the executive of any parliament for the administration of public affairs and for the security of the nation.
What steps does the government propose to take under the great powers that it now possesses and has possessed for five or six months? How does it propose to organize our resources? To what extent does it propose to organize them? We have had only a limited and partial answer to these questions. We have not had a full answer. We do not know to-day how or to what extent the government proposes to mobilize the resources of this country under the great powers it now possesses.
We do know, however, that it is not the intention of the government to have conscription of man-power for the army or the navy or the air force for what we all realize to-day is Canada's first line of defence.


Thomas Langton Church: It is coming.


Douglas King Hazen: The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) said the other day that he stressed in July last that our first line of defence was the island fortress of Britain. But it is not the intention of the government to have conscription for our first
The Address-Mr. Hazen

line of defence; it proposes only to have conscription in our own peaceful country and its territorial waters.
In a Canadian Press dispatch from Montreal of August 14 last the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) is reported to have said in a broadcast over the Canadian Broadcasting system that he recalled a radio address he gave in June in which he declared himself against conscription of man-power for overseas service, and added, "I repeat this evening, overseas service remains voluntary." How the government, in the light of what has happened, can reconcile a policy of voluntary service overseas with the fact that our first line of defence is overseas and that if our first line of defence falls, we shall be in the greatest jeopardy, is something I have never been able to understand. It is lacking in logic; it is lacking in realism, foresight and energetic leadership.
We know that the government does not intend to mobilize the man-power of this country for service where it is most needed, in the actual theatre of war, but we do not know in any detail how it proposes to organize the resources of the country under the great powers that it possesses. Hon. members want to know and the country wants to know when, how and to what extent the government proposes to use the powers that have been given to it.
The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Thorson) in the excellent speech he made here some days ago in this debate said:
Great Britain will need every possible assistance that we can give her and it is our solemn duty as a freedom loving nation to give her our maximum aid.
For this reason we, as members of parliament and representatives of the people, will wish to know, not only what progress has been made with our war effort-and we are proud of its increasing momentum-but, what is perhaps even more important at this stage of our war effort, we will wish to be informed as to what has not yet been done and what must still be done. Are there any deficiencies in our war effort? If so, what are they and what steps can be taken to remedy them? Are we running short of efficient man power in our war industries? If so, what efforts are being made to train men for special purposes? Is our war effort being restricted in any manner by financial considerations? If so, in what respect and how can these restrictions be removed?
These are all pertinent questions, to which we should be given candid and detailed answers by the government. Soothing words of reassurance that would leave us with a false sense of security are not satisfactory; they are not good enough.
Furthermore, we are not satisfied with the information, verging on political propaganda, that is handed out week by week by the

director of public information. We are told week after week that so many contracts totalling so many millions of dollars have been awarded by the Department of Munitions and Supply, and the contracts over $5,000 are listed. We are told also that so many construction contracts totalling so many more millions of dollars have been let. But we do not know in many instances, in fact in most instances, whether these contracts are being carried out, whether the orders are being filled, or what prices per unit are being paid for the goods bought. And we are never in these releases or anywhere else, as far as I know, told in any detail of any delays or difficulties that the government is experiencing in equipping our armed forces. By reading these releases that come to us from week to week we would be soothed into the happy frame of mind that the government has no difficulties and no problems. The policy adopted would appear to be that the idea must be created in the mind of the public that the political party that is carrying on this war is making a perfect job of it.


Thomas Langton Church: A fine way to fight Hitler!


Douglas King Hazen: That is a dangerous policy and a policy that should be changed. The government have not made and are not, by any means, making a perfect job of our war effort.
The Minister of National Defence told us in the course of his speech that statistics regarding the rate of production and delivery of various items in connection with our war effort should not be made public, because to do so would furnish the enemy with information which he might spend millions of dollars to obtain. Then, in reply to some pertinent questions by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson), he said that no rifles will be manufactured until about the middle of July next, and that the production of 25-pounders will not be as early as expected but that a considerable number will be forthcoming in July, 1941. I am sure we all hope that these expectations will be realized, although the policy of better late than never is not a good one in war time. I am a little puzzled, however, as to why the minister should have furnished the house with this information, after telling us that the enemy should not be supplied with free information of this kind.
One subject upon which the Minister of National Defence did not touch during the course of his statement is the state of preparedness of our defences on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. He did not tell us what steps, if any, had been taken to rebuild, modernize and improve those defences; nor did he tell us whether they are fully equipped

The Address-Mr. Hazen
with coastal artillery, anti-aircraft guns and searchlight batteries. Whether he omitted this information by accident or design, I do not know, but these are matters of importance. I trust that the development and equipment of these defences have been carried out, and that they are now in proper order.
The minister informed us also that he expected to visit the United Kingdom before long, in order to consult with the authorities there on matters of common interest. I am sure we all hold the Minister of National Defence in the highest regard; we wish him a safe voyage, and we hope and expect that his visit to England will result in furthering the war effort of this country.
In the course of his able address during this debate the leader of the opposition referred to a paragraph in the speech from the throne delivered by the deputy of the governor general when parliament was prorogued on November 5. The paragraph to which he drew attention stated that the measures taken by parliament during the session which was then being brought to a conclusion, had in view the immediate task of sharing more completely in the defence of Britain and securing our own country more effectively against internal subversion and external attack. The leader of the opposition said that these words were significant in that for the first time in Canada since we entered the struggle first things had been put first, that for the first time the government had recognized that the defence of Britain came first, and he congratulated the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) upon the words that had been used.
The Prime Minister, however, rather to my surprise, was critical of the remarks of the leader of the opposition. He said that he failed to see where the statement differed in any particular from the policy of the government as it was stated at the very outset of the war and as it had been followed since that time. He went on to quote from a broadcast he made on September 3, 1939, in which he said:
On Friday last the government, speaking on behalf of the Canadian people, anounced that in the event of the United Kingdom becoming engaged in war in an effort to resist aggression, they would as soon as parliament meets seek its authority for effective cooperation by Canada at the side of Britain.
That, he said, was the government's statement of policy before Britain herself had gone to war, and it was the policy the government had pursued ever since.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the words " effective cooperation" may be construed in a variety of ways. To many people who heard that address the words " effective cooperation "
may have meant defending our own shores and furnishing supplies to Britain, for which supplies we would be well paid; a merely perfunctory, safe and profitable cooperation. To others who listened to that address " effective cooperation '' may have meant not only what I have just stated but also a moderate and voluntary effort, without any conscription whatever.


Georges Parent: Order. I am sorry to inform the hon. gentleman that his time has expired.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Douglas King Hazen: May I just finish what I was saying?


Georges Parent: With the unanimous
consent of the house.


Douglas King Hazen: "Effective cooperation," to
others who heard that address, may have meant whole-hearted and energetic participation in the war, such as we saw in the war of 1914-18.
But in the broadcast of September 3, 1939, the Prime Minister did not explain just what he meant by those words, and it is probable that we shall not know what he meant until the correspondence that passed between Canada and Great Britain before we entered the war is tabled in this house. We have been told that this correspondence, important though it is, will not be made available to us at the present time.


Georges Parent: Do I understand that
the hon. gentleman has unanimous consent to continue?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Douglas King Hazen: I should like to complete
the point I am making.


Mr. GOLDING:: How many pages more?


Douglas King Hazen: You may not like it very much-


Georges Parent: If the hon. gentleman has unanimous consent, he may continue.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Georges Parent: There appears to be a
desire that the hon. gentleman should conclude the point he is making.


Douglas King Hazen: The Prime Minister has
told us that his government has always followed the same policy, that it has always held the same position. If that is so; if there has been no change in his policy since September, 1939, all I can say is that many of the people who voted for him, aye, and some of the members who sit on his side of
The Address-Mr. Farquhar

the house to-day, failed to understand what he meant by that policy. For instance, last June, in this house the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix) said:
. . . Mr. Speaker, I urge that we abide by the policy advocated by the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King during the last elections, namely a voluntary and reasonable, measure of participation, without resorting in any way to conscription of man-power.
On the same occasion, speaking in the same debate, the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe) said:
Mr. Speaker, I should be remiss in my duty if I failed to protest at once against the plan for mobilizing our man-power and wealth announced by the right hon. Prime Minister. This new policy is in glaring opposition to the electoral platform of the re-elected government. There was to be nothing but a moderate, voluntary and free war effort, we were told. I referred to that platform in this house on May 23 last. I was then speaking in defence of the Prime Minister, who was being harassed on all sides by the opposition.
The Prime Minister says that he has always pursued the same policy, but here is a member on his own side of the house who says that this is a new policy, and another who asks the Prime Minister to abide by the policy which he enunciated during the last election and says that this policy is in glaring opposition to the electoral platform of the re-elected government. All I can say is that these gentlemen all appear to be intelligent men, and it is unfortunate that there should be such a difference of opinion in connection with a policy which should be clear to all of us.


Mr. THOMAS FARQUHAR (AlgomaEast):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say just a few words. This debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne is now drawing to a close, but before a vote is taken on the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) I should like to draw attention again to its wording. It says in part:
We respectfully submit to Your Excellency that this house regrets that the government has continued to soothe the Canadian people regarding the war effort of the nation, thereby creating a false sense of security when a clear-cut call to action is desperately needed.
When that amendment was moved by the leader of the opposition, I wondered what arguments would be brought forward by the members of the opposition in an effort to prove the truthfulness of the statements contained therein. I have listened to the debate in this house from day to day; I have read Hansard each day in order to make sure that I had overlooked nothing, and I ask any hon. member to show me where one argu-

ment has been brought forward which would prove in the slightest degree the truthfulness of the statement contained in the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition, that the government is continuing to soothe the people of Canada.
On the contrary, much has been said which would go to prove that the opposite is true. After listening to the statements made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the ministers of the various departments, I feel sure that there is not a member of the opposition but believes in his heart that the statements made in the amendment are far from the truth. I would go even further and say that the leader of the opposition himself does not believe that those statements are true, and I am quite sure that the people of Canada do not believe them. Had the leader of the opposition the information which he now has, I am quite sure that he would not have moved the amendment.
It is not unusual for the leader of the opposition to make statements in and out of the house which put him in wrong with his own followers and which lower the prestige of the party which he represents. I am hoping that he is not making another mistake at this time. Notwithstanding all the misstatements which the leader of the opposition has made, I still have a great deal of respect for him. I also hold many of his followers in very high regard because they are splendid fellows. In the light of all the information which we now have; in the light of all the facts which the ministers of the various departments have given us, I am going to ask the leader of the opposition to reconsider the statements which he has made and withdraw his amendment. If the leader of the opposition is the man which I give him credit for being, he will rise in his seat and withdraw his amendment.


Mr. W. F. KUHL (Jasper-Edson):: Mr. Speaker, at a time when there is so much sorrow abroad in the world one is somewhat less inclined to be critical of those who are in places of great responsibility. Some of the members on the government _ side have expressed sympathy for the ministers, suggesting that they have been doing a great deal of work. No doubt they have been busy, and a good deal of credit is due them for that, but if there is anyone in this country who should be sympathized with, who should be given credit, it is the common people. They have endured much during the past years of depression and yet have come forward quite willingly to make every sacrifice they have been called upon to make, indeed, they have made sacrifices which I

The Address-Mr. Kuhl
consider are absolutely unessential. Yet they have come forward to offer their services in a hundred and one different ways.
The ministers at least have security, even though they may have to work hard. Should they suffer ill health, they are able to secure the best medical attention, but that cannot be said of the people of Canada at large. As I said, in times like this one is inclined to be rather less critical, but when one sees an enemy within the gates getting away with murder at a time when the common people are in a life and death struggle with an external enemy, one would have to be made of stone not to cry out against the monstrous injustice which is being done.
The enemy within our gates to which I refer is the money power. I know there are those who scoff at the suggestion of the existence of a money power, but was it not the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) himself who suggested in the campaign of 1935 that there was a money power? Was it not he who said that if he were elected to power he would do battle with the money power? If there is no money power, then the Prime Minister was deceiving the people. If there is a money power, then what happened in the battle? It is quite obvious that the battle never took place. The Liberal party pulled up the white flag before ever there was a battle.
I am inclined to believe that there is a money power. Every great leader who has attempted to do anything for his people has come into conflict with this monster of iniquity, the money power. We all know the conflict which Abraham Lincoln had with this money power, and how he paid with his own life. During the debate last year, I quoted some statements of Abraham Lincoln, where he said that he was fighting two enemies, and I should like to refer to them again. I believe that is the position in which the common people of Canada find themselves. They have not only an external enemy but an internal one as well. Abraham Lincoln in the American civil war is reported to have said:
I have two great enemies, the southern army in front of me and the financial institutions in the rear. Of the two the one in the rear is my greatest foe.
I am sure no one will suggest that Abraham Lincoln did not know what he was talking about. There is a money power at work in this country of ours, gnawing at the very vitals of this nation. There is in Canada an internal dictatorship just as diabolically wicked as the one with which we in the empire are in armed conflict. The people of Alberta have sent the Social Credit members to this parliament because they have come to the conclusion, not only as a result of studies
they have made but from actual experience, that there is a money power, and they have sent us here to do all in our power to fight this money power.
I wish also to say that the people who have sent the Social Credit members here are just as loyal citizens of Canada as any other people who send Liberal or Conservative members or members of any other party to this house. In fact I am quite persuaded that if the Canadian people were permitted to know the truth about money, banks and banking, a much larger number of social crediters, or at least of those who support monetary reform, would be sent to this house. But the sad fact of the situation is that the common people are prevented from getting the truth about money and about banks and banking. Millions are used by the bankers to defeat monetary reformers, to confuse the thinking of the people and deceive them into believing that which is not true.
We Social Credit members here intend to fight this money power as long as there is breath in our bodies. We are criticized quite frequently as being cranks on the subject of money and for talking about nothing but money. I suggest to the house that there is no more important subject that parliament could discuss than money. Every solitary thing that is discussed in this house hinges on money. Listen to any and every member talk and you will conclude that there is only one thing lacking, and that is a proper monetary policy. Every member, whether he is discussing war or peace problems of this country, admits or implies that the physical requirements are here to solve almost any problem. There are, of course, limitations in endeavouring to supply war equipment, but generally speaking every member admits or implies by what he says that physically there is nothing lacking, thereby implying that the only thing that is lacking is a proper financial policy. Consequently I do not think we are out of order in harping on the subject of money in season and out as long as we are here. In that connection I should like to quote a passage from Arthur Kitson in which he points out the enormous importance of the subject of money. He says:
The money question is the greatest moral and social question which mankind has ever had to consider. It concerns the lives, fortunes and happiness of every human being in society and of generations yet unborn. All other questions sink into insignificance compared with this one.
I agree with that statement one hundred per cent.
The hon. member for St. Antoine-West-mount (Mr. Abbott) in speaking the other
The Address-Mr. Kuhl

day-and no doubt he was making his remarks particularly for the benefit of members of the Social Credit group-said: "War machines are not created by money." That was just another sample of the straw men set up by those who try to refute the Social Credit argument. Then they knock down the straw man under the pretence that they are destroying the Social Credit argument. The hon. member cannot point to a single instance of a member of this group ever suggesting that money created things. No one ever said that money could create war machines. I do not say it, and none of our group ever said it. But what we do contend is that without money, war machines cannot be built. There is nothing that can be manufactured except through the use of money. In the days of barter when goods were traded for goods it was possible, but in the complex modern age in which we live money is absolutely essential, and without money, even though you have the men and the materials, you cannot bring them together to produce the things that are required. I do not think that can be controverted.
The money system, whatever we use for money to-day, is the heart, the blood, the most vital organ in our national economy. Without it our national life would be paralyzed. It is absolutely impossible to produce things in this modern world without having at one's command an adequate system of money.
I should like to ask those who suggest that money is not our trouble, why have we idle resources and idle men even to-day if there is a need for materials and for skilled men? Many members of the house have indicated in their addresses that there are many skilled workmen and skilled graduates of our youth training schools who are now out of employment. I am sure that every member has correspondence almost every day from people who desire work of one kind or another. If there are idle labour and idle materials; if we still have resources which are not being worked, why are they not being worked if the trouble is not a lack of money? Why is not the idle labour put to work on the idle resources? If factories are running to capacity, why are not men put to work enlarging the factories and plant equipment? If there should ever be a time when we run short of labour, skilled or unskilled, is it not a simple matter to obtain many men from the unemployed ranks in the United States? There are as many people in the ranks of the unemployed over there as there are people in the whole of Canada.
I wish again to emphasize that the one thing lacking in our national economy is an 
adequate money system. Day after day we have been listening to hon. members pleading with the government to grant soldiers free transportation on their Christmas leave. Why do the government say that they cannot do this? Is it because there is not accommodation in the railway cars? Is it because we have not enough engines or adequate railway equipment? Everyone knows that is not the situation. Trains are running up and down this country half-empty, and if there are not enough cars, why cannot more be manufactured? It is purely and simply a question of finance. What prevents our soldiers from getting free transportation home for Christmas is a financial, not a physical problem. I think it is a shame that young men who are placing their lives in jeopardy for this country should be treated in such a fashion. It is a question of money.
Consider any question which is raised in this house. Take, for instance the provision of storage for wheat. Surely one must concede upon the slightest reflection that that is purely a financial question. Are we without storage facilities because we lack lumber, or labour to produce the lumber, or cement to build storage? We are not lacking in anything physical. Then, why have we all these unemployed, these unused resources, this overripe timber? Every problem connected with this matter of the handling of grain is financial and nothing else.
Or take any other of the numerous agricultural problems which have been discussed in this chamber. I hear our Conservative friends from Ontario constantly bemoaning the fact that vegetables and fruit are admitted from across the border in competition with produce which is raised in their province. Again, is it not a question of finance? There are in this country hundreds of thousands of people who would like to supplement their diet with more vegetables, fruit, fish and poultry. We are doing a great deal of high-pressure advertising. The government tries by these advertisements to induce people to eat more apples, more lobsters, more fish. The government does not have to tell people what to eat. All that is wrong is that they have not the money to pay for these commodities. If the government sees to it that the financial system enables the people to make their demand effective, it will not need to carry on all this high-pressure advertising; it is just a waste of time, energy, and material.
The problem of the maritime provinces resolves itself into one of finance. People in the interior of Canada would like to have the products of the fishermen. They are not using them, not because they do not desire

The Address-Mr. Kuhl
to eat fish or because they do not know about it, but because their purchasing power does not permit them to buy these products.
The people of the prairie provinces would like to have the fruits of British Columbia, and British Columbia wants the grain of the prairie provinces. Why do they not exchange the one for the other? Not on account of physical handicaps; for railway trains are operating every day, many times with empty cars, going from one province to another. There are no physical limitations; the question resolves itself into one of finance and nothing else.
Or consider the question of allowances to the widows and dependents of war veterans. Why should these people not have complete economic security? Have we not sufficient of the amenities of life; have we not the physical resources to take care of these people? No one will deny that we have.
Again, the matter of taking care of those who are not able to take care of themselves resolves itself into a question of finance. The same is true of old age pensions. Certainly we have enough food, clothing and material to maintain and house our aged people. The physical requirements are here; we have every essential to .make them comfortable and happy during the sunset days of their lives. It is a question of an adequate financial policy- nothing else.
Consider the health standards of our people. One of the best contributions Canada can make to the war effort of the empire is to put its people in the best physical and mental health that is humanly possible. It is not being done. Why? Because the medical facilities are not there? No. There are plenty of doctors who have not sufficient practice; there are ample hospital facilities and all kinds of services to promote the health of the people; there are plenty of foodstuffs to provide them with diets which will build healthy bodies. The question of the health of the people of Canada is a question of finance-nothing else.
One could go on and enumerate every problem which has been raised by any hon. member in this house; when boiled down to its final essence, each one is a matter of finance and nothing else.
I suggest that the financial problem should not be difficult of solution. If our financial system to-day were dependent upon the minting and circulation of gold as a medium of exchange, we might be confronted with an impossible physical problem. Probably there would not be enough gold. But our money system to-day is simplicity itself. It is nothing more or less than a simple bookkeeping system. Ninety-five per cent of our money is nothing but drops of ink on pieces of paperthe simplest commodities in the world to obtain. This is the most easily operated, most easily controlled and most perfect money system that the mind of man has ever devised. It is almost costless to operate. It is purely bookkeeping. The great and palatial structures which are erected all over this dominion as bank buildings are quite unessential. The amount of materials consumed in administering the financial policy of this country is almost negligible.
Since the financial system in itself is so simple, why should it be so difficult to solve our financial problems? The evils of our financial system lie not in the system itself, but in the method under which it is operated, in the policy which is pursued. Although it is an almost perfect system, the most perfect which has ever been devised, it is one of the most ill-managed and ill-conducted; so much so that, though this Canada of ours, with its sparse population and enormous resources, makes us, physically speaking, millionaires, we have been brought to the verge of bankruptcy, financially speaking only, because of the mismanagement of the money system.
From its very inception the money system of Canada and of every other democratic country has not functioned as it should have done. The purpose of a financial system, as I see it, is to reflect the desire and the ability of the people of a nation to produce and to consume, and if it is not doing that, it is not performing its function. So long as there are idle resources and idle men, the financial system is not reflecting the ability of a country to produce. So long as there is abundance, if not actual, then potential, of goods and services on the one hand, and poverty and destitution on the other, the financial system is not reflecting the ability and the desire of the people to consume. And so long as there are any physical possibilities-I do not care which you wish to name-which are not being realized, the financial policy is not functioning as it should.
Why is it not functioning as it should? I consider that the right to create, issue and put into circulation in the first instance every single, solitary dollar and cent in the country is a crown prerogative. All money that is issued in a nation should be issued by the state. That is the most sacred of all crown prerogatives. But there are members of this house and people outside the house who state that it is not only undesirable but dangerous for the state to issue money, although the exact converse of that is the truth. The state should be the only authority within a nation to create and put into circulation all the money of the nation.

The Address-Mr. Kuhl

Abraham Lincoln made a statesmanlike utterance on this question of the state issue of money and the prerogative of the crown. He said:
Money is the creature of law, and the creation of the original issue of money should be maintained as an exclusive monopoly of the national government. Such needs can be served by issuing national currency and credit through the operation of a national banking system. The government should create, issue and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the government and the buying power of consumers. The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of the government but it is the government's greatest creative opportunity.
Will anyone deny that that is as it should be? Yet there are in this house men, including the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), if not stating straightforwardly, at any rate certainly implying that it is not only unwise but dangerous for the state to issue money. I regard that as one of the most shocking circumstances in a democratic country. The state should be creating and issuing every cent of the money of this nation, but we are being told that it is unwise and dangerous to do this. This sacred prerogative of the crown, the most sacred prerogative that the crown can exercise, has been given piecemeal over a period of time to a private monopoly, and this has been carried to the point where parliament to-day has been relegated to the position of merely a pawnbroker for the private money monopoly. That is the position which the government occupies to-day.
In my opinion every person, I care not how high his position may be, or what office he may occupy, who has contributed to this state of affairs and who insists that it should be perpetuated, ought to be tried for high treason -and I mean that. I consider that giving away into the hands of a private monopoly the most sacred prerogative the crown can possess is one of the most heinous crimes that any individual or group of individuals can be guilty of, and in my opinion those persons who have been guilty of this act, regardless of who they may be, are as traitorous as any fifth columnist can be considered.
I should like to support what I have just said by a quotation from a book published by C. Barclay-Smith, entitled " Victory without Debt." He is an Australian and I recommend this book to every member of the house. Everyone should read it not only once but a hundred times; he would be a better man after reading it. At page 34 the writer says:
When public trustees:-that is, the parliament of the nation-finance government requirements by pawning the assets of the country and the
[Mr. Kuhl.l
future security of the people to the private credit monopoly, thus lowering the tenor of life of every citizen, so far from calling that kind of thing sound finance I prefer to give it its proper name-high treason.
As I have already suggested, the first reason why the financial system in Canada, the policy that is being pursued, does not do what it ought to do is the fact that the crown prerogative is exercised by a private monopoly; and the first thing that should be done is to restore to parliament and to the people of Canada this sacred prerogative. The people of Canada were led to believe that this is what the Liberal party would do if they were elected in 1935. I am quite satisfied that this is the reason why the Liberal party was elected with the majority it received in 1935. The people believed that it would restore to parliament the sacred prerogative of issuing and putting into circulation the medium of exchange. But this was not done. Why? St. James Street probably shouted " boo," and the Liberal party wilted.
I would say the second reason is that the financial policy which is in vogue in Canada does not permit what is physically possible becoming financially possible, for the reason that all money which is issued to-day originates as a debt to the banking institutions. Consequently, anyone who uses bank money-and everyone and every institution must use it-becomes perpetually in debt to the banking institutions. A debt is incurred which can never be paid. Some individuals can pay, but the nation as a whole can never get out of debt to the banking institutions, because it owes more than there is in the community with which to pay back the debt, and that is the reason why public debts, national debts, are never paid off.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: If they paid it back, the banks would go broke.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: Money should be created and issued in such fashion that the repayment of a debt is made a mathematical possibility. Under the present system and policy it is not. And the fact that the debts continually increase is sufficient evidence of that.
Another evil which the present policy works is that it obliges the people to pay for things not only once but twice, thrice and many more times. For instance, in public works, a project is completed, a bridge, for example, is built. The community as a whole provides everything physically needed to build that bridge, the community provides all the labour and all the material, and when that bridge is built it is actually paid for. But under the present system of financing, it is not paid for, possibly for a hundred

The Address-Mr. Kuhl
years afterwards. Financially it is paid for several times over. Physically it was paid for when it was completed.
That principle holds true in connection with war. Why should we be paying for the 1914-18 war to-day, if blood and sweat and tears constitute the only cost of a war? All the physical essentials of the 1914-18 war were met at that time, and that war was fully paid for when the war was concluded. And that holds true of the present war. The Minister of Finance has informed us that this war is being paid for as it progresses. Well, that is true; a war is paid for as it progresses. In blood, sweat and tears the cost of a war is provided from day to day as the war progresses. If that is the situation, I want to be told why there should be a debt remaining after the war is over? Why are we told after the war is over that we still have to pay for the war, if the war is being paid for while it is in progress? I should like to hear a discussion with regard to that angle.
The minister says that the government is pursuing a pay-as-you-go policy. I would call it, pay as you go now and after it is over and until you die, and your children and your grandchildren and your great grandchildren continue to pay. That is the kind of policy the government is pursuing; it is not a pay-as-you-go policy, it is a pay-a-hundred-times-as-you-go policy.
The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Claxton), in moving the address in reply, stated that Canadians will be obliged to deprive themselves until it hurts. Well, we in this corner agree to that; if sacrifices are necessary, they must be made. But because of the iniquities of the financial policy which is now being pursued, we are called upon for sacrifices which are unnecessary, and unnecessary sacrifices are iniquities.
We contend that it is possible for this country and the empire to have victory without debt. If we are paying for the war as it progresses, that can be true in a financial sense as well as in a real sense. The only cost involved in financing the war is a matter of bookkeeping, of setting up the appropriate system and conducting it while the war is in progress. All that is involved is the services of clerks and the consumption of ink and paper; outside of that there is no expense. If the cost of banking and the real costs are met during the war, we want to be told why there need be a debt after the war.
I had intended to deal with that question a little further but I see my time is gone. I should like to say something on another
14873-33J
question which, however, in a way is related to this. I want to say a few words regarding implementation of the recommendations of the Sirois report. Most hon. members are aware that I have interested myself particularly in Canada's constitutional question; I have spoken on it several times in this house-


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I have to
inform the hon. member that his time has expired. Unless he has the unanimous consent of the house to continue, he will have to resume his seat.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: If I could have about two
minutes I could state my point of view.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: In connection with the
implementation of this report I am quite in accord with the idea that we must have constitutional alterations in Canada; I have so expressed myself on several occasions. I am satisfied that such alterations are long overdue. But I frankly confess that I do not agree with the method employed, this dominion-provincial conference, to settle such a major question. The Prime Minister has represented himself in this house on many occasions as a great protagonist of democracy, but in my opinion this action to which he is resorting in an endeavour to solve a constitutional difficulty is a negation and repudiation of everything he has said on the question of democracy.
I believe the best advice that has been given to us as to the most democratic manner in which to settle this question is that given by the clerk of this house, Doctor Beauchesne, and I recommend it to every hon. member and to every province of Canada. Personally I feel that there is more democracy in one page of Doctor Beauchesne's evidence than in the whole Sirois recommendations.
I would call the Prime Minister's way of attempted settlement of the constitutional difficulty a hole-in-the-corner business, getting the premiers of the provinces or one or two representatives from each province together with the dominion cabinet, is in my view, not the way to settle such an important question. This question involves the whole people of Canada, and they should be consulted. I do not think any premier or any representative of a provincial government, without first getting authority from the people through a plebiscite, has any moral or legal right to come to any agreement as to alteration of the constitutional position in Canada. No provincial government, regardless of what majority they have, in my opinion have any
The Address-Mr. Kuhl

authority from their people to act on this question. If it is going to be done in a democratic fashion the people of each province should first be consulted before any action is taken.
I shall quote a sentence or two of Doctor Beauchesne's suggestion, and leave it at that. I agree entirely with it. Doctor Beauchesne has suggested that this all-important question should be dealt with not by a few individuals but by a constituent assembly. On page 126 of the report of the special committee on the British North America Act he is reported as saying:
I, therefore, beg to suggest an imposing constituent assembly formed of eminent men coming from all parts of Canada. Provincial conferences, attended by a few ministers meeting behind closed doors, would hardly satisfy public opinion. The debate should be published.
I believe that should be the case in connection with the consideration of this question. He continues:
I submit that a constituent assembly, chosen by the provincial legislatures and by the House of Commons, representing the main political parties and groups in proportion to the votes given at the last general elections, should meet in session at Winnipeg and discuss the situation from all its angles.
Then on page 128 this suggestion is made:
The assembly should be convened by provincial proclamations issued in each province and by a dominion proclamation in which it would be clearly stated that the minority rights now guaranteed by the British North America Act should not even be discussed.
In choosing the delegates to this constituent assembly, due regard should be given to the representation of all classes. Business men, farmers, professional men, scholars and labour men should be represented. Although the dominion would send an important delegation, the assembU should not be a dominion assembly, but rather an assembly of the provinces' representatives in consultation with the dominion.
There ought to be no government side and no official opposition in such a body, which should work on the lines of coalition. A committee consisting of the premiers and leaders of the opposition in the House of Commons and legislatures would have charge of the agenda and daily order of business which, under ordinary rules, could be adjusted daily by experienced parliamentary clerks. Speeches ought to be recorded by Hansard.
Then there is this last paragraph:
I would suggest that the assembly do not sit in Ottawa, in order that it may not have the appearance of being dominated, or even influenced, by the dominion power; and, as the western provinces are of such paramount importance in the country, I suggest the best city for the representatives to gather in would be Winnipeg.
I am heartily in accord with these suggestions. I should like to elaborate on them
a good deal more, but I have exhausted my
[Mr. Kuhi-l
time. I recommend a study of these suggestions to all members of this house and of the provincial legislatures. I believe it is only in some manner such as this that this great and all-important question can be settled in the best interests of the people of Canada.


Mr. HECTOR AUTHIER (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, in the course of the debate now drawing to its conclusion, many interesting things have been said. The mover of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Claxton), and the seconder, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras), led the way on the first day with remarkable eloquence.
The government asks for our support in its war policy. The leader of the opposition replies that this policy is only a catch, that the war effort is insufficient and ill-managed, and he invites us to censure the government accordingly. He adds that the government is also deserving of blame for having not given more help to the farmers of Canada.
The leader of the new democracy party has found another reason for blaming the government: he wants to have Canada pay its war costs in social credit money. Let us examine his subamendment, which will be voted upon first. We have just listened to a speech advocating his theory. The money constantly recommended by hon. members in the far corner would simply consist of non-interestbearing dominion notes printed and circulated in practically unlimited quantities. Were this method feasible, the task of the Minister of Finance would be wonderfully simple. He would no longer have to find lenders nor to levy revenue to pay the thirty or forty million dollars of interest required for each billion dollars spent for war purposes. That would remove a very heavy burden from the shoulders of the taxpayers. Alas! systems that are too simple are not always the best, because they omit too many essential factors. Our national economy is necessarily conditioned by our trade relations with other countries, and we have to protect the value of our money abroad as well as at home.
At no time have our exports and imports reached their present high level. How could we, at this time, be rash enough to forsake the doctrine that is generally accepted in Great Britain and the United States as regards the issue of money? Never in our life as a nation have we been less justified than we are now in attempting risky experiments with money. Let us first win the vrar, after which we can discuss whatever experiments it might be advisable for us to try, if we are not satisfied with the monetary system then in use.

The Address,-Mr. Authier
Winning the war must be our chief concern, for let us not forget for a moment that defeat would bring about the direst consequences for Canada and the world. But, God willing, Great Britain and her sister and allied nations shall not be vanquished.
The leader of the opposition is quite unjustified in suggesting that the government of Canada have not done their duty-their full duty-and that they are merely soothing the Canadian people. One after the other, the ministers of national defence have stated to this house the activities of their departments. What criticism have the honourable members who sit on the opposition side been able to voice? A very weak one. We have been told by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) that we are spending daily three million dollars for our war effort, which is all we can afford to spend. No one has shown that those funds have not on the whole been wisely used or that there was any dishonesty in that regard. Of course, some criticism on matters of detail may have been justified, but, on the whole, necessary war expenditures have been made quite properly. I know that the government have been upbraided by some overenthusiastic members for not having sent to Europe a larger number of soldiers. Those who followed a course so obviously wrong during the last war would like to-day-in order to enhance the interests of their party-to see this government follow their example and take the road leading to conscription. We have heard to-night a speech partly devoted to the expression of such ideas. No. we are not going to make such a mistake this time. Canada shall not send overseas more men than are necessary. The British ambassador in the United States, Lord Lothian, has just stated publicly that his country had no need of reinforcements. " England definitely does not need men," he said on his arrival at New York from London. I have read that statement in the New York Times of last Sunday. Such a statement makes it unnecessary for us to look for any further rebuttal of the Conservative argument on that point.
The leader of the opposition was more fortunate in the choice of his second point, for there is indeed much unrest among the farmers in this country. However, he is wrong in suggesting that the government have done nothing to lessen it. To the members from western Canada who never cease to demand more help for the western farmers, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) easily showed that no government has ever done so much for the farmers in the prairies. I have no wish to criticize him for the help so given. Besides he did good work for the
producers of the whole country during his recent trip to Great Britain. But I would ask him to do still more for eastern farmers. I confess that we have in the province of Quebec a great many farmers whose plight is pitiful. Surely there ought to be some way of helping them. I wish to associate myself with those who have asked that these farmers be supplied at a low cost with western grain and grain products so that they may feed their cattle and produce meat more profitably. The freight rates on wheat and grain for consumption in eastern Canada should not be higher than the export rates. Such a policy would be equally fair to western and eastern Canada. Why not use the transcontinental railway from Winnipeg to Quebec, Montreal and Moncton, for the purpose that those who planned and built it had in mind?
As I said, a large number of farmers in the province of Quebec are in a sorry plight. There are, I believe, 50,000 or 60,000 settlers and farmers in Quebec who cannot obtain from their land sufficient income to provide their families with proper food, clothing and education. They are compelled to seek additional sources of income elsewhere, in the forests, the mines, the fisheries and many other occupations. Young men leave the farm at an early age to seek work in the cities where they find' themselves out of place and frequently out of employment.
WThat are the remedies? As it would take too long to go into the question in detail, I shall confine myself to generalities. A more practical and widespread system of agricultural instruction should be adopted and enforced, and more capital should be placed at the disposal of farmers capable of making profitable use of it. The dominion farm loan scheme did not produce the results it should have produced. It could be made more liberal and efficient. The progress of agriculture in the province of Quebec is a question both of education and of finance. Advance will be slow, but that is all the more reason for immediate action. While awaiting the results of a general policy, palliatives could be used, as they were used in western Canada. Why should there not be a minimum price for butter and cheese as there is for wheat? Farmers who sold their butter for 22 cents a pound all through the summer usually discover that its price to the consumer rises 25 per cent and even 35 per cent at the end of the season, as-it did this fall.
I am simply suggesting that the government set a minimum price for butter, as has been done in the case of wheat, and ensure its delivery throughout the country without any excessive profits going to the middlemen.
The Address^Mr. Authier

It would also be necessary to consider the setting of a reasonable price for all pulp-wood cut by farmers on their own land. To a great number of our settlers and would-be farmers, the sale of such wood is the only available means of livelihood. The central authority could certainly do its share in assisting them by exerting a certain pressure on our railroads whose shipping rates on this product are often much too -high. Should these measures require the cooperation of the provincial governments, it will be forthcoming. The premier of Quebec is not only a great orator, but also a very intelligent farmer, as everyone knows. He can be counted on to do his share. If the Minister of Agriculture were to accept my suggestions, he could then boast that never before has a government done as much, not only for the western farmer but for the eastern farmer as well. Our agricultural class needs and is worthy of his assistance. Once again, I know its recovery will take time and effort and a great deal of patience. Like colonization, it is apparently a deceptive undertaking because of the ceaseless difficulties and delays to be encountered, but it is a task that must nevertheless be accomplished since it is essential to maintaining a correct balance between city and country, as well as to the morale of our people and the future greatness of Canada.
I intend to vote against the opposition leader's amendment for two reasons: firstly, his leading premise is evidently without foundation and, secondly, he has suggested no remedy for the agricultural distress he mentions.
I shall continue to have faith in the statesmen who now govern this country, particularly the right hon. prime minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), who has ever shown throughout his long career a deep understanding of the realities of Canadian politics, inspired in all circumstances by a true Canadian patriotism and a great sense of social justice. Under his guidance, the administration will, I trust, take all steps required to improve the lot of our people, that of the good and the humble to whom the prime minister alluded in concluding his first address this session. The performance of this task will in no way hinder their furnishing to Great Britain the fullest measure of assistance we have promised her in this war which she is fighting so valorously and from which she will emerge triumphant and glorious.


Mr. A. H. BENCE (Saskatoon City):: Mr. Speakpr, upon rising to speak in this house for the first, time I should like to take this opportunity of paying a tribute to my immedi-

ate predecessor from the city of Saskatoon. The late Reverend W. G. Brown was a man of the very highest character and ability, and one who was affectionately regarded by all those with whom he came in contact, regardless of their political affiliations. He came to this house from no selfish motive, for no reasons of self-advancement, but purely for the purpose of speaking on behalf of those people for whom he had laboured all the days of his life, men and women in destitute and necessitous circumstances. His passing was a great blow to the city from which I come and to this country which he loved so well.
This evening I wish to discuss two matters relating to western economy. I am not a farmer and I do not have that detailed knowledge of farming which can be acquired only by those actually engaged in that occupation, but I did spend some part of my youth on the farm. I am also a resident of the city of Saskatoon, -which is the hub of the greatest hard wheat growing country in the world, and I know how vital the production and sale of our wheat are not only to the farmers themselves but to those residing in cities such as the one from which I come. I know how very much concerned we are in the west over the situation that exists out there at the present time. Only a very small fringe of the population of my city is actually engaged in farming, some 1,500 out of about 43,000 people, but every man and woman in my constituency is materially interested either directly or indirectly in agriculture and particularly in wheat and the price of it. The whole economy of my constituency, indeed of my province, depends upon the production of wheat and the money that, is obtained for it.
It is bad enough to have to exist in an economy that is dependent upon a price of 70 cents for No. 1 northern at Fort William, which means about 52 cents in my district. That is a price which it is generally conceded is not sufficient to keep the farmer on the land as an efficient producer. I was pleased indeed, as I am sure many other members were, to hear the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) make that admission the other day when he stated in the house:
It is generally admitted that 70 cents advance at Fort William, which nets the farmer about 50 cents a bushel, does not cover his total costs of production and therefore does not maintain him as a contented producer.
I like those words, "contented producer," because I am convinced that you cannot have an efficient producer unless you have one that is at least reasonably contented. May I

The Address-Mr. Bence
express the hope that the hon. Minister of Agriculture will continue to impress that fact upon the house and upon the government of which he is a member?
It is bad enough, as I have said, to have to exist in an economy based on wheat at that price, but it is a very sorry situation indeed when we cannot obtain even that amount of money for our product. I have been listening and watching carefully to leam what statements would be made by the government in connection with an advance on wheat stored on the farm. The two ministers who were mainly concerned with this matter after the house adjourned last August, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon), have both addressed the house within the last week or so. The Minister of Agriculture had nothing to say about an advance on wheat stored on the farm, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce very little indeed. He contented himself, as I recall it, with stating that because the banks felt it was not a good risk, the government had to drop the matter.
The opinion was general throughout this land last August and September that the question of making an advance payment on wheat stored on the farm had already been settled. Indeed, some of us were taken to task because it was claimed that we were insisting upon something being considered which had already been decided upon. In proof of that fact I should like to quote briefly from an editorial in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of August 31, 1940, as follows:
There has been a great deal of ineffective talk about the problem, a considerable effort to make use of it for political purposes and considerable demanding of things already assured.
Thus, it is tremendously important that advances be made on the wheat left on farms. That has been recognized by everyone concerned from the start. It requires no emphasis. But away back in July Ottawa had already made the decision to make such advances. Several ministers announced it in the House of Commons and have repeated it since. Yet a vast amount of energy has been used up demanding that which was already decided.
That this feeling was not restricted to Saskatoon and to Saskatchewan is evidenced by a statement appearing in Canadian Finance of September 18, 1940, from which I quote as follows:
But there have been definite statements from Ottawa that money is to be advanced to farmers on grain held in farm storage and it is generally assumed that the advances will be handled by the wheat board.
In addition to that, the Minister of Trade and Commerce on several occasions indicated most strongly that an advance would be made
and that the only question was as to the exact method of working it out. As a result of the statements that were made and of the impression at least that was given, credit was granted in many cases by the merchants, but in many other instances that was impossible because the many years of drought and low prices had left the merchants of Saskatchewan in a position where they could not advance the credit they would like to have done.
I have received a letter written on behalf of the fuel merchants of western Canada pointing out to me that there were many farmers who would be in need of the delivery of coal but who could not purchase it because all the money they had received from the sale of their quota was required to pay immediate expenses-and that was after the quota had been raised to its present level. I quote from that letter, dated September 27, 1940, as follows:
In the past it has been the practice for a farmer to bring in a load of grain and take out a load of coal-taking delivery from the car and thus saving unloading expense and perhaps getting a better quality of coal; this year, however, he has to utilize the money received from the little grain he can sell for payment of current expenses and this leaves him with little or nothing with which to purchase his fuel requirements. Cold weather will soon be upon us and these people will be looking for fuel; in nine cases out of ten the farmer will have utilized his full quota and he will, therefore, be unable to follow the practice of former years-that of selling wheat and taking out coal-and there are no coal dealers in western Canada prepared to sell fuel to the farmer without money, as their experience in this connection has been too sad over the past years.
Because of the fact that advances were not made a great deal of hardship resulted not only for the farmers but for merchants both rural, and urban, and a trade paralysis resulted which never should have been allowed to arise.
The history of what happened after parliament adjourned last August would appear to be that the Minister of Trade and Commerce stayed in Ottawa for several weeks after the date he had intended to go on his holidays, to give this matter the grave consideration which it deserved. He received representations from all parts of western Canada-the prairies in any event-and the Bracken committee was called together, under the convenership of Premier John Bracken of Manitoba, and had a conference with the government and the wheat board. But the result of these representations and of the conference was a very sad one indeed as far as the western farmers and western merchants generally were concerned.
I believe that we should have from the Minister of Trade and Commerce a fuller
The Address-Mr. Bence

The Address-Mr. Bence

there is an acute shortage as far as some skilled occupations are concerned. Moreover, the suggestion has been made in this house, and at least in one newspaper that I noticed, that women will probably have to be called to assist in manufacturing work. While this is going on, there is at the same time a relief problem in the west.


An hon. MEMBER:: And in the east.


Alfred Henry Bence: I realize that there is one in far eastern Canada, but I am only discussing the question from the point of view of the western provinces. It is true that the relief problem in the prairie provinces was not as great this summer as it had been in many of the years before. It was not as great this fall, either, but there are still many people on relief in Saskatoon, and it is anticipated that the number will be considerably augmented in the next few months, because the work they have been doing has been completed or nearly completed. They have been building air ports and barracks and similar construction, but after the work is done there is nothing further for them to do and they must go back on relief. These works in themselves will not give employment except to the army and navy, and unless we do something to build factories or industrial concerns, which will in themselves provide employment, we shall always have a problem on the western prairies.
Besides relief, there is a tremendous labour force on the farms, and a part of the farmer's product will not be wanted and he will have to be supported by the state either directly or indirectly. This anomaly of a great labour shortage in one part of the country and a great force of labour in another, idle and supported in large part from public funds, should not be allowed to continue without some strenuous efforts being made to correct it.
The Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) explained the other day that the reason why so many of the industries for war purposes were being concentrated in Ontario and Quebec was that hydro-electric power made for low cost of production. He did not say that it was essential for efficient work; he did not say that the work could not be done in the west and in other parts of Canada just as quickly and efficiently as in Ontario and Quebec. The point he stressed was that it could be done more cheaply in these two provinces. Speaking to this house last May he said:
I am greatly interested in just one thing, and that is getting the best material available in the shortest time and at the lowest price.
In the house the other day he said that he wished to conduct his department as he would

a business concern. These are laudable sentiments and in a large measure we can all agree with them. One thing he seems to have forgotten is the fact that this is an effort by the whole of Canada and that the whole of Canada wishes to participate in providing essential war materials. I would suggest to him that if we could work out some scheme which, although possibly it would cost the department more money now, would in the long run save money for Canada, it would be a good thing.
We should look at the matter from a much broader point of view, and my suggestion is that at the risk of costing a little more now, so long as speed is not impaired, and so long as the war effort is not impeded, we should make a strenuous effort through the medium of war industry to divert the great labour force in western Canada and in other parts of the country outside Ontario and Quebec, at least in part, from their present occupations into essential war industries. In my own city war work on a smaller scale could be done now, but it may be that it could not be done at a price which would compete with that available in eastern Canada. There is a growing demand in the west to transfer labour from grain production to necessary war work. To bonus nonproduction, idleness or useless overproduction is economically unsound. We must have a diversified economy throughout our country, not only to assist in the war work but for post-war purposes.
There is an opportunity before us which we must not miss. If we do not take advantage of it now, we shall probably never have it again. The self-sufficiency which the European nations attained after the first great war, and the difficulty of getting a remunerative price for wheat in peace time, should be warning to us to take advantage of this opportunity when we have it. If we plan carefully and establish industries in other parts of Canada-and as I said I am not by any means confining myself to the prairies-in the long run we shall be able to save a great deal of money and establish the economic structure of this dominion on a sound basis. It is imperative that we do everything in our power to iron out the economic sectionalism which besets this country like a plague.
In conclusion I wish to associate myself most strongly and sincerely with those who have raised their voices in this house on behalf of the soldiers with regard to the request for free transportation. The Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Power) indicated I believe this afternoon that nothing was going to be done in this regard as far as

Suspension of Standing Order
Christmas leave is concerned. Well, I trust the government will not make that final. In any event I make this plea, that they do not allow any soldier, sailor or airman to go overseas without first having an opportunity to go and see his loved ones.
On motion of Mr. Gladstone the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Crerar the house adjourned at 10.45 p.m.
Friday, November 29, 1940.