[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, November 20, consideration 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. Blackmore.
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, some members of the house are intensely interested in government finance, some only mildly so, and some, I fear, not very much at all. But all are entitled to a clear presentation of whatever the government may wish to say on the subject and I have therefore given some thought to the arrangement of my remarks.
These will fall naturally under four heads- principles, developments, criticisms and prospects. And it will be my object to present under these heads, and with all possible brevity, the facts and observations relating to government finance which I believe deserve the attention of this house.

The Address-Mr. Ilsley
The principles of our war finance policy have been stated before but will bear repetition. Briefly summarized these principles are:
1.	That in real terms, that is to say in terms of the loss to the nation of the production required for war purposes, the war is paid for substantially while it is in progress.
2.	That the limits of what we can devote to war purposes are not financial but, as previously stated in this house, are physical, mental and moral, that is to say, the physical limits of our resources and the mental and moral capacity of Canadians to bear burdens and make sacrifices.
3.	That the task of finance is not only to provide the funds which are used to pay for the war services but more fundamentally is, by taxing and borrowing, to restrict the civilian demand for economic resources in order that they will be available to the defence or supply departments when required.
4.	That in discharging this function, finance must keep in step with the defence and supply programme.
5.	That for this purpose, taxation, as far as practicable, is a better method than borrowing because it is fairer and final.
6.	That taxation should be imposed upon a basis of equality of sacrifice, having regard to ability to pay.
7.	That there are practical limits beyond which taxation cannot be carried, so that the government must also do some borrowing, which should be as far as possible out of voluntary public savings.
8.	That the third method of war finance, namely, inflation, is the most unfair, the most uneconomical and the most dangerous of all methods of financing a war.
9.	That in the early stages of a war, some expansion of credit is often possible without inflation.
10.	That later, as the resources of the country become fully employed, monetary or credit expansion necessarily brings about inflation unless offset by strict counter-measures, such as severe taxation.
These principles have been laid down repeatedly in this house by spokesmen for the government, particularly in the budget speeches of September, 1939, and June, 1940. Every step of a financial character which the government has taken has been based upon these principles and it is the policy of the government to continue to follow them.
I may add that as far as I can judge or ascertain, these principles have met with widespread approval in the country. In so far as there can be said to be a public opinion on principles of war finance, the principles I
have outlined are in accord with the overwhelming preponderance of Canadian public opinion.
May I now review the main events or developments relating to government finance -which have taken place since the end of July, when I last spoke on this subject in the house.
First, I should mention the very rapid acceleration in war expenditures w'hich has taken place during the last few months. War expenditures in June and July had been in the neighbourhood of 840,000,000. For August they amounted to 859,000,000; for September to $67,000,000, and for October to about $S2,000,000, which is at a rate of very nearly one billion dollars a year.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: I do not wish to interrupt the minister, but would he be good enough to say whether these expenditures were actual payments, or commitments?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Payments.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Thank you.


James Lorimer Ilsley: So far as I have been able to ascertain, war expenditures will continue to rise as our military, naval and air programmes develop. I do not know whether hon. members fully realize what it means for this country to be spending at the rate of one billion dollars a year on war purposes, the rate which we have already reached. That is nearly twice our normal peace-time rate of expenditure of all kinds. It is about one-fifth, probably more than one-fifth, of our national income.
Non-war expenditures during the first six months of this fiscal year have been about $29,000,000 less than in the similar period last year. The reductions to be achieved in the second half year will be larger in the case of most items than those in the first, particularly in the major items of public works and relief: in the first because the fiscal year had already begun before the new policy was fully operative, and in the second because the winter relief load is larger than the summer and there is more room for saving.
On the side of revenue, receipts during the fiscal year up to yesterday were about $145000,000 more than at the same date last year and have been well in line with the budget forecasts, bearing in mind the normal and anticipated variations through the year. If anything, the budget estimates are apt to prove slightly conservative as regards revenue. The first returns from the national defence tax are proving to be somewhat better than the necessarily approximate estimates that were made without previous experience of this kind of tax. It is worth noting, moreover, that the increases in taxes made in the June budget
The Address-Mr. Ilsley

accumulating on a compound interest basis until maturity. While the special advantages of this type of security for the small investor will be readily apparent, it does seem to me that in future war loan issues we should again issue the fifty-dollar denomination in order to allow ever}'' investor, small and large, to participate in the tremendous patriotic effort of our war loan campaigns.
Someone has suggested that because it took two weeks to sell the second war loan it was not a success. That view implies a complete misunderstanding of the desiderata involved in the sound distribution of securities. If we wish to depend on large corporations and large financial institutions to buy our bonds, perhaps a campaign of two or three days would be all that would be necessary, but no one with experience in the security business would regard this as sound or satisfactory distribution. We believe that in the interests of the public as well as of the treasury, dominion securities should be as widely distributed as possible among individual investors who intend to hold their bonds as a permanent investment. It is ridiculous to believe that this distribution can be obtained in a few days in a country like Canada where the population is scattered over so large an area. The victory loan campaigns of the last war lasted for at least two weeks, and personally I shall endeavour to see that in our future loan campaigns the books of the loan are kept open for at least this long a period in order to give an opportunity for everyone to subscribe.
There is one further point I should like to mention. In thinking of our September loan it is necessary to remember that it was the second of two public loans issued during 1940. or rather during the first nine months of 1940. From these two loans and from the sale of war savings certificates, war savings stamps and non-interest-bearing certificates we have raised during the calendar year to date a total of approximately S524.000.000 in cash from private: and institutional investors other than banks. That is a record of which Canada has every reason to be proud, particularly when we remember the interest rates at which the funds have been raised and the extent to which taxes have been increased to pay for this war. To my mind there is no comparison between this record and the record of financing during the last war when 5 per cent or 5-J per cent bonds on a tax-free basis were sold, sometimes at a discount, in an era of inflationary expansion of incomes.
I come now to some of the criticisms which have been made of our financial policies and administration.

These have been of two types: criticism of details and criticism of principle. To the first type belong the observations of the leader of the opposition, who took no exception to our policies on grounds of principle, if I understood him correctly, but took exception to their application in certain respects.
I have already replied. I think, to his criticism of the second war loan.
His next point was a more serious one. He said:
I lay at the feet of the administration the charge of having imposed tremendously heavy and oppressive taxation by the 1940 budget.
And later:
We are taxing the well-disposed to the limit. There is no equality of sacrifice in the 1940 budget. I place the responsibility for this squarely upon the administration.
As the additional taxes imposed by the last budget were steeply graduated and as the taxes imposed under the Excess Profits Tax Act are generally, I think universally, regarded as severe, it would almost appear that the leader of the opposition, in speaking about the "well-disposed" means the well-to-do, and that when he says there is "no equality of sacrifice," he means that the rich are called upon to sacrifice more on a percentage basis than the poor.
These charges are well founded. The well-to-do are being taxed very heavily and at higher percentage rates than those in the lower income brackets. But when we announced the principle of equality of sacrifice we made it clear that it was equality of sacrifice having regard to ability to pay.
It is interesting to find the leader of the Conservative part}', which has been demanding a greater and ever greater war effort, already complaining about the tax burden which that effort involves. Make no mistake about this. If we are really honest in demanding a war effort to the utmost we all must expect to be taxed until it hurts. Taxes that can comfortably be paid are not enough.
Next, the leader of the opposition says that there has been great extravagance in government expenditures and that the treasury must step in and put a brake on foolish and extravagant expenditure. The hon. gentleman would hardly contend that he proved his case by the examples cited. However, I have no doubt that in the extensive and complicated organization that has been set up for the prosecution of our war effort all over this dominion there will be some instances where full value is not obtained for the money expended. All I can say is that my colleagues and I realize our responsibility in that regard. I agree with the opposition that nothing could

The Address-Mr. Ilsley
be more unfortunate than to have the impression go out among the people that the money they place in our hands, in trust, for a high cause, is not being prudently, carefully and responsibly expended. But, Mr. Speaker, as far as the Department of Finance is concerned we are eternally vigilant in that regard; and I feel sure that the same observation applies to my colleagues and to their responsible officials.
I would say to the leader of the opposition, and to every other hon. member of this house, that if he knows of any instance of misuse or overexpenditure or extravagant expenditure of public money I should be glad if he would bring it to my attention or to the attention of the head of the department concerned, because we do not intend to permit that to take place. If there have been incidents- and the ones cited by my hon. friend were of a very minor character-I think they could properly be regarded as isolated instances which must be taken as accidents, incidental to a huge undertaking carried on at the speed necessary in war time.
The leader of the opposition also suggested that in every field of war endeavour this country is far behind our sister dominion, Australia; and he asked for a comparison of our war effort with theirs. I need hardly say' that I do not wish to make any invidious comparisons, particularly in view of all the different circumstances; but I might tell the hon. member that the latest information I have been able to obtain shows that Australian war expenditures for their current fiscal year, which ends June 30 next, are estimated at 177 million Australian pounds, or at current exchange rates, about $630,000,000. This is almost exactly two-thirds of the estimate I gave the house in August for our own war expenditure for the year ending March 31 next; and as the hon. gentleman himself pointed out, this is about the ratio of the population of the two countries. On this basis it would appear that the efforts of the two countries are of the same general order of magnitude. But the leader of the opposition has overlooked the very substantial assistance which Canada's greater wealth enables her to render to the United Kingdom by means of our repatriation programme, which has no counterpart in the case of Australia.
These, I think, were the main criticisms offered by the leader of the opposition. He did me the honour of addressing me rather directly in the debate and therefore I have answered him with some care, though it was not my intention to make what in any sense could be regarded as a debating speech. It is significant, I think, that the principles of
our war finance policy have not been challenged by the official opposition but that criticism has been confined to detail.
With regard to the opposition led in the house by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), it has not been possible for me to be in the house throughout the entire debate; but, so far as I know, no member of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation has attacked our financial policy in principle. Of course the general position of that party is that the whole organization of industry in Canada is wrongly conceived and that war production should be on a socialistic basis. Probably this is not the time to debate this question. I think it is obvious, however, that a rapid increase in production and the utmost efficiency of production are necessary in time of war; and apart from all other and far more important considerations, to attempt to reorganize our commercial, industrial and financial institutions upon a principle thoroughly disliked and disapproved of by the overwhelming majority of the Canadian public would of itself have been most prejudicial to production. The dislocation of industry which would be involved in the adoption of the proposals of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation; the dissolution of the structure of industry which is implicit in the position of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, certainly should be avoided at a time when we are seeking and must seek the cooperation of all Canadians in our war effort. I need hardly add that should this cooperation not be forthcoming from those in control of any plant or industry, the government has ample power to take appropriate action and will not hesitate to use it.
I now come to the criticism offered by the leader of the Social Credit group, the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore). Here our principles are challenged, and I think it may be necessary for me to say something about the challenge and the arguments advanced in support of it.
The leader of the Social Credit group, after moving a subamendment reflecting on the monetary policy of the government, proceeded to say:
Social credit proposes to use the national credit to provide money without additional debt, without additional taxation.
By the providing of money I assume he means the creation of money. Indeed, later in his speech he says:
Let us consider the matter of created money. What an all-wise attitude was taken by some people when reference was made to the creation of money!
2S6
The Address-Mr. Ilsley

Thus he made it clear that for the raising of money by taxing and borrowing he would substitute the provision or creation of money by the government. I have stated already that our war expenditures are now running at the rate of almost a billion dollars a year. I ask members of the house, any hon. member, this question:	Does anyone think that the
creation of something like a billion dollars a year in money by the government for war purposes would not result in wild inflation? There can be only one answer to that question, unless indeed some extremely severe and comprehensive counteracting measures were taken at the same time. In his speech the hon. gentleman seemed to recognize this, because he goes into the question of countermeasures.
In his speeches in this house, of which I have listened to a good many, I think the hon. gentleman has consistently admitted the evils of inflation. There is no doubt that Canadians could be made to curtail their civilian demands and free economic resources for war demands by inflation. If prices were to be doubled to-morrow there would be no doubt about the curtailment of civilian demand that would ensue. But, as I stated in the beginning of my remarks, this would be the most unfair, the most uneconomical and the most dangerous method of war financing that could possibly be adopted. In countries where there has been a period of serious inflation the people look upon inflation as a national calamity. Fortunately we in this country have not passed through such a period and our people are in no position from experience to form an opinion of the evils of inflation. If they had suffered those evils they would dread them as they would a great plague.
The leader of the Social Credit group apparently realizes those evils and therefore enumerates counter-measures. What are they? First, he says inflation can be controlled by employing credit restriction. Needless to say he does not mention this method with approval; as a matter of fact that is what he criticizes. Next, he says another way is by taxing the people until they have no money to spend. He makes it clear that he is not in favour of taxation as a method of combating inflation. Next, he seems to advocate a sort of universal bonus to consumers, and, later in his speech, he advocates that bonuses be also paid to many, if not all, classes of producers.
Now, with respect to this matter of universal bonusing:	If the government, for the purpose of keeping prices down to consumers, pays them bonuses, or, in other words, assumes and pays part of the prices they are

paying for the goods they buy, this will require large expenditures on the part of the government out of the newly-created money and will increase the evil w'hich it is designed to abate.
The more these prices rise, due to the issue of these large sums of money, the larger will be the proportion of these prices the government will have to pay, and the greater will be the amount of newly-created money the government will have to issue. The more they issue, the more prices will rise, and so on.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: I wonder if the minister is making allowance for the fact I emphasized particularly, that there would be no rise in prices, provided production was adequate.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I shall come to the matter of production, and our capacity to produce.
Then, the hon. gentleman mentions the method of counteracting inflation which is, in my opinion, the only alternative .to taxation or borrowing out of savings which is really worthy of consideration. This is price fixing on a universal scale, which, of course, would have to be accompanied by rationing and regimentation, also on a universal scale; because it is obvious that to fix prices without limiting the amount any one person can buy will mean that only the first comers will be served. So that there would have to be rationing, along with price fixing.
Price fixing of a few commodities, indeed rationing of a few commodities, is possible and need not have a very serious effect, but price fixing and rationing on a general scale have at least two disadvantages.
In the first place, this would call for bureaucratic interference in the private affairs of all Canadian citizens. Perhaps I am speaking a little bit figuratively here, but generally speaking there would have to be a government spy in every grocery store. The Germans did this with some success, but the Germans are experts as spies.


John Horne Blackmore: Will my hon. friend permit a question?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Let me proceed, please.
The second objection is that to issue quantities of money and then sterilize a large part of it by rendering it useless for buying purposes so that it will not come into competition with the money used by the government in its buying and thereby cause prices to rise, leaves the holder of the money no better off than if he did not have it. This is equivalent to taxation or a forced loan.
The whole habit of thought of the Canadian people, the dislike of intensive and

The Address-Mr. Ilsley
general government intervention in their personal transactions and private affairs, would make a universal system of price fixing and rationing, even if it were practicable in Canada, far more odious, I am satisfied, than a system of taxation and borrowing out of savings, which is the policy of this government.
Every detail of our economic life would have to be controlled by someone sitting here in Ottawa.
It is true that the nazis in Germany have gone nearly as far as this with their price fixing and rationing. But even they, with a dictatorship and with years of experience before the war, have had to combine this price fixing with very heavy war taxation and with borrowing enormous sums at interest rates higher than we pay in Canada.


John Horne Blackmore: But we are fixing the price of milk.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I said that to a limited extent it was possible, but certainly not to the extent which would be necessary if we created money from year to year with which to cany on the war.
Furthermore, if we did succeed, by price fixing, in preventing inflation resulting from the financing of the war by creating new money, we would in the end only reach the same result that we shall reach by sounder methods; for if war production is to be the same in each ease there will only be the same remainder of resources left over for civilian purposes. The new money dammed up in the public's pockets would be useless to it during the war, and after the war it would come bursting forth in a flood that would create inflation as soon as the rigid war-time price controls were once relaxed.
There is another, and, from a war point of view, more fundamental point. It is suggested that we should finance by issuing new money so that we can bring all useful resources into production and avoid curtailing civilian demand. But if we are really to put forth a maximum effort in the war we must not only bring all our resources into use but, in addition, restrict as far as possible civilian use of all those resources which can be used for war. As I emphasized in the budget speech in the first week of war, it is necessary to inSrease employment and production to the maximum; but that is only part of our task; we must also divert all we can from civilian to war use. We should certainly not be doing that if we refrained from borrowing and taxing.
In fact very great increases in employment and production have been achieved since the war began. The index of industrial production in September was at 167 compared with 127 immediately before the outbreak of war. The index of employment at the beginning of October was at a new record-136-2. It indicated a total increase of wage earners in employment, as compared with the month preceding the outbreak of war, of about
350.000	persons. This does not include about
200.000	men added to our armed forces since war began.
Consequently, the total number of persons in employment and in the services has increased by something like 550,000 since the outbreak of war. In very few industries has there been any decrease of employment; highway construction is the only significant item to show a decrease and that is due mainly to the disappearance of what was really a relief work.
From an examination of these and other figures it seems clear that so far our war activities, both in the services and in production, have not required any significant reduction of civilian activity or expenditure, though, of course, many individuals have had to restrict their consumption. In fact the figures for retail sales, and production and imports of consumers' goods, indicate that total civilian consumption, particularly of luxury goods, has increased significantly during the war, even when allowance is made for somewhat higher prices. This remarkable economic expansion which we have had in the last fifteen months has not been accompanied by any significant general increase in prices, except the increase which occurred in the early weeks of the war consequent upon the changes in exchange rates and ocean freights and insurance.
This brings me to a consideration of the prospects which we now face in the financial and economic sphere. As the military and supply programmes develop they will require an increasing number of men and amount of materials. Analyses are at present being made of the various elements in these programmes in order to see just what they do require in terms of labour and materials; for those, and not money, are the limiting factors. In fact, one of the principal reasons for setting up the war-time requirements board, which the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) described to you yesterday, was to assist in the analysis of these physical requirements and the implications which they involve for civilian consumption. It is on the basis of such information that we must decide what we can accomplish.
It is certain, however, that the programmes upon which we have already embarked will create many scarcities and, before many months have passed, carry us to the stage
The Address-Mr. Ilsley

of full employment of our labour power and full utilization of most of our economic resources.
We still have some unemployed labour despite the great increase in employment which I have just mentioned. We still have some excess capacity in a number of our industries. Furthermore, we have many people employed in industries not essential to the war programme and we can, if necessary, shift many tens of thousands of people from agriculture and trade into war industries, or into other industries to replace people needed in war industries. In other words, we are now at a stage where we can still expand total production by a careful use of those resources which are unemployed or poorly employed. War production can and will be expanded even more than this by transferring resources from civilian purposes to war use. But all this expansion and transfer requires careful management and takes time. In particular, it requires the training of labour to fit it for new tasks, and the most efficient use of skilled labour. Measures have been and are being taken to ensure that this necessary training and efficient use of labour are carried out.
Facing the prospect of substantially increased requirements for war production under these conditions, I think it is higly essential that all of us should economize all we can and not spend our incomes on things which compete for labour and materials with war production. We must save and invest our savings either immediately in war savings certificates or later in next year's war loan.
I quite realize that the view is held that it is not wise to ask people to reduce their expenditures while there is still any unemployment or any room for expansion of production. But, as I have already stated, we are now running into shortages more and more frequently. The expanding war demand will continue to absorb the existing unemployed. The civilian demand will also be growing because of increased employment and earnings in war industries. Therefore, even if we do increase our savings, employment and production will continue to increase rapidly.
We have recently 'been giving consideration to our programme of financing for the next twelve months. Two decisions have had to be reached. The first relates to the character of the organization which should be set up on the next occasion when a large war loan is being sold to the public. The second decision relates to the time of issue of such a loan. It is our belief that the time has now arrived when we must resort to the cooperative type of organization to which I have already referred. The amount which we will need to raise will require the creation of a broad

national organization to ensure that all persons who are financially able to subscribe for war bonds shall be directly approached. As a people, we must develop a full understanding of our joint responsibility for the results we wish to obtain. I can say that the government will do its utmost to ensure that the organization built up will be equal to its task. I am certain that we shall receive from all quarters the cooperation and generous assistance without which success cannot be obtained.
Turning now to the question of the timing of the next loan, I believe that there is a great deal to 'be said for not undertaking a public appeal until the summer of 1941. By that time the budget will have been brought down, the great bulk of 1940 income tax payments will have been made, and individuals as well as institutions will be in a good position to know how 1941 will turn out for them from a financial point of view. If we were to come to the public with a loan in the early part of 1941, potential investors would still be faced with a number of difficulties and uncertainties. Furthermore, the type of comprehensive community organization which it is proposed to use is of such a character as to make it undesirable and indeed practically impossible to have two such campaigns following closely upon each other. This type of organization is cumbersome and requires a great deal of preliminary preparation and planning, and from the point of view of cost it is more easy to justify if the size of the loan is substantial.
Our decision not to issue the third war loan until next summer will make it necessary to undertake some short-term financing shortly after the beginning of the new year. It will be recalled that in the budget speech delivered on September 12, 1939, I said that our first borrowing operation would be of a short-term character and would be accompanied by a small and carefully regulated amount of credit expansion. I stated that expansion of credit, while appropriate during the early stages of war, should not be continued when employment and production were approaching their limits. I have not had occasion to change my basic views on this subject, but I believe that the tax programme of the government has been and will continue to be such that some additional financing of a short-term character, accompanied by some increase in total bank deposits, will not under the circumstances have inflationary results, and will, I believe, avoid undue stringency in the monetary field at a time when the working capital requirements of industry are increasing because of expanding business activity due to war orders. In forming these views, I have given some

The Address-Mr. Ilsley
weight to the fact that uncertainties bred of war and the necessity of building up substantial balances in anticipation of tax payments have made many people somewhat reluctant to deplete their bank balances, and anxious to keep in a good liquid position.
In deciding to undertake some additional short-term financing, the government also had in mind the fact that the major portion of the new money which will have to be borrowed prior to next summer will be required for the activities of the foreign exchange control board. It has been decided that the board will finance the repatriation programme to a greater extent than it has in the past, and additional funds will be necessary for this purpose. You will recall that the process of repatriation involves the temporary accumulation of sterling balances by the foreign exchange control board, and these balances are later used to acquire Canadian securities held in the United Kingdom.
I believe that these decisions in regard to our financing programme will commend themselves to the financial public as well as the general public, and will enable the government and our people to make adequate preparations for assuring that the third war loan will be a resounding success. It has been stated by several ministers in this house in recent months that, in the words of the Prime Minister:
The only limits the government is prepared to place upon Canada's war effort are those imposed by the extent of our resources both human and material and by our capacity for sacrifice.
And that:
We will make financially possible the utmost effort the people of Canada are physically and morally capable of making.
This does not mean, however, that we shall have no financial problems to face. In fact it means quite the reverse-that we are going ahead no matter what financial problems may be created by the need to finance the enormous military and supply expenditures. It is going to require the most careful attention to both the physical and the financial aspects of the programme. On the one hand we must determine what is physically possible and we must make sure that all our physical resources, our man-power, capital facilities and materials, are used to the fullest extent possible and as quickly as possible. On the other hand, it requires the most skilful and thorough financial management in order to assure that these physical resources are made available for carrying out the war programme quickly and efficiently.
This policy implies that our financial problem will be one of tremendous magnitude- that we must be prepared to raise very large sums of money in one way or another and divert ever-increasing amounts of our national income into the treasury. It will be no easy task. It will require the utmost skill, the most energetic direction and hard, unremitting work on the part of the government and people alike, but I believe that we can do by voluntary action as much as the enemy is doing by the most rigid compulsion. I have faith in our ability to match and surpass their effort once our people are aroused.
When we came together here in May last, Great Britain was meeting with reverses in Norway, the low countries were being overrun by the enemy, and our ally France was on the brink of the disaster which overtook her shortly afterwards. The Canadian people were willing to go to any length to aid Britain. Their private interests had second place. They were ready for any sacrifice. An invasion of England was believed to be imminent. The existence of the empire was in peril. Sectionalism and selfishness, the bane of democracy, perhaps of every form of government, were subordinated to patriotism. Burdens, whether tax burdens or others, were accepted with little complaint. Our main, if not our sole desire, was to help to win the war.
To-day, only a few months later, we are reassured, too much so. We feel, vaguely, that the important things in our lives are at stake, but we are not so sure that they are in jeopardy. Instead of a consciousness every waking moment of the deadly peril of a powerful enemy, many of us have a feeling that the battle of Britain is won, and that all is well. This optimism is excessive and dangerous. The war is not won. A far closer engagement with the enemy will be necessary long before we achieve victory. Not only must our fighting forces engage his, we must engage him in our civilian activities-by the making of sacrifices, the forgoing of pleasures, the devotion of our substance to the common cause-in these ways must all of us engage the enemy.
To-day there is heroism in the air, on the sea, in the deserts of Africa-and there is heroism among the common people of the motherland. Let their example be our inspiration. Civilian Canada has its responsibilities, easier to assume but no less important than those of civilian Britain. Let us assume those responsibilities with the same unselfishness and courage and determination.


Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset may I offer a word

The Address-Mr. Green

of encouragement to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) who has just taken his seat. Although he is one of the youngest members of the ministry, perhaps no member of the cabinet except the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is bearing a heavier burden at this time, and I think I may speak with the endorsation of the whole house when I say to him that he has our admiration, our respect and our best wishes in carrying on his very arduous work.
When we private members left Ottawa early in August, the battle of France had been lost and the battle of Britain had not yet begun. Every member felt grave concern. I think that the war has greatly reduced partisanship in this house; it has made each one of us a greater patriot. We all felt grave concern at that time about the outcome of the battle of Britain. We felt that the survival of Canada as a nation, in fact the survival of our Christian civilization, depended on that battle. To-day, only three and a half months later, there is a different feeling in the corridors of this house and across the country, because, while the battle of Britain may not have been won, the first stages of that battle have been won, and won by a few thousand young empire knights of the air, by the sturdiness of our empire sailors, and above all, won by the courage and the determination and-to sum it up-by the character of the ordinary men, women and children of Great Britain.
What an inspiration that is to us! What pride we feel at being their fellow-citizens of the British commonwealth! And yet, what a challenge to Canadians to throw our all into this struggle! I believe that the Canadian people are not only willing but are eager to do just that. But they look to the Canadian government for leadership, and they look to parliament, to the private members of this house, to make dead sure that the government carries out the promise contained in the speech from the throne, that this war will be prosecuted to the utmost of Canada's strength. The private member can do his part only by making suggestions and by pointing out errors. That is what I propose to do to-day, to the end that our war effort may be improved.
First of all may I suggest that the ministry adopt the attitude of welcoming criticisms and suggestions. The Prime Minister did that a year ago at the war session: he said, "I ask you all to give us suggestions and constructive criticism." But my impression of this session is that the ministry are now inclined to be resentful of suggestions. Perhaps that is also their attitude towards their own supporters. Perhaps there is reason for

it in the fact that they are under terrific pressure, working long hours. They are tired out; I do not blame them for being a little quick on the trigger. But I urge them to remember that they as the leaders of Canada must never be satisfied that all is being done which can be done, that they must always try to do more. As the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras) said so fitly some days ago, they must attempt the impossible; because in this crisis everything we hold dear is at stake,

our freedom, our religion, the future of our children, and our very lives. How I wish that every German bomb which falls on Great Britain could din into our ears and imprint on our minds the words, "Hurry, Canada, hurry!"
Secondly, I suggest that the ministry emphasize to the Canadian people the difficulties and the dangers of the situation rather than the accomplishments of the government. Ask for help from our people. If you ask for that help you will get it. But it seems to me, although I may be influenced by the bias from which few of us can escape, that the ministry have been at great pains throughout this war period to justify their every move and to justify their every failure to move. They have continually talked about our war effort being "ahead of schedule," when the whole country knows that the schedule was totally inadequate. Government information bureaux have poured out printed matter to the same effect, and even in the interesting essays which have been read by ministers at the present session that note has been uppermost. The result has been, and I say this from many observations in western Canada, that the people are adopting the attitude: "Oh well, everything is being done that can be done; why should we worry?"
Our chief of staff said recently in an address that the thirty-day training plan had been a great help in arousing young Canadians to a sense of national obligation. Such would not have been necessary if the ministry had adopted another attitude. Their attitude constitutes a grave menace to Canada, because our people do not realize the dangers of the situation. For that reason I would ask ministers to think very deeply over the proposed amendment to the address in reply to the speech from the throne, and particularly the first paragraph, which says:
.	.	. this house regrets that the government
has continued to soothe the Canadian people
I emphasize that word, "soothe."
-regarding the war effort of the nation, thereby creating a false sense of security when a clear-cut call to action is desperately needed.

The Address-Mr. Green
The Right Hon. Winston Churchill has followed the opposite course. He said, among other things, in his first speech as Prime Minister to the British House of Commons, on May 13 of this year:
I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many months of struggle and suffering. You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is victory. Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terrors, victory, however long and hard the road may be, for without victory there is no survival! Let that be realized-no survival for the British empire, no survival for all that the British empire has stood for, no survival for the urge, the impulse of the ages, that mankind shall move forward towards his goal.
He knows his people. He knows that they can "take" bad news, that they will rise to the challenge of the difficult and seemingly impossible task. The Canadian people, Mr. Speaker, will do the same. But so far this government has given them little chance to do so.
The Minister of Finance has just explained clearly the necessity for the government to do certain things in which it will obviously require great help from the Canadian people. For example, our people are being asked not to purchase so many luxuries. There will probably be restrictions, perhaps on gasoline or some other such commodity, perhaps on liquor-and, incidentally, I do not think the Canadian people can drink their way to victory in this war; I believe a great deal of money could be saved and a great deal of human energy conserved if restrictions were placed on liquor. The government is also faced with the raising of war loans, selling war savings certificates, recruiting defence forces, finding men and women for industry, and organizing air raid precautions. These are some of the problems facing the ministry. Let them appreciate the fact that Canada is really organized on a community basis, divided into municipal or metropolitan areas in which there are highly organized and highly efficient municipal governments, service clubs, lodges, unions, religious associations, cooperatives, professional and business associations, sports clubs and many others made up of the leaders in the everyday life of our people. Incidentally may I here contrast the strength of this type of organization with which we are blest in Canada with the nazi party in Germany or the fascist party in Italy, the only organizations allowed in their respective countries. There is no comparison; and in that difference there lies one very good reason why the democracies are going to win this war.
I suggest to the ministry that they go to these organizations direct. Tell them what
14873-19J
is wanted and ask them to help, and the organizations will respond. They will prevent hysteria and will get action. But what is the situation now? They are spectators against their wish. Many of them have made offers of help. Those offers are on file in Ottawa but nothing has been done about them. These people are waiting for directions from the government, and surely it is the duty of the Department of National War Services to see that organizations of this type are used.
May I quote from the order in council setting up the divisions of that new department. Paragraph (c) provides for a division to be known as:
.	.	. the division of voluntary services to
administer the War Charities Act, to coordinate, organize and utilize the voluntary effort of the Canadian people, to organize and assist organizations engaged in supporting the war effort of the nation.
These are the powers that are given. This was printed on September 18, but, so far as I know, nothing further has been done. I hear an hon. member mentioning that I left out the women's associations. They are very important and I hasten to add them to the list.
Further, the government should decide upon and announce some definite policy on recruiting. They have never done so. Recruiting has been by fits and starts from the outset. Last fall on the outbreak of war the plan was to recruit for home service only, but this was afterwards changed and there was recruiting for overseas. A certain number of men were taken on the strength, and then recruiting was shut down. This spring came the crisis, the fall of France, and again recruiting was thrown open, but on August 15 of this year again it was stopped. In the meanwhile the National Resources Mobilization Act had been passed and we were told that thousands of young men, trainees, were to be given training. We understood that these young men would be encouraged to volunteer for the Canadian active service force at the completion of their training. In other words, here would be the means whereby Canada would build up a full-time fighting force. Mind you, these young men are the very men whom this government deemed to be best able to serve the country, men of the ages called up at this time; yet that plan was not carried out. Recruiting is still closed. The first group of trainees finished their course and instead of being given a chance to go into the forces, which they were only too anxious to do, they were sent back home to civilian life.
This uncertainty, this indecision, this failure to recruit cannot be because no more men
The Address-Mr. Green

will be required. I have only to quote again from a statement of the chief of staff, Major-General Crerar. He is reported in a press dispatch from Ottawa on October 23 as having said, in effect:
Canada will be sending more army divisions overseas next year when Great Britain takes the offensive against German land forces in continental Europe. This is the implication of the speech here this afternoon by Major-General Crerar, chief of the general staff. General Crerar is both in a position to know and also to speak with a note of exceptional authority.
This was confirmed by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), who, speaking in the house last Friday, said:
During this phase-
That is, during the year 1941.
-we must continue to build up our strength against the day when we shall take the offensive with all arms and services.
And the Minister of National War Services '(Mr. Gardiner) made this statement on 'Thursday last:
We must have the necessary trained manpower to handle all the instruments of war and put them into operation against Hitler on the continent.
According to press reports, on November 18 he said in a broadcast:
Remember that in one year from now a man will be needed to use every gun, operate every plane and drive every truck made, and in the front line of battle. There is no reason for making these machines unless we provide for their being operated.
This failure to recruit cannot be because we already have adequate troops to defend Canada; we have not. We have one division on the Atlantic coast and it is hoped that there will be one division on the Pacific, but the latter division, according to the Minister of National Defence, is only now in the process of organization.
Certainly young Canadians who are to be called on to go overseas or to serve in Canada should be taken in quickly. The time for training is none too long if this great offensive is to come, as we have been warned, and adequate time for training means better soldiers, which means that the soldiers wifi have a better chance for their lives.
The ministry should remember that unlike Britain they are relying upon volunteers to build our full-time fighting forces. Before the average man will volunteer he must see the need. And he must have a certain amount of enthusiasm. He must have time to arrange his affairs and time to arrange for the persons who are dependent on him. In their recruiting plans it seems to me the ministry do not consider the human element
(Mr. Green.]
at all. I suggest that they announce the approximate number of troops that are to be raised say within the next year. Australia and New Zealand do that; Great Britain lets her people know the number of men that are to be taken on, why cannot Canada do the same? Then let us take on a certain number of recruits, say weekly, and certainly let us give every trainee a chance to enlist on the completion of his training.
There are now women's corps established in several centres in Canada. We have two in Vancouver, training for many months, and most efficient. AVhy can they not be recognized and made part of the forces? I cannot praise too highly their initiative and spirit, their determination and their efficiency. They are training to take on clerical work, the driving of ambulances and motor vehicles of various kinds; for first aid, air raid protection, nursing and dietetic work. Why can they not be used in the forces of Canada? It seems to me there must be antiques or old fogies in our defence headquarters even yet, or there may even be some in the cabinet, when consistently these women are refused recognition.
May I further ask the government to decide upon and announce a policy on the use of man-power? To-day there seems to be a tug of war between the fighting forces on the one side and industry on the other. And that tug of war seems also to be in the cabinet. I may be wrong, but I have visions of the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Gardiner) as the anchor man on the side of the fighting forces, and the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) or the Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty) as the anchor man on the side of industry. While the Minister of National War Services may not be very bulky I think the majority of members would put their money on him in this tug of war. From the national registration the ministry have a survey of the manpower and woman-power of Canada. What does it show? Why can they not tell the house what it shows? Why do they not use that survey? Why have they no plans for using . the man-power and woman-power of Canada?
Steps should be taken to recondition and use the older men, men who were laid off during the depression. I have here a letter from an ex-railway mechanic in Vancouver, in which he says that in that city alone there are many men who have served as machinists on one or other of the two railways; when the depression came they were let out, and since then they have been on part time only. Why cannot men of this type be put back to work to release some of the

The Address-Mr. Green
younger men for war service? There is a great field among the middle-aged people in Canada. Then there is a great field among the unemployed. The Minister of Labour himself was quoted on October 30 as using these words:
Every unemployed man in Canada must be trained to take a place in industry. . . . There are 26,000 a year now being trained. We can increase that figure and we will.
Those are fine sentiments; that is a splendid plan. But what are the facts? Just a week ago in Vancouver we had newspaper reports to the effect that there are 500 single unemployed back in that city for the winter. Many of these men have appeared in the police court charged with vagrancy, and numbers of them have been sent to gaol because they have no means of support. Here is the impression of the young newspaper reporter sitting in at those trials:
There were all sorts and conditions of men in those two lines and all they owned were the clothes they stood up in. One who said he had a job to go to and four who said they could look after themselves for another night were allowed to go. The rest were herded back to the cells.
That kind of thing is inexcusable in Canada under present conditions. Men of that type should be given a chance to be reconditioned and placed in a job. That should be done by the Department of Labour here at Ottawa.
Then there are the ex-soldiers discharged from the present Canadian army. I was surprised to learn the other day that over 15,000 men had been discharged from the Canadian forces. Surely those men could be reconditioned and placed at work. It seems to me that one of the most important statements that should be placed before the house at this time is a statement by the Minister of Labour as to what he proposes to do about using the man-power of this country.
I have a suggestion also for the Minister of Munitions and Supply. He told this house yesterday that hundreds of millions of dollars were being invested in new plants and plant extensions. He was allowed to place certain figures on Hansard, which I thought were going to show in which provinces those plants were situated; however the figures turned out to be something else. But there can be no dispute that practically all those plants and plant extensions are in Ontario and Quebec, the reason given being that there is hydro-electric power available in those provinces. This means an unfair and unhealthy concentration of wealth in the central provinces of Canada. It means a great increase in employment in these provinces; it means that the young men
and young women of the other provinces will in many instances have to migrate to central Canada to get jobs. That is already happening. It means that families will be broken up, and it means lopsided development of industry. Many of these plants will continue in operation after the war, so that that process will carry on. I plead with the government to change that policy at once, to scatter these plants across Canada. There may not be much trouble now while the war is on; it may be overshadowed by more important issues, but hon. members from the other seven provinces know that if this thing goes on it will mean grave trouble in Canada for the next fifty or a hundred years.
Then as to the treatment of the fighting forces: I said a few moments ago that 15,000 men have been discharged. I believe they are discharged without any gratuity; in some cases they are given a small clothing allowance. A very few will get pensions. They are struck off the strength just as quickly as possible. Some of these men are on relief today. No rehabilitation plan has been put into effect by this government. The Prime Minister was quoted in the press two days ago as saying:
Plans for the "adequate" rehabilitation of soldiers, sailors and airmen discharged from overseas service are being formulated by the dominion government.
Apparently nothing is ready yet. Rehabilitation plans should be in effect now. We could be experimenting, we could be improving, building up efficient schemes for getting these men back on their feet. It must not be delayed until after the war. Here we have almost the equivalent of an army division discharged from the Canadian active service force already. These men should be looked after without further delay. If they cannot be absorbed in industry, why cannot the government go ahead with the trans-Canada highway and other projects of that type, in which many of them could find employment?
Also I think the time has come, Mr. Speaker, when a man enlisting in the forces should receive an allowance for each child. At the present time, as I understand it, a man with more than two children receives no allowance for any beyond that number. The government is quite willing that these men should enlist; therefore it should see that they receive an allowance for each of their children.
The question of transportation on leave has been dealt with by many hon. members, and I would urge upon the government that some action be taken to meet this situation. Public opinion in Canada is in favour of giving these men some form of free transportation.
The Address-Mr. Green

of making it possible for them to get home for their leaves, certainly their embarkation leave and I think, also, for their six months' leave. Why, we had units sent down to Nova Scotia from the Pacific coast. Some of the men in those units had not had embarkation leave, and they were moved out of our province on twenty-four hours' notice. Others are now entitled to their six months' leave, but it will be absolutely impossible for them to get back home if they have to pay even single fare. The same condition applies to the men in Newfoundland. Some of them now have the promise of leave in order to come back to central Canada, but that costs a great deal of money. These men will have to stay in Newfoundland unless some provision is made for them. I should like to quote briefly from a letter received from half a dozen of these men now in Newfoundland:
This furlough is particularly important to us as we are not entitled to another one until December 1941 and just where we shall be tfien no one knows.
The Minister of Finance might very well soften his heart and agree to some provision being made to pay the transportation costs of these men.
Further I should like to say a word about winter accommodation. The other day the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) said that Canada had winter accommodation for 150,000 men. Yet in the public press, in newspapers supporting this government, such as the Vancouver Sun, we see reports denouncing conditions in the camp at Nanaimo. I quote the headlines only:
Needless Suffering at Nanaimo Camp.
Construction of Huts Delayed While Men Exist in Damp and Soggy Bell Tents-Excellent Site but Rains Create Misery.
That is from the Vancouver Sun of November 14, 1940. This condition was drawn to the attention of the Minister of National Defence, who, to his credit, took immediate steps to have it rectified. But it shows that somewhere on the staff there is a lack of interest in the welfare of these men, and because of that lack of interest men become sick, they are not fit and do not make as efficient soldiers as otherwise they would be. There is no excuse for putting hundreds of men into tents at this time of year, as was done at Nanaimo.
I might draw to the attention of the government many other things in connection with the army, but I hesitate to bring up a great many small matters. However, I should like to mention the plight of the Canadian people who are living on the ragged edge, such as the old age pensioners and the recipients of the war veterans' allowance. The cost

of living is rising; according to the latest figures it is going up steadily. In September of last year, under the new index, it - stood at 100.8. As of October 1, 1940 it stood at 107, and I believe it has been rising steadily since then. Relief allowances are being increased in some of our cities, but the people who are on very small fixed incomes are caught in a trap, and some provision must be made for them. The situation is very well set out in a letter I received this week from a recipient of the war veterans' allowance in Vancouver. He says:
-there are hardly any of the necessities that have not been hopped up 15 to 20 per cent in the past two months.
Then he goes on:
This is a poor time for anyone to ask for an addition to the strain that the country is undergoing but it is necessary that we ask . . . sufficient for a bare existence. The suggestion is that the government without amending any existing laws grant us a field allowance of 10 cents per day to be discontinued when conditions warrant . . . and we regret very much the necessity of asking for it.
That is a reasonable plea, and I submit to the Prime Minister that something must be done to meet this condition.
The Canadian people are looking to the ministry and to parliament for leadership in improving conditions here at home. They want the methods of carrying on the life of Canada changed to such an extent that far more value will be placed on people; that there will be a chance for everyone to work who is willing to work, and that there will be reasonable security for our people. Whenever I expressed those sentiments in Vancouver during the recess they were most heartily approved, no matter what the type of audience, and I believe that is the will of the Canadian people at this time. We find the same thoughts expressed in Great Britain. Yesterday Mr. Bevin, who has given such wonderful leadership there, was quoted in the press as having said that his aim is social security, and that something should be done about it even during the war. The report continues:
" Begin now," he urged. " That doesn't mean that all profit and surpluses must be wiped out. but it means that the whole economic life shall be devoted to give security, not to a small middle class but to the comunity as a whole."
I quote also from an editorial appearing in the Illustrated London News of September 7, 1940. These people are being bombed night and day, yet they are trying to figure out ways to improve the general conditions of life in their country. This editorial states:
. . . the ordinary Englishman (of all classes) wants a home which he can call his own and

The Address-Mr. Picard
which no other man or men can take from him, security in his employment, pride in his work, a decent chance for his children to do better than himself, and, in at any rate a very large number of eases, a bit of land to sweat and ruminate over and in which to grow flowers and vegetables. He also wants the right, again within reason, to criticize his employers and his rulers and to change his job and his political allegiance as he thinks fit.
I think the average Canadian wants the same thing; in fact I hope many Canadians wish to change their political allegiance. But this new world, which many seem to think will begin after the war, really began in September of last year. The ministry should arrange that the house give consideration to just what is to be done about it, when we meet after the new year.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say that we in this nineteenth parliament are privileged to lead a young nation, strong and brave; standing firmly in a just cause; a young nation blessed with the best friends any nation could have, her sister nations of the British commonwealth and our great and friendly neighbour the United States; a young nation that is steadily growing in importance in world affairs and steadily assuming more and more responsibility. It is true that never before have the Canadian people had to face such challenging problems, but it is also true that never before have they had such an opportunity to revise their national plans, to remedy defects and to adopt far-reaching policies. In this nineteenth parliament we have an opportunity to mould a nation-our own nation, Canada. I believe if the ministry will only put this parliament to work, the spirit of hon. members is such that we can leave a record of service which will prove to have been unequalled in the history of Canada.


Mr. L. PHILIPPE PICARD (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to take part in this debate. But some of my friends, and particularly my English-speaking friends, have asked me why more members from the province of Quebec have not expressed their views respecting the problems of the day. In fact I believe the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) said that somebody should speak on behalf of the eastern farmers. I admit I am not yet qualified to speak for farmers. I will tell my hon. friend, however, that before this parliament has run its course I shall have done my very best to learn the eastern farmers' problems, and I hope by that time to be able to express the views held by farmers, particularly in the light of the fact that I represent an entirely rural constituency adjoining the city of Quebec.
I suppose my first and most important duty would be to congratulate those to whom
I believe congratulations should go. May I begin by extending my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Claxton) and the seconder (Mr. Jutras) of the address in reply, each of whom performed his task perfectly. Both have shown, by their understanding of national problems, that Canada can be made into a great country, a country where both the east and the west, the people of both French and English descent, may meet on common ground to work for the greatness and unity of Canada.
As a French-speaking member I believe my congratulations should go, next, to the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Thorson), the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Claxton) and the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Chambers), who, in the course of their speeches, showed they understood the views of the French-speaking people. They demonstrated that they understand our mentality, and were good enough to place their views before the house.
Above all, however, I believe our congratulations should go to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). First I would congratulate him upon the forceful manner in which h<e answered the critics of his administration, and for the splendid mastery of the situation he has always maintained. Then he is to be congratulated upon the part he has played in connection with the formation of the joint defence board, an organization for which he worked diligently and which, to the great advantage not only of Canada but of Great Britain, he obtained.
In this connection I would like to echo the words of the hon. member for Selkirk who spoke to the house a few days ago. On that occasion he said:
. . . but no one will deny him his fair measure of praise for the splendid part that he has played in promoting friendly relations between Canada and our great neighbour. We are deeply grateful to the United States for the assistance that it has given and for the assistance that it is still to give, and we are thankful-
I repeat the words of the hon. member for Selkirk, and make them my own.
-I think I can say this in the name of the whole Canadian people-that we have in the present Prime Minister a leader who can be relied upon to preserve and promote the strong and growing feeling of friendliness and common purpose which exists between our country and our great neighbour.
I believe, too, that the Prime Minister might well be congratulated upon the speech from the throne, which is in effect his responsibility. He is to be commended because of its conciseness, and yet by the way in which it has implied all that would be done by the country, under the guidance of the government, in the pursuit of the war.
The Address-Mr. Picard

He is to be congratulated, too, upon his action in connection with the report of the commission on dominion-provincial relations, commonly known as the Sirois report. I believe his promptness in announcing to the house the summoning of a provincial conference will please the whole country, and is evidence of the fact that when he decided upon the formation of the commission he had it in mind to take action on their findings and to study carefully any suggestions which might come from it and which would improve the administration of the country's affairs. I believe congratulations might be extended to the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Gardiner) upon his report respecting his mission to England, the description of his trip in general and his report as to conditions in the old country.
We might make special note, too, of the speeches delivered by the ministers who have taken part in the debate.. I refer to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), the Minister 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) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley). They are to be complimented upon the splendid expose they have given of Canada's war effort, and the way in which they have dispelled any doubt which might have existed in the minds of some people-doubts which have developed through false and alarming pronouncements of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) and his own Tory press.
During the last week-end, Mr. Speaker, I visited my constituency. While there I met an old farmer friend, one who has always been a friend of the party, but whose acquaintance I have enjoyed for only a little more than a year. He is a witty old man, and has always kept himself well informed on public matters. He has reared many children, who work on his farm, and he now lives more or less retired. In a way which I thought was clever he expressed to me his wonder, and that of his friends, as to why the leader of the opposition had wanted a session at this time-a time when everything seemed to be going well concerning our war effort. As he expressed it to me, everybody seemed to be satisfied with the possible exception of the Montreal Gazette and the leader of the opposition. At first," he said, "we wondered why he wanted a session of parliament, but, now that he has spoken, we believe we understand why. The hon. gentleman wanted to show himself a true patriot; apparently he wanted to cooperate with the government, and indeed he has done so quite hand-

somely. He showed by his speech that he had very little to say, and very little constructive criticism to offer. He has helped to prove that the people of this country had placed their confidence in the right place when they elected the present Prime Minister and sent a Liberal government to Ottawa, rather than one formed by the opposition party; indeed, that they had made a proper choice."


Mr. GRAYDON:: The hon. member has
based, his argument on the wrong premises.


Louis-Philippe Picard: No; I believe the old man was wise in his comment that the absence of constructive criticism in the speech of the leader of the opposition indicates that the country has not made a mistake in electing the present Prime Minister.
Some few days ago the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) said that the war was being waged as a Liberal war, and that patronage was rampant, I am convinced that the war is not a Liberal war. Rather it is a Canadian war, and the people of Canada have so decided. They made their decision at an election which took place after, not before, the war began. Had the election been held before the war, and had the government appealed to the people on something other than the war issue, the allegation of the hon. member for Souris might have had some weight. The truth is, however, that when the government went to the country the war had been in progress for six months, and the people of Canada were given the opportunity to choose between the Liberal party and the best brains Mr. Manion could offer. They have chosen the best brains-but not those of Mr. Manion. They have chosen a Liberal government, a government which is showing now that it has the best brains available to carry on a war and at the same time to maintain unity within the country. The only ones who seem to object are those who make up that remnant of the Conservative party in this house, members who are all dignified and most charming to meet. There are also some members of the ultra-imperialistic press, like the Montreal Gazette, and a few others.


Gordon Graydon: Is the hon. member
opposed to imperialism?


Louis-Philippe Picard: I am opposed to that
imperialism which places the empire above Canada. I am for Canada first; I place Canada above all. Canada should play her part in the empire, but we should not lose sight of the interests of Canada.

The Address-Mr. Picard
The hon. member for Souris referred to patronage. I think patronage can be judged by the way the public contracts are awarded and by the way in which employment is given in connection with government contracts and government enterprises. Speaking of that part of the country that I know best, Quebec, I must state that my hon. friend seems to know very little of what has happened there. As a Liberal member of parliament I am rather ashamed, but I must admit that half, if not more government contracts have gone to Conservative firms. This is due to the fact that the government follows a policy of granting contracts to the lowest bidders. I know that some of my friends are far from satisfied with this state of affairs, but I think it answers the objections of the hon. member. If he could be present in the office of a Liberal member in the city of Quebec on Saturday morning he would hear quite a different story. He would hear Liberal supporters complaining that they cannot get work in the arsenal at Quebec or elsewhere. It is easy to make complaints, but I think if we examine closely the way in which these contracts have been dealt with we will find that it is quite different from what the hon. member stated.
Some hon. members have referred to the scarcity of trained men and women for munitions work. I do not want to deal with the matter at any length, but I contend that the blame for this condition might be laid at the door of Canadian industry. They have never bothered to form technicians and never properly planned their work in order to avoid periods of slackness and periods of overtime work in order to make available a continuous supply of skilled and trained people. They have never followed the practice adopted by many large United States corporations to have schools to prepare skilled labourers. We are suffering now from the lack of prevision of the captains of industry. In 1929 we were shown the imprevision of the financiers, but throughout crisis has continued the imprevision of great industrialists. Those who sometimes object to the control which the government is taking over industry would not have rendered it necessary had they seen fit to act differently in the past.
This matter of trained men brings up a point of concern to my own district. The rural electors in the districts around Quebec have been left out when employment has been given at Valeartier and the Quebec arsenal. Many of the rural people have worked in factories and quite often they are more skilled than the unemployed of the cities who have been given work. This may be a good policy in order to deal with unemployment,
but I contend that those who bear an equal burden of the taxation should be given a chance to work. I submit this to the ministers at large of the Department of National Defence and ask them to look into the matter and reconsider their first decision.
Some members have referred to the necessity for economy in the ordinary expenditures of the government. I agree that this should be done, but on the other hand there is a point below which we should not go. For some time I was connected with one of the departments of the government and I can remember how the heads of the different branches used to prepare their estimates. Those estimates were generally cut by ten to fifteen per cent by the treasury board, and yet the original amounts were considered as being necessary to carry on the administration of the department. It is easy to understand that the Department of Justice and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police should have their estimates increased rather than lowered due to the special work that is being carried on. The same thing applies to the Department of Agriculture. I have received many letters from my constituents complaining that demonstration farms have been closed. This has been done because of the policy of retrenchment and economy. I wonder if we are serving the country as it should be served when we do not give our farmers the help they used to get, the help they are entitled to get in bettering their production and their efforts in agriculture. I do not think that the estimates of this department should be lowered.
The same thing applies to the Department of Trade and Commerce. Not all our factories are turning out war supplies. Many of our foreign markets are closed, and they certainly are becoming fewer. Through its intelligence service this department can do much to help us find new markets. I think the estimates should be kept where they are because it is to the advantage of the country to carry on. We should not ruin our national economy by lowering expenditures to a point where it becomes dangerous. This war can be waged successfully if things go well in Canada, if everything is administered to the satisfaction of the majority and in an efficient manner to continue the national well-being.
The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) made one suggestion with which I agree absolutely. It was that letters to members of the Canadian army should be sent free of charge. I do not know whether the Postmaster-General (Mr. Mulock) will agree that letters from a man's parents and friends and so on should be sent free of charge,

The Address-Mr. Picard

but I think parcels which bring cheer to a man should be sent without costs to the sender. There are many enlisted men whose families have very little personal means. While it may be fairly easy for them to send a piece of cake or some other small gift, when it comes to paying forty or fifty cents postage on a parcel it cuts into their budget quite deeply and they hesitate to send it. The man overseas wonders if his friends have forgotten him. Perhaps it could be arranged to have parcels of a certain size sent free of charge, either through the different units of the army or otherwise. If the government wants to include letters in this scheme, I am all for it. Many of these men have been away from home a long time and they deserve every encouragement they can get from those of us who are in comparative safety in this land across the sea.
Perhaps I may be permitted to take up a few matters which are of interest to my own constituency. I notice many hon. members have done this. I should like to refer first to the taxation imposed last year which was of particular interest to my people. Although taxes in general were increased, they were accepted with true patriotism by everybody throughout the country. However, I must mention three of them which did not seem to please everybody. The first one, and in this respect I think even my western friends will agree with me, is the tax on flour. In eastern Canada, including my own constituency, many complaints have been received about this tax, which is on a necessity. Against taxes on a great many luxuries we could not have a good argument, but everybody needs flour. Western farmers want to sell their wheat, and we in the east want to eat bread. The minister might consider whether something cannot be done about that.
Another point I should like to bring out in connection with taxation concerns the way in which the tax on electricity is collected. At present it is collected on the cost of the electricity, which is far from being a fair system of collection. I understand that national taxation has as its basis the greatest possible degree of equality and justice. Well, if this tax is to be judged upon that principle we are far from acting with justice, because some provinces, amongst them my own, pay more for electricity than others do. The basis of taxation might be on consumption, on the kilowatt hour, as was mentioned, I think, last year by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Brunelle), who did not quite agree with the remark of the then Minister of Finance (Mr. Ralston) that if such a change were made, those who pay less, because the price of electricity was lower
IMr. Picard.]
in their provinces, might object. That is an argument, but it is not an argument of justice, because consumption is the basis upon which a tax should be collected.
Another tax which may not be so strongly objected to by others as it is among my people, is that on raw leaf tobacco. Raw leaf is smoked mostly in the province of Quebec, and before the imposition of the tax that tobacco was sold at about fifteen cents a pound. The tax of ten cents a pound which was imposed on it nearly doubled the price. I do not suppose I shall get so much sympathy from hon. members from other provinces, because they are not interested in the matter, but so far as we are concerned that tax has been quite a burden on the farmer who uses only raw leaf tobacco. When he heard that this tax was being imposed he provided himself with a few months' supply, but that supply is getting lower and lower, and he will soon be coming to us with complaints about the levying of this tax. If we base taxation on broad national lines, this tax on raw tobacco does not quite comply with that principle of taxation, because I am told by statisticians that the greater part of this tobacco is consumed in the province of Quebec.
Another point with which I want to deal briefly at the moment is that of the period of training under the mobilization scheme. Complaints have been voiced that one month is not enough. However, I have met many officers who were more than satisfied with the progress made. Some of my constituents have been called; they have answered willingly, and I am proud to say here that in my own constituency not one man has come to me to ask for any sort of exemption. All of them went Cheerfully, because they knew they were going for Canada and they knew they were going to train for the defence of their country. But the talk has been that one month is not enough. It may be so. I would only suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the scheme should be carried on for a year until the men who are liable to this service-I believe, from twenty-one to thirty-five years-have each undergone one month of training. That would carry the scheme along until, probably, September of 1941. If it should appear to be inadequate, those who were called up first could be recalled for a second period of either two or three months, if necessary; but I share the view of one hon. member who was in the Canadian active service force, the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Chambers), that one and a half months would be sufficient. However, I am not a judge of such matters. But I think the scheme should be carried on as it is until the unmarried man reaches the

The Address-Mr. Picard
age of thirty-five years. If we rely upon what has been stated by the Prime Minister of Great Britain, 1942-43 is the year when we shall need men for the battle. Our men might have time to be trained by then, and if they are now trained for one month and given a taste for the army, more might enlist than if they were kept there for four months and become tired and fed up with it.
Before I turn to other matters, may I mention something which was said here the other night, which did not quite please me. It was stated by one of my own friends, the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. d'Anjou). He said:
I listened the other night to the excellent speech given in French by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Chambers). In my opinion, the hon. member thereby gave a lesson to a great many members from the province of Quebec who, either through snobbery or for other reasons unknown to me, rarely speak French in this house. When one wishes to preserve a right, it has always been my belief that he must exercise it.
I do not think I am much of a snob, and I do not believe that speaking either English or French is any kind of snobbery one way or the other. It is just a way of expressing one's thoughts, and when we feel that to speak in one particular language would enable us to reach more persons, it is logical to use it when we are able to do so. If it were a question of right. I would be the first one to fight to the limit to have that right respected and granted to me. But once I have the right, must I use it all the time; may I not use my right to speak in another language? I do not believe that the hon. member for Rimouski understood the lesson to be drawn from the speech of the hon. member for Nanaimo. He should realize that if an English-speaking member makes an effort to speak in this house in French, it indicates that he wants to show his good-will. One peculiar characteristic of English-speaking people is that usually they do not care to show that they are not perfect in anything. I know quite a number of people, friends of mine, who can carry on quite competently in French, but because they cannot speak perfectly in that language they do not care to speak it in public at all. So it seems to me that the hon. member for Nanaimo was quite brave when he went ahead and spoke in French; and rather than blame French-speaking members for speaking in English, my hon. friend from Rimouski should draw a totally different lesson from the excellent speech of my deskmate.
Since my arrival in Ottawa for the present session I have been asked by many people what were the reactions in French Canada
concerning the collapse of France and the incident of Oran. In dealing briefly with this question I shall bear in mind what the. Prime Minister said in his speech on the address:
I do not think we can be too careful in this House of Commons about what any of us say with regard to other countries and their position at this time in the matter of war.
Later in his speech he stated:
I appeal to hon. members in the house and I appeal to my fellow-countrymen in all parts of the dominion to bear always in mind the task which Canada alone can perform in keeping hope alive in the hearts of the grief-stricken people of France. Let no word from Canadian lips add to the agony of her open wounds. Let us inflict no new pain, and let us be ever watchful to exercise the healer's art.
I will do my best, in the few minutes I want to speak on this question, not to forget the advice of the Prime Minister.
The people of Quebec remember with joy the appeal which was made to them a few days after the collapse of France by the Prime Minister, when he asked them to keep alive French love for liberty and for freedom and French culture, and to help prevent the widening of the gap between France and Britain. The way the Prime Minister treated this question in his speech on the address has won for him further admiration in Quebec.
The tragedy of F'rance, as it has been called, can be studied from many angles. But from whatever angle we look at it, it is advisable to avoid extremes. Trying to pin the responsibilities on one political group or another is a silly game that can lead only to bitterness, and I can hardly hide my contempt for those French writers of the right who try to convince us that the leftists led the country to its downfall, and my contempt for the French writers of the left, who explain to us the negotiations of the rightists with the enemies of the state. Many of these writers might be more persuasive if they were less abusive.
It is childish to talk of the unworthiness of French statesmen. Anybody who has been in touch with European politics will vouch for the fact that they were as good, often better, and never any worse than those of other continental countries.
It is naive to talk of deserved punishment for the sins of France. France has always been the land of true proportions and of moderation: "le pays de la mesure," as we say in French. It was the home of highly developed individualism, which was the product of a vast general culture in all fields of intellectual endeavour. An analysis of the French collapse is too complicated a matter
The Address-Mr. Picard

to be made curtly and sharply as it is by some ill-informed people, and moreover it cannot be done within the scope of my remarks.
For us, June 16 was a sad day, when France failed in her word to Britain. We felt badly about it and felt it was a mistake on the part of those who influenced the decisions of Bordeaux. I was of opinion that M. Reynaud, M. Herriot, President Lebrun and all those who shared their views were in the right in -wishing to continue the fight from Africa. Personally I think that those who influenced the decision to abandon the British alliance will have an extremely heavy responsibility thrown upon them when history is written. We must remember, however, that it is difficult to judge of the situation from the comparative safety of our shores. We must remember that on June 16 France was alone in the defence of her soil, and also that she *did not have the English channel between herself and the motorized war machine of Hitler. No matter how severely we may judge that man Laval, we must believe that France's great hero who is now her leader acted with sincerity. He is now a prisoner of his first mistakes, but his patriotism is a guarantee that he cannot be blinded to the true interests of France. We should therefore reserve our judgment on any moves of Vichy as reported in the press until they are confirmed by positive facts and we can know their full meaning. We must rely, sir, on the fact that the sentiment of the majority of France will prevail in the mind of its leader and that ways will be found to prevent a clash with Britain. But even should matters come to the worst, no one need fear anything about the sentiments of French-Canadians. They will be more than ever on the side of democracy and its valiant defender, Britain.
I was told a few days ago that there was in Montreal a self-styled "man of good-will" going round interviewing people with regard to the incident of Oran, and I understand that he expressed the view that French-Canadians had been terribly offended by that incident. I suggest that he did not meet the proper people, because, no matter how much we may dislike the publicity given to this matter, we admit the necessity for it and we would still say, "Go ahead and do it again," if it had to be done again. We consider that it was in the interest of Canada because it was in the interest of Britain. French-Canadian loyalty has been tested many times in the past. If I remember rightly, it was in 1776 when the American revolution was in progress that Lafayette and d'Estaing came over to America and sent emissaries to the French-Canadians with an appeal for help to the colonists in

revolt. It was only seventeen years after the fall of Quebec, and yet French-Canadians turned a deaf ear to that appeal and stood by Britain. They did not participate in the struggle against the crown at that time. In 1812, French-Canadians again proved their loyalty to the crown, and at Chateauguay, there was a battalion of Voltigeurs led by de Salaberry on the side of the English.
Many ill-informed references have been made to the incidents of 1837. That was not a revolt against the crown; it was not a movement in favour of the enemy; it was merely a fight for the recognition of constitutional principles in Canada, in which Upper and Lower Canada participated.
Even in our day, Mr. Speaker, there have been stronger provocations than the necessary incident of Oran which have tested the patience of French-Canadians. They do not have to moan about that African incident when in their own land, in their own province, my compatriots have been hurt. A long and sad story could be written of the lack of fair play shown by certain elements of the majority. Mind you, sir, I am not referring to this house, where the most satisfactory atmosphere exists. I am not referring to the government, who have shown more understanding and good-will than any administration that has preceded them. I am referring to the civil service of Canada, here in Ottawa, and more so in the federal service in the province of Quebec. I am pointing to the great public service companies like the Bell Telephone company, the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway in relation to their services and their employees in that province. I am pointing to all other agencies or companies of a public nature who derive their revenues from services to the French-speaking population and fail to recognize that population in the allotment of their favours and in the performance of certain of their services. Take the war effort of the country. We call for equality of sacrifice. Do we have equality in the benefits that accrue from war contracts and the direction of the industrial effort of the nation? Some of these daily occurrences are meat for the extremists and a few agitators and are more important than the incident of Oran.
We have a long way to go and there is much to be done to bring about a satisfactory situation. But, Mr. Speaker, never have these just grievances affected French-Canadian loyalty in the past, and happily it is still time to bring about remedies. We are sure that in the end everyone will realize that our country can be made great only by the

The Address-Mr. Nicholson
unity of its component races, and that unity is never reached by one-sided advantages. Unity can be reached, not by coercion but by good-will and understanding, and I have been preaching the necessity for cooperation whenever I have had occasion, in my short public life, to address the people whom I represent. I say to you to-day, sir, let us all work to this end.
It has been a consolation to us, throughout
our history, to have, in the other race which constitutes the majority, friends who understood us and shared in some of our views. It has been a pleasure to see the gradual growth of conciliatory sentiment in the political life of the country and in our universities. There is no more reason for Canadians of pure French descent to have what we call love in the true sense of the word for England than there is for English-speaking Canadians to have a love for France; but there is a common ground on which we can meet, it is our love for Canada our country which our forefathers have built, for which they fought in the past, for which we are ready to fight now. This is the common ground on which we all should meet.
French-Canadians have always respected Britain, and they have been grateful for the political institutions that have been bestowed upon them by Britain, based on freedom, selfgovernment and justice.
In conclusion I wish to state that since the battle of Britain started, the splendid behaviour, the determined and stubborn courage, the heroism of the civilian population of Britain, the magnificent performance of the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy, have provoked throughout the province of Quebec the deepest and most profound admiration for Britain and the most sincere affection for our sovereigns.


Mr. A. M. NICHOLSON (Mackenzie):: I wish to associate myself with other hon. members who have expressed appreciation of the speeches of the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. To the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras) and the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Picard), I say that I envy them their ability to speak so fluently in the English and French languages. I regret exceedingly that my education in modern languages has not enabled me even to attempt to speak in the French language this afternoon.
The mover of this address placed the debate on a very high plane at the very outset of his speech when he said:
I feel I correctly interpret the interests and views of St. Lawrence-St. George when I say that we seek no local interest, _we want no personal advantage, we are not interested in
partisan politics. Every true Canadian feels, the same to-day. We seek the welfare ot Canada and of every part of it.
Those are honourable words. They set, as I said, a very high plane for the discussion.
I think all hon. members who have spoken have tried to maintain the spirit there outlined. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) apologized for not having heard this speech. Had he heard it, perhaps he would have omitted the first part of his address the other day, which brought us back to the hustings and election time.
One part of the address of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George I think requires amplification. He said:
Few of us have yet begun to give up things we like, still less things we think we need. Unless we also tighten our belts our effort will fall short of what is necessary to stop the nazis. We must consume less, save more and steadily invest in war savings certificates and war loans.
I hope that hon. members will not judge the people whom I represent in parliament by the amount of money they are subscribing to government loans or by their purchases of war savings certificates. I should like them to judge my people by the sentiments expressed by the editor of the paper in the little town where I have lived for the past ten years. This editor has locked up his printing press, said farewell to his wife and four children after joining the 20th company of the forestry corps. This is what he said in his farewell message to the readers of his weekly paper:
We regret the need that calls us to serve our country. We are proud that we are capable of serving in even the humblest capacity. We regret leaving wife and family, but we are proud they have the faith and courage to send us on our way with a smile and a cheering word. We regret leaving friends at home but we are proud to join with the finest men of our country in protecting those things which we hold dear.
These are the sentiments of many who cannot give even a cent to purchase war savings certificates, but who are making a much greater sacrifice, who are prepared to give even life itself.
The hon. member asks us to consume less and save more. I wish he would be more-specific. I wish some members of the government would tell us exactly what they mean when they ask us to consume less. I have in-my hands a copy of Maclean's magazine of October 15. The back page is devoted to an advertisement urging us to buy International de luxe delivery trucks; the second last page urges us to buy Canada's first choice automobile for 1941, the Studebaker Champion. Two whole pages are devoted to advertising the best car in America, the 1941 De Soto; a
The Address-Mr. Nicholson

full page to Fargo trucks; two pages to the 1941 Dodge luxury liner special; two pages to the Chrysler; two pages to what is supposed to be the best of all, the new Plymouth; and fight out in front of course you find the leader, .the Chevrolet. It seems to me that the publishers of this magazine need to be told whether those who buy these commodities are helping or hindering our war effort. I am sure the International Harvester company does not want to urge people to purchase de luxe trucks if by so doing they are using money that should be saved to buy government bonds Or war savings stamps. It is high time some spokesman of'the government told us what is meant when we are asked to save more and consume less.
' I should like to be told whether we are [DOT]to consume less wheat, less bacon, less butter, less apples. Or are we to consume less fish? A great deal of confusion is being caused by loose talk of the kind I have mentioned.
* I was glad to hear the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) announce yesterday that we are not going to have any more luxury liners in the way of new automobiles or frigidaires or radios. The announcement is timely; in fact it should have been made a year ago. But if it is wrong to buy these things, it is equally wrong to manufacture them. I believe the people of Canada are anxiously awaiting a lead from this government as to what commodities should be conserved and what commodities should not.
My desk mate (Mr. Gillis) referred in his speech the other day to the excellent utterance of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in his Labour day address when he referred to the brotherhood of the brave who fight for us and the brotherhood of labour who work for victory. I endorse everything that has been said in this house with respect to the splendid contribution being made by the members of the military and air forces and of the navy. I echo what has been said on many occasions as to the need for free transportation for those who are prepared to give their lives for their country. Further, I wish to express appreciation of the work being done by the brave women of Canada, for I think we all agree that in war the greatest sacrifices of all are made by the women.
I should like to devote most of my time this afternoon to a discussion of the second brotherhood mentioned by the Prime Minister, the brotherhood of those who labour for victory. I read in the Hansard of the British

House of Commons the other day a speech by the hon. member for Llanelly. Speaking on October 10, he said:
The past few years in Europe have shown very clearly that totalitarian wars, modern wars, are won or lost by the spirit of the population. One of the most remarkable things in recent years is that wars have been lost in countries while their armies are still in being because the civilian populations have cracked.
There is a great deal of truth in that. Hon. members are anxious that the civilian contribution of Canada should be the maximum contribution.
I should now like to say just a few words about our effort in the industrial field. Two of my colleagues have made a splendid contribution to the debate in dealing with the problems in connection with industry. I was interested to read another comment by the same member of parliament in the British house. He stated that in his constituency they had made over ten thousand Anderson shelters, but at that time they did not have a single shelter for their own use. Fie pointed out that large quantities of steel were necessary for the construction of those shelters and that there was a serious shortage of steel in Great Britain. My desk mate advises me that the production of steel in Canada is not at the maximum. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that as long as people in Great Britain are unable, because of a lack of steel, to obtain these Anderson shelters, we should be supplying every pound of steel that it is possible for this dominion to produce.
I should like to congratulate the Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty) upon the work that has been done under the dominion-provincial youth training projects. I have in my hand some information in connection with the short courses provided for young men in welding and sheet-metal work, machine-shop work and aircraft mechanics. More work of this sort should be done; but so far as I know, the training school at Galt, Ontario, is the only one that undertakes to train large numbers of young men under this scheme. These men must be between the ages of sixteen and twenty-nine, and each must have a letter from some responsible employer to the effect that he will be given employment on completion of the particular course which he is taking. This, of course, to a certain extent limits the number of those who otherwise might be able to take advantage of this opportunity. I should like to urge upon the Minister of Labour that, in addition to training young men in work of

The Address-Mr. Nicholson
this kind, provision be made for the retraining of mechanics who were originally trained either in the old country, in the United States or in Canada. In western Canada particularly we have a large number of men on farms who received their training in the large industrial areas of Great Britain, the United States and Canada, but who gave up industrial work to go farming in the good old days when fortunes were to be made on the prairies. This year many of these men find that they will be compelled to ask for relief if they do not get an opportunity to work. I have in my constituency well qualified men, who served seven or eight years as apprentices in the old country, whose relatives are being bombed every night by Hitler's planes, who are not satisfied to be sitting down accepting relief in Canada when they should be doing some constructive work, as long as there is in this dominion a single factory that is not running at capacity. I submit that without further delay schools should be set up to provide refresher courses for men trained in industry some years ago, who are going to be needed in industry again in the very near future if Canada is to make its greatest possible contribution in the supplying of war material to Great Britain.
I now come to a discussion of a subject that is of vital concern to the people whom I represent and the people of western Canada, the question of agriculture. I think all hon members will agree with the statement made the other night by the Minister of Agriculture that the production of food is going to be one of the valuable contributions that Canada will make. I am not at all satisfied with the arrangements that are being made in this country with respect to the production of foodstuffs. I want to thank the Minister of Agriculture for the announcement he made yesterday, in response to the question I asked on Friday as to whether 1940 would be declared an emergency year under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. His announcement will be welcomed all across western Canada. In speaking the other night, the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) referred to the following statement by the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe), as contained in a news letter issued by the director of public information:
We do not know of any construction contract let since the outbreak of war that has netted the contractor what, by any stretch of the imagination, could be considered an excessive profit.
The minister went on to say:
... it is not in the public interest, in a time of crisis, that a contractor should be out of
pocket in fulfilling a national need. Obviously, no good end is served by letting contracts on a financial basis which would cripple a contractor, and so limit the productive facilities of the dominion.
If that is the policy of the Minister of Munitions and Supply with respect to the letting of contracts, it is high time it also became the policy of the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Coin-merce (Mr. MacKinnon); for, as I said before in this house, the production of wheat, butter, bacon and so on is every bit as important as the making of machine guns, bombing planes, bullets and other forms of equipment. I am not minimizing the contribution made by industry, but I am saying that if Canada can give the manufacturers all their costs plus a profit, we should not ask our farmers to go bankrupt in producing foodstuffs for Canada and the mother country.
I was one of the perhaps few members of the house who could not develop one particle of enthusiasm as we listened to the Minister of Agriculture the other night. I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that this was not because the preliminary remarks of the minister annoyed me. Frankly, in normal times I enjoy hearing the Minister of Agriculture on the hustings, fighting as he fought the other day. But what did disturb me was the fact that the picture he presented for agriculture was as full of holes as a sieve. I am not going to discuss all the commodities he mentioned;
I am going to confine myself to two products that concern the people of my constituency and of western Canada more than any others.
I want to discuss what the minister has in view with regard to bacon and wheat. He talks in terms of millions of dollars and millions of pounds, with the greatest of ease. But what the farmers of Canada want to know is, how many cents a pound? It is not going to be any comfort to the farmers who are producing bacon to be told that they will have to produce that bacon for a price which will mean bankruptcy, but that they should be comforted because there are thousands of other farmers in exactly the same boat. When I asked the minister the other day just what the price was going to be, he did not answer. I asked if the price would be as high as it was last year. His reply was that it would not be quite as high as last year but that better arrangements in connection with maintenance, margin for storage and so on should result in a price to the farmer which would compare favourably with that of last year. The minister did not give us the information, but that was not because he did not have it. The farmers of Canada knew what the new deal meant, but they did not learn it from the Minister of Agriculture.
The Address-Mr. Nicholson


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: A dirty deal.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The farmers learned about it through the packers. When the farmers took their hogs to market last week, the packers knew all about the matter; the price had dropped 70 cents. Somehow or other the packers knew that the new deal was not a very good deal.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The sides are smaller.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The price is down 70 cents a hundredweight. Since the minister made his speech the other day, there has been a further drop of 50 cents.


Mr. JACKMAN:: He should stop making speeches.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I notice the suggestion of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) that we should have a fulltime Minister of Agriculture is receiving consideration. The name of the minister of agriculture of Saskatchewan has been suggested.
I was glad to see that there is at least one minister of agriculture in Canada who does not think very much of this bacon deal. I see in the Winnipeg Tribune of November 19 the following dispatch from Toronto, where the Hon. P. M. Dewan, Minister of Agriculture of Ontario, is quoted as follows:
The bacon quota announced a few days ago was gratifying as to quantity. The price now announced is truly disappointing. Already I understand purchase prices to the farmer are down from top prices $1.50 per hundredweight for dressed hogs. This is bad medicine for the farmer to take, particularly when everything he must purchase is increasing in value.
I agree with the Ontario minister; this bacon deal is bad business for the farmer. The Winnipeg Free Press had something to say about the deal, stating that it did not believe the Canadian farmer would want to hold up the price of bacon to Great Britain.
I find that in other respects we are asking Great Britain to pay the piper. In a return to my question respecting German prisoners of war I find that the total yearly rentals paid for land in which prisoners of war are located amount to $35,278 annually, all of which is recoverable from the government of the United Kingdom. For food for prisoners of war I am told we are spending $2,517 daily, of which $2,114 is recoverable from the government of the United Kingdom. These figures would seem to show that at least in respect of some matters the government of Canada is not so generous when it deals with the British government. I dislike very much this policy of half charity and 
half business. It is something like taking a guest to the parliamentary dining-room this evening and saying to him, "This dinner will cost 75 cents; I will pay 65 cents and you may give me 10 cents."
We are saying to our customers across the sea, "We are going to sell you bacon at less than the cost of production. We do not want you to pay the full price. You give us so much, and the farmer will take the rap." The old price was $18.01 per Wiltshire side, at Canadian seaboard. The new price is $15.82. That is not good enough, and as the representative of a rural constituency, whether or not I ever made my living on a farm, I want to protest with all the power I can muster that this sort of deal is not good enough for agriculture, in the present crisis.
I want now to say something about wheat, and in that connection would draw the attention of hon. members to a statement made in the British House of Commons by the secretary to the Minister of Agriculture. Here are his words, as reported at page 1422 of Hansard for the British House of Commons on August 22, 1940:
After the outbreak of war it was known that there had been increases in the farmers' costs and the standard price was increased from 8 shillings per hundredweight to 9 shillings per hundredweight. Since December last year farmers' costs have increased very materially largely because of the increase in wages. There have been other increases in their costs but wages are perhaps the main cause. The government therefore have decided to increase the standard price of oats from 9 shillings to 11 shillings six pence. This merely puts a bottom in the market. Farmers will not be faced with a rapid fall and unless the price actually falls below 11s. 6d. no subsidy will be paid. This guarantee ought to give ample confidence to farmers to produce the maximum quantity of oats since they are no longer exposed to the possibility of a slump.
I say that what Great Britain has done for the British farmer, the Canadian government can do for the Canadian farmer.
I was pleased to hear that at last the Minister of Agriculture had repudiated a statement which had caused a great deal of misunderstanding, namely that wheat could be produced at from 30 cents to 40 cents a bushel. As reported at page 102 of Hansard he has gone on record as follows:
It is generally admitted that 70 cpnts 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.
If not, then what about it? If wheat cannot be produced profitably at 50 cents a bushel, what is the government doing about it? If we are going to give the manufacturers of

The Address-Mr. Nicholson
munitions of war not only all their costs but an additional profit, why not give the farmer a price for his product which will enable him to have that decent standard of living which the minister frankly admitted he cannot have at the present time.
I believe the minister in his observations was very optimistic when it suited him and very pessimistic when it suited him. When he looks forward to our consumption in the next ten years he is most optimistic. He estimates that we are going to have an internal consumption of 160,000,000 bushels a year during the next five years. How much have we consumed in the last ten years?
I have before me some figures supplied by the bureau of statistics which show wheat consumption in the last ten years as follows:
Year	No. of bushels
1940	 133,870,000
1939	 121,774,000
1938	 123,083,000
1937	 103,562,000
1936	 99,542,000
1935	 121,702,000
1934	 101,583,000
1933	 104,518,000
1932	 99,123,000
1931	 117,560,000
Total	 1,126,317.000
These figures give an average consumption of 112,631,700 bushels a year. Yet the minister estimates an internal consumption of 160,000,000 bushels, or an increase of 42 per cent in the next five years. I agree with the Minister of Agriculture that we could increase our internal consumption to this extent, but not under the policies prevailing in Canada at the present time. With the amount of purchasing power available to the majority of the low-paid workers and farmers, it is quite impossible to increase consumption to that extent.
A short time ago I met in the city of Winnipeg a fruit grower from British Columbia. I talked to him about his problems, and after he went home he sent me some information respecting his receipts for fruit sold in British Columbia. These are his words:
For this variety and Gravensteins we were offered 55 cents per box on the car. As the box and packing costs amount to about 35 cents, the grower would receive about 13 cents net after Associated Growers sales charges are added. For this 13 cents the grower has to produce the apples and deliver them to the packing house. While in Winnipeg I saw this variety and grade in several stores marked $1.65 a box and in one case $1.75. At the present time No. 6 wheat is selling in this district for $32 a ton cash. I have just obtained the price from the local feed store.
The point is this:	Here is a fruit grower
selling his apples in British Columbia who, when he wishes to buy No. 6 wheat produced
in Saskatchewan, must pay with the receipts from seven or eight boxes of apples. He must give that many apples to pay for a bushel of No. 6 wheat. When the Saskatchewan farmer wants to buy a box of British Columbia apples he finds that, after taking out expenses for threshing and twine, he has to give the value of six or seven bushels of wheat. It is quite obvious, therefore, that when we have a condition whereby a farmer has to give six or seven boxes of fruit to buy one bushel of wheat, and a wheat grower has to give six or seven bushels of wheat to buy one box of apples, there is no possibility in the world of increasing internal consumption to the extent mentioned the other night by the minister.
Then the minister made some estimates with regard to our export. In this respect he is generous. He made estimates in connection with our production, and I believe in that regard he is pessimistic. He placed before us facts respecting the last fourteen years, and stated that if we produce as much in the next five years as we did in those fourteen we shall have such-and-such a condition. I trust that we may never again have a period of ten years in which large areas in western Canada did not all through the period get back their seed.
This year has been declared an emergency year, and we have a crop amounting to some
561,000,000 bushels. Just the other day I received from the bureau of statistics a chart showing the production in western Canada for the present year. I was amazed at the small area where the yield was over twenty bushels to the acre, and at the large area where the yield was under twenty bushels. I think my guess is just as good as that of the Minister of Agriculture. If he estimated 500,000,000 bushels a year he would be much closer to the total than he was when he made his estimate of 380,000,000 bushels of wheat a year.
I am going to make a few concrete proposals to the government and the Minister of Agriculture. In the first place I would ask the government to carry out the election promise of an interim payment on the 1939 wheat crop, which was accepted in good faith in western Canada. I know the Minister of Agriculture denies promising an interim payment of from 10 to 12 cents a bushel. Last year the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) said it was strange that so many reporters should get the minister wrong. If I remember correctly, the hon. member quoted from several western papers to the effect that the minister had promised definitely that there would be an interim payment of from 10 to 12 cents.
The Address-Mr. Nicholson


Mr. COLDWELL:: Including Saskatchewan Liberal papers.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: In the second place, I urge that there be an increase in the initial payment for the present year. I have received from municipalities in my constituency petitions asking that the price be $1.50 a bushel for the first thousand bushels, the balance to be sold at the market price. I was amazed to find that the Saskatchewan association of rural municipalities, a powerful organization which has gone out of its way to refrain from embarrassing the government, has gone on record as asking for $1.50 a bushel for the first 1,000 bushels, the balance to be sold at the market price. I can support that recommendation provided the market price does not go below the present price of 70 cents a bushel.
In the third place I urge the closing of the Winnipeg grain exchange. Fourth, I urge the marketing of agricultural products by appropriate food boards at parity prices. Fifth, I urge government assistance to the farmer by providing suitable granaries, similar to the plan adopted in the United States, with a view to storing one billion bushels in Canada. People talk about a carry-over of half a billion bushels, but I submit that the time is coming when one billion bushels of wheat in Canada will be an important factor in getting the peace we are looking for in Europe. As the minister points out, wheat can be stored and kept for long periods. Then there should be a cash advance of 75 per cent of the value of the wheat stored on the farms. The question may be asked, "where will the money come from?" I am glad to have had an answer from three well known authorities, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), the former Minister of Finance, now Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), and the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley). The Prime Minister is reported on page 53 of Hansard, as follows:
Before turning to another aspect of my subject, I should like to remind the house that the only limits the government is prepared to place upon Canada's war effort are those imposed by the extent of our resources, both human and material, and by our capacity for sacrifice. We will make financially possible the utmost effort the people of Canada are physically and morally capable of making.
I was going to point out in considerable detail a market which the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) might veiy well consider, but the time at my disposal is becoming short. I refer to the home market. I cannot state definitely how extensive this market is, but there is a large group in Canada in the lower income brackets who are not getting enough to eat. I have on my

desk the results of a study which was carried out in the United States, and which I recommend to the minister. This shows that a large percentage of those in the lower income brackets increased their food consumption 100 per cent when their incomes were stepped up from $65 to $100 a month.
I have in my hand a little booklet entitled " Food for Health " prepared by the Canadian Medical Association. I recommend this publication to all hon. members. The only criticisms I have heard of it are that it provides for a minimum diet, and our relief authorities say that they cannot supply our people with the amounts recommended. This booklet sets out that a family of five should have $11.40 a week for food alone. A number of carefully prepared diets are set out, every one of which is considered a minimum diet. I wish the people in my constituency who are on relief could have the diets set out in this booklet.
I have a letter from the superintendent of the mothers' allowance bureau pointing out that the maximum allowance for a mother with a family of eight children is S36 a month, or $432 a year. This family would have to provide clothing, rent, coal oil and other necessities out of this income. For a family of two adults with five children the Canadian Medical Association recommend a minimum allowance of $13.85 a week, or $720.20 a year, for food alone. When a reliable publication of this sort states that the minimum amount for food should be $720 and when we know that there are many large families living on much less, there cannot be any doubt that there is a large field for consumption here.
I am sorry the Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty) is not in his place at the moment, because I wanted to express my thanks for the careful consideration he gave to a number of relief problems which I brought to his attention last session. I have the report of an investigation which the minister was kind enough to have carried out. It is marked " confidential," but in view of the fact that the result of the investigation has been made public by a former member of this house who is editing a paper in North Battleford, I think it is only fair that I should take advantage of the privilege the minister has given me of referring to the report. I shall not mention any names given in the report.
Hon. members will recall that I described conditions in my constituency which were shocking to many members. An investigation was made, and this is the report. I shall refer only to two cases. I was fortunate in having a member of the Saskatchewan legislature, who is a returned soldier, accompany

The Address-Mr. Slaght
these inspectors. I do not say he is not telling the truth in his report, and there is a vast difference between the truth and the whole truth. One family was investigated where the man was getting $8 a month, and the inspector states:
At the time of my visit on July 5, 1940, there was food in the house sufficient for immediate requirements.
Here again I am sorry the English language is not as explicit as it should be. I should like to tell hon. members exactly what was in the house the day upon which this inspector considered there was sufficient food there for immediate requirements. On that day this family had 75 pounds of flour, 20 pounds of porridge -meal, one-quarter pound each of tea and coffee, two pounds of salt, a few ounces of baking powder and some milk, butter and eggs. But this is what they did not have. They had no meat, no sugar, no lard, no preserved fruit, no dried fruit, no jam, no syrup or honey. This family was in debt to the storekeeper to the extent of 870. The man has no chance of getting work to retire this debt and in order to prevent the family from going hungry, the storekeeper had given him credit to the extent of $70.
The next case is that of a returned soldier, and here the inspector points out that these people should consider themselves fortunate. His report states:
Since going on the homestead the branch has supplied them with building materials for a good bouse, stoves, tools of all kinds, two cows, a team of horses, harness, feed, sleighs, wagon, plough, harrows, and has broken around ten acres of new land. When one considers that a year ago this family had absolutely nothing and now they have a very good start on a new home, we believe that they should consider themselves fortunate. It is true that we reduced the monthly food order slightly this spring, but that is due to the cows freshening and gardens coming in. This is a case where we have no excuses to offer whatsoever.
I realize that the government has given this family a good deal of assistance, but the fact that an old rake and some harness are out in your barn does not satisfy your appetite. What did this family have in the house on the day of inspection? The report states they had 25 pounds of flour, four pounds of sugar, two pounds of lard, a few ounces of tea and coffee, and some milk. They had no meat, potatoes, eggs, butter, fruit, syrup or honey. They were short of clothing. Their bedding consisted of two blankets, three sheets, one quilt and one overcoat. They did not have a mattress. A returned soldier who gave his best during the last war is in this condition, and the inspector who goes in cannot see these things. I am told that he saw the beautiful trees-and the trees are beautifuland he saw the gorgeous scenery-and there is no finer scenery anywhere in my constituency. But I repeat what I have already said in this house, that men, women and children are going hungry; and I feel sure that if the Minister of Labour were here he would agree with me that it is not his intention to have people living under these conditions in this day and age.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. A. G. SLAGHT (Parry Sound):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct the attention of parliament and the people of Canada to one of the national problems which " war has served to intensify or create,"-to use the language of the speech from the throne-a problem which heretofore has not been discussed in this debate.
Before doing so, I desire to pay tribute -to the full and detailed accounts which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and those ministers charged with special war portfolios have given to parliament and to the country. One who has followed these amazing recitals of the past few days must, I suggest, be proud indeed of Canada and of our war effort. Particularly do I desire to convey an expression of thanks on behalf of the people of the constituency of Parry Sound to the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe), who yesterday, in his kind and sympathetic way, paid tribute -to those who lost their lives or who were injured in the unfortunate explosion at Nobel. His way of putting it prompts me to say that we in Canada owe a debt to the labour organizations for their fine cooperation in our efforts, without which cooperation it would be impossible to have done and to continue to do our part in this conflict.
The particular problem on which I want to spend a few minutes to-night is that of the snemy within, otherwise known as the fifth column. To combat the enemy within we have in Canada a special service which, although smaller numerically, has no less importance in my view, so far as the defence of this dominion and aid to the mother country are concerned, than the army, the navy and the air force. I refer t<p the protective service which combats espionage, sabotage and subversive enemy activities, and whose special task has been and still is to fight and suppress the fifth column and the enemy within our gates. This duty falls, as



SG8 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Slaght
hon. members know, upon, the secret service of Canada, which in turn is a branch of that magnificent force, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
This subject is one to which I have given special attention for the past two years. On May 13, 1939, eighteen months ago and four months before the outbreak of war, I addressed this house upon this particular subject. I have been accused of being an alarmist, of endeavouring to create hysteria with reference to the seriousness of this problem in our country. But the recent history of Europe shows that the warnings which I undertook to give the Canadian people have, so far as certain countries there are concerned, been converted into grim, stark reality. It is in the hope that we can draw a lesson from what has happened there that I want to call the attention of the house to some matters to-night.
First, let me state in brief what Germany did on this continent in the last war. In doing so, I suggest that we may not expect from her present high command any less cruel and ruthless treatment on this continent than we received in the war of 1914.
Shortly after the outbreak of war in 1914, Germany instigated and equipped from Berlin through Zimmerman a campaign of sabotage, dynamiting, destruction and international murder, by placing a large sum of money in the hands of her diplomatic representatives in the United States. Count von Bemstorff was ambassador at Washington. Captain Franz von Papen, Captain Boy-Ed and Doctor Albert established offices in New York city; and $150,000,000-as was established by the British secret service and proved also by Doctor Albert's later admission-was sent to the United States for use in destroying life and property in Canada and the United States in order to cripple the war effort of the allies. On tlhe surface these men were there to foster friendly relations between Germany and the United States, which latter country, as the house will recall, was not then at war. Surreptitiously they were there to conduct a campaign of destruction of life and property. On Tuesdays and Saturdays they dined at the White House, accepting hospitality from the president, and on Wednesdays and Fridays they went to their cellars and met their tools and agents whom they instructed and equipped with money to carry out the purposes in which they were engaged.
All that I tell you, Mr. Speaker, to-night in this regard is a matter of record in confessions, in court proceedings, and in part in the files of the British secret service. I gave more details to the house on May 13,
[Mr. Slaght.}
1939, as reported at page 4045 of Hansard, and if anyone should be interested in tracing the details of what happened, that reference might be useful. I am going to remind hon. members to-night of only some of the activities of these German agents against Canada:
The plot to blow up the international bridge at Vanceboro, Maine.
The dynamiting of the Peabody Overalls company at Walkerville.
The attempt to dynamite the Windsor armouries, in which our troops were then billeted.
The attempt to blow up the tunnel on the Canadian Pacific railway between Revelstoke and Vancouver.
The attempt to blow up the Welland canal.
The attempt to destroy the Canadian Pacific railway by dynamiting bridges and tunnels.
And numerous other similar affairs. Japan, at that time our ally, was then transporting troops across Canada towards Europe.
So much for their efforts against Canada. A further amazing list of destruction in the United States, and of explosions on vessels departing from United States ports with supplies for the allies, would take too long to relate. The list of their successful operations is almost unbelievable. Let me remind the house of only a few:
January 1, 1915-Incendiary fire at the John A. Roebling Company plant at Trenton.
March 15, 1915-Explosion at DuPont plant at Haskell, N.J.
April 1, 1915-Explosion of Equitable powder plant at Allon, Illinois.
May 3, 1915-Explosion at the Anderson Chemical Company at Wallington, N.J., costing three lives.
June 26, 1915-Incendiary fire at the Aetna powder plant at Pittsburgh.
July 7, 1915-Incendiary explosion at the DuPont plant at Pompton Lakes.
July 16, 1915-Incendiary explosion and fire at the Aetna plant at Sinnemahoning, Pa., costing five lives.
August 11, 1915-Incendiary fire at Westing-house electric plant, Turtle Creek, Pa.
May 10, 1916-The Atlas powder mixing plant was destroyed.
Hon. members will find ninety-six more enumerated in Hansard of May 13, 1939. I conclude with a very interesting one:
July 22, 1916-Explosion in Hercules powder works.
Just the other day the Hercules works received their second bath of blood, this time much more serious, because 40 workmen lost their lives.
It has been said that lightning does not strike twice in the same place, but that expression, obviously, has never been extended

The Address-Mr. Slaght
to the German gangsters. Let me here and now-and this is part of my purpose in speaking in this debate-pay the highest tribute possible to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police of Canada. They constitute our secret service. I bespeak from this government, from every member of the house, the strongest support for that great force, and I implore the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and the government to increase the grant substantially this session and provide a large sum of money, first, in order that the personnel of the force may be materially increased and, second, in order that the men on the force may be paid at rates commensurate with the dangerous and all-important protection which they are according to this country and to our war effort.
There is not intended one word of destructive criticism in what I ask the government to do. For twenty-five years all political parties have permitted this force to remain underpaid. The standard of requirement to enter the force, and the schooling and training which these men undergo, are rigid and high, and the men in the force have to serve six years on very small pay. This force, in efficiency-and I know something of its work in the past year-is not second even to Scotland Yard. The personnel is too limited to perform the terrific task now imposed upon the force by the war. We have two extensive coast-lines which they must guard particularly in order to protect vessels departing from Canada with cargoes for war purposes. The Minister of National Defence for Naval Affairs (Mr. Macdonald), in a wonderful address in which he disclosed the work of his department, told us that 3,500 vessels carrying cargoes amounting to twenty-one million tons had left Canadian shores since the outbreak of war. The old enemy tactics of planting time bombs on supply vessels bound for Europe must be watched as a cat watches a mouse, and that is only one aspect of the work of the force. They have counter-espionage and internment duties which require close and constant attention from one end of the country to the other.
We have been given figures showing the tremendous increase in factories and plants for war services. We are obtaining some
8800,000,000 in production, and the greatest insurance we can have is to see that this force is equipped and increased so that a fair measure of protection shall be accorded to these industries once they are under way.
May I say just a word about the defence of Canada regulations, because they are closely allied with the subject I have been discussing. I endorse to the full the well earned tribute paid to the Minister of Justice by the hon.
member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), and I wish to add to it by saying that this country owes the Minister of Justice a great debt of gratitude for the onerous, difficult and unpleasant duty which devolves upon him in the administration of these regulations, a duty which demands from him never-ceasing vigilance and courage. We have in him a man who possesses those two outstanding qualities to a great degree.
In my view the hon. member for Vancouver East with whom I am not always found in agreement, yesterday offered two valuable suggestions as to possible amendments to regulation 22. I think they might well be given careful consideration. With other criticisms of the defence of Canada regulations I am entirely out of accord. We hear these regulations attacked, sometimes with much vigour, on the ground that they are not in accordance with British justice- great stress is laid upon that phrase. They are attacked in the press and elsewhere, and I wonder whether those who attack the regulations on that ground are aware that, so far as the internment of subversive elements is concerned, our regulations are patterned precisely upon the British regulations as they exist to-day.
In my view it would be dangerous to relax our regulations, except to the extent suggested by the hon. member to whom I have referred, because Britain has found them of great benefit and we have also found them beneficial in dealing with subversive activities in this country. I would point out that Norway had no defence of Norway regulations, Belgium had no defence of Belgium regulations, nor had Holland any, and when Hitler determined to invade these countries they were honeycombed with subversive elements running wild without check in any way. In my judgment the rapid defeat of Norway. Belgium and Holland was due in large measure to treachery from within. History so records.
The defence of Canada regulations are such that I would definitely oppose them if this were a time of peace, but Canada is at war and that makes all the difference with regard to them. I suggest that anyone who seeks the repeal of these regulations should first ask Winston Churchill for his view of the subject.
Let me ask you, Mr. Speaker, to turn to Europe for a short time and review what has happened there, apropos of my subject; and then I want to apply the knowledge we have gained there so as to make sure that Canada and the United States shall not repeat the mistakes for which European countries are
The Address-Mr. Slaght
[Stage Direction]
now paying so terrible a price. Over a period of years Hitler has built up a terrific and efficient war machine. He has produced the strongest array of mechanized slaughter machines ever gathered together for murder in the history of the world. He has armed and trained an enormous army of men brought to the highest state of man-power efficiency. But granting all that, I say to you, sir, that without two Satanic weapons which he devised he could never have had the startling successes in Europe which he has achieved during the past few months. Those two weapons are ruthlessness and treachery.
First, there was ruthlessness, deliberately planned to create fear and to turn the blood of strong men into water. Cast your mind back, Mr. Speaker, to what he did in his own country, the cruel persecution of the Jews in Germany, the persecution and devastation of the Catholic church and all its orders and institutions, the murder of Dollfus, the purge or "blood bath" as it was called on June 30, 1934, when he murdered 1,200 of his former friends through his gestapo, one of them being Roehm, his chief of staff, the man who had built up the force of storm troopers and put him in power; another was Karl Ernst, his loyal Berlin troop leader, who had become too popular for Hitler's liking. It is interesting to note that both these men, just before Hitler murdered them, were decorated by him with the iron cross. We in Canada are not impressed with the iron cross as a token of esteem between friends; we think it stands for everything that is foul and evil. We think the cross signifies the quality of mercy, and if I may be permitted to paraphrase Shakespeare, I would say that the iron cross is twice cursed; it curseth him that gives and him that takes.
Outside Germany the slaughter picture is terrific. There was the burning of Rotterdam with the massacre of 100,000 defenceless women and children; the slaughter on the roads of France when Hitler's machines zoomed up and down, spilling death and destroying old men and women carrying bundles over their shoulders, and little children, so that their bodies might be stop-logs in the path of the French army. Now we have the bombing of London present to all our minds, where women and children, hospitals and schools, are the chief prey of the night raiders. Then there was the torpedoing of the City oj Benares. None of these wicked acts are ordinary incidents of war; they are planned deliberately to instil fear and as a policy of ruthlessness. I am going [Mr. Slaght.J
to quote his own language from Rauschning's sensational book, "Hitler Speaks," where this statement made by Hitler is quoted verbatim:
We must be ruthless. We must regain our clear conscience as to ruthlessness.
Treachery, as I mentioned, is his second weapon, and that is directly applicable to what I am talking about. Norway was overrun in record time, and the Quislings within were responsible. Holland, Belgium and France itself were overrun in thirty-three days. An army of eight million trained men, including the flower of the British army to the extent of 350,000, was defeated and routed, and these countries subjugated and captured in, as I say, thirty-three days. I suggest that all of that was the result of treachery, treachery from within, and could not possibly have been accomplished in any other way. In the last war in one battle which continued for eight days the French alone lost 600,000 men. The courage of the men of France is no less to-day than it was then, but we find that this insidious, terrific treachery from within has changed the whole picture of warfare.
May I point out that there is no accident about this. Hitler planned it in 1934. He called his agents from all countries where they were posted, including the United States and Canada, to a convention at Berlin where he addressed them in this language which I shall quote, and afterwards they dispersed and went back to the respective countries from which they came. Those who came from this continent returned here. I quote his language:
As the front line of our German fighting movement you will make it possible for us to complete the occupation of our positions and open fire. You are the army's outposts. You will have to prepare definite enterprises for an advance of the front. You will have to mask our own preparations for attack. To-day you are perhaps the most important section of the German nation.
That is impressive language. Then he sent them on their way with this admonition:
It is a good idea to have at least two German societies in every country. One of them can always call attention to its loyalty to the country in question and will have the function of fostering social and economic action. The other one will be radical and revolutionary. It will have to be prepared to be frequently repudiated by myself and other German authorities.
And again:
We shall have friends who will help us in all the enemy countries. . . , When the enemy is demoralized from within, when he stands on the brink of revolution, when social unrest threatens-that is the moment, a single blow must destroy him.

The Address-Mr. Slaght
And again:
We shall soon have an S.A. in America.
"S.A." meaning storm section.
We shall train our youth, and we shall have men whom degenerate Yankeedom will not be able to challenge.
Canada, sir, and the United States are direct objects of his ambition. Let none of us in either country make any mistake about that. In support of that statement I quote again from Rauschning's book, Hitler's own language:
Our struggle against Versailles and our struggle for a new world order is one and the same, we cannot set limits.
Nothing will be easier than to produce a bloody revolution in North America.
I guarantee, gentlemen, that at the right moment a new America will exist as our strongest supporter when we are ready to take the stride into overseas space.
Every state could by suitable methods be so split from within that little strength was required to break it down.
And as for money, for this purpose there will always be money. It is true that these conspiracy methods will grow costlier as one moves further westward, but that is the only difference. They will succeed everywhere. I guarantee that.
I have related this story to indicate why I so persistently warn against sabotage and fifth-column activity. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police, corresponding with Mr. Hoover's Federal Bureau of Investigation in Washington, and Scotland Yard in England, is our safeguard in this respect. We have, as the house knows, declared many subversive societies, some with innocent sounding names, to be unlawful; we have made it a crime to retain membership in them. We have under the defence of Canada regulations picked up and interned hundreds of Germans and Italians whose activities were shadowed and watched by our secret service police, not just since the war began but	during the past three
years; our secret service were ready, and within twenty-four hours of the declaration of war with Germany, and later against Italy in June last, raids	were	carried	out;	thepolice swooped down, and the worst of these bad men, except those who escaped in time to the United States,	were	interned	and	are
behind the palisades to-day.
We have now a	new	military	ally,	the
United States, and the great peril in the United States to-day is the enemy within. Hon. members need not take my word for it; let me quote Mr. Edgar Hoover's statement made in August, a few weeks ago. This is what he said:
Make no mistake about it, the saboteur, or "sab cat", as he was known in world war days, has come back in force. Many of our vital
factories are vulnerable to the menace of professional destroyers. We are now in almost exactly the same position as we were shortly before our entrance into the world war. If we are to be spared the repetition of such disasters as the Black Tom munitions explosion and other catastrophes which punctuated the activities of saboteurs twenty-odd years ago we should build our fences now, while undercover enemies can still be kept out.
And again:
There have been many mysterious efforts at incendiarism, injury to working parts of war-craft, and other activities of the "sab cat to cause destruction. There will_ be more of this unless thousands of factories in America, upon which so much of our population depends for a living, realize that we are caught in a world torn with strife between violently opposing forces.
Next to Edgar Hoover perhaps no man in the United States is more familiar with the situation than Martin Dies, chairman of the Dies committee of the House of Representatives, who for the past two years with his committee has been investigating un-American activities. On August 26 he issued a public statement, in which he said:
There are to-day 6,000,000 sympathizers of communist, fascist and nazi organizations in the United States.
He concluded with these words:
The fifth column in the United States is better organized and financed than in any country overrun by Hitler.
I suggest, sir, that a great step has been taken, both in the United States and in Canada, to place industry in North America on a commonsense basis of production, so that the job of the saboteur will be made more difficult. The federal bureau of investigation, under J. Edgar Hoover, is doing a wonderful job in the United States. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police, under Commissioner Stuart Wood, at Ottawa, are doing a wonderful job in Canada. These two major agencies exchange information and work in close, friendly, international cooperation. If Mr. Hoover wants to know something from Ottawa he puts an agent on a plane and he comes here and gets it, and the same thing applies if we require information from Washington. No treaties are required for that.
But government agencies can do only so much in this way; they cannot perform miracles. Both these forces have a limited personnel, having regard to the enormous areas they cover. Part of my message I should like to put in this way, that if business men in Canada fold their arms and say, "We leave this problem to our secret service police," that is just like putting a beauty patch on a cancer and expecting to get a cure. The federal bureau and the mounted
The Address-Mr. Slaght
[Stage Direction]
police can give leadership and direction to industry as to how vulnerable spots may be made invulnerable, but the real defence in this regard rests on the shoulders of industry itself, from the high plant executives who sit round the board table right down through the key men, the mechanics, the doorkeepers and the waterboys. All down the line we have to assure ourselves of the closest cooperation in order to protect ourselves against sabotage.
I have not much time left at my disposal, but I should like to make a suggestion or two. First it seems to me that Canada has been a bit spoiled, from an international point of view, for a great many years. For a hundred years we have had the protection of the British navy on the seven seas, for which protection we never contributed and never were asked to contribute a dollar. For a long time we have had the friendship of the United States of America, and round our shoulders the sheltering arm of what is known as the Monroe doctrine. So as a young country we have been encouraged to remain in swaddling clothes, so to speak, in an international sense, so far as war and preparation for war are concerned. But we went into the last great war and did our bit, as we have gone into this war and are doing our bit again, as I believe the debate of the last few days has made abundantly clear.
We met here in September of last year and in four days declared war against Germany. It appeared to me that we saw the mother country, after exhausting every honourable means to bring about peace, with her back to the wall having to fight for her very existence. But we saw a good deal more than that. We believed that Hitler, Goering, Goebells, Himmler and all the rest of those bloodthirsty bandits were bent upon world conquest, and we felt that the quicker Canada did her bit to Stop them before they could reach our shores, the better it would be for Canada. The first step towards defeating nazi poison is to realize that it exists, and the second step is to realize that it can be defeated. The nazis are not supermen. Gangsters have never been supermen, and we can carry that thought in our minds as we go forward with this struggle.
The Canadian people have responded nobly to the call. The recital by our ministers during the last week is amazing in its cumulative effect. There are just two incidents, so far as I know not yet touched upon, of which I should like to remind the house in reviewing Canada's war activities. The first is the work of young Davies and his Canadian pals of the London suicide squad. They have written the name of Canada across the horizon of the world in

letters of flame. The second is the fact that the mothers and fathers of Canada, with loving, outstretched arms, have sought to receive little children from the dangers of the motherland. That has given a great deal of comfort to the British people and has shown that we in this country have not forgotten the teaching of two thousand years ago, to suffer little children to come and forbid them not.
I suggest, sir, that the destiny of Canada in the future outruns the imagination. Perhaps it will be our destiny to be the very spearhead of ultimate victory. We may look forward to paying a heavy price, as has been so constantly and, I think, properly emphasized, but in the end we will rejoice with Britain and the commonwealth nations that we were able to play a noble part.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would give you the masterful words of Winston Churchill, when he said:
We have great reason for vigilance and concern-but no room for despair.
Mr. VICTOR QUELCH (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, while I realize that the question of first importance confronting us at this time is the effective prosecution of the war, nevertheless I offer no excuse for stressing the serious plight of agriculture in western Canada. I say that because if we are to make our maximum contribution in this war it is essential that every industry be maintained at its highest point of efficiency. No one in his sane senses could possibly suggest that agriculture is in a position to function efficiently as long as agricultural produce is being sold at the present disastrously low levels and, moreover, as long as the policy of the government remains so obscure.
Before I proceed to deal with the question of agriculture I should like to touch upon one or two speeches that have been made during the course of this debate. First of all I wish to comment on the speech delivered in this house this afternoon by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley). In essence his speech was the same as the budget speeches of last June and the previous September; and if I were to deal with it in detail, especially as it had to do with this group, I would be merely threshing a lot of old straw. I feel, however, that if, when dealing with this group, the minister had been prepared to answer a few questions he might have been in a sounder position, although on the other hand I might say he would have been in a more unsound position, because when you are engaged in the unprofitable task of building

The Address-Mr. Quelch
up straw men for the purpose of knocking them down you are not in a very good position to answer questions.
Therefore I should like to remind the house of one or two important points. For instance, both inside and outside the house for the past five years we have continually stressed one point which we have considered absolutely fundamental, namely, that industry does not and cannot create an effective demand for its own production, except in times of abnormal capital goods production. And of course in war time there is a tremendous expansion of capital goods, in the form of armaments.
Consequently we realize that when maximum production is reached, if it is still necessary to make more goods available for war purposes, and if it is still necessary to divert more production from consumers to war purposes, then it will be necessary to increase taxation. We have always appreciated that fact, and if the minister had studied the amendment a little more closely he would not have fallen into the error he made when he said that at this time we are opposing taxation.
The amendment to the amendment is in these words:
And this house further regrets the failure of the government to adopt a monetary policy that would permit a maximum war effort, without either increasing the debt or reducing the standards of living below that necessary for maintaining maximum efficiency.
That is to say, after the government has obtained all the money it can obtain by taxation, without reducing the maximum efficiency, then we maintain that any additional money that is required should be issued through the Bank of Canada, without debt. The minister stresses the fact that one of the main aims of taxation and bond sales at this time is to curtail the purchasing of non-essentials. I think the minister will agree that it would not be wise to curtail the purchases of goods essential, for instance, to health, because we have an abundance of such things. It would not be wise to curtail the purchase of primary products, such as fruit and fish; and yet, as a result of government policy, that is actually occurring at the present time.
I would strongly urge upon the government the necessity of telling the people just what are the goods we should refrain from buying. I find there is a tremendous amount of confusion in that regard. People are asking, "What is it we should stop buying?" They know very well that they should not stop buying primary products. They do not realize
exactly what it is the government is trying to get them to do when it tells them to stop buying and to increase their savings.
I maintain that the government in adopting its present policy of drastically reducing the spending power of the people has overlooked two points of great importance. The first of these, namely, the drastic reduction in the people's purchasing power by taxation and bond sales could be justified only if we had already reached or were rapidly approaching a period of maximum production. I do not think that is the situation in this country to-day. Therefore we feel that instead of still further reducing demand, we should expand production and its distribution.
For instance, there are still thousands of unemployed in Canada to-day. The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) stressed the fact that in Nova Scotia there are many unemployed. Then, in the Financial Post of November 16 we find this, respecting unemployment:
Failure to place several thousands of young men and women trained since last June for war industry, about 25 per cent of those put through the youth training programme, is imperilling the expansion of the scheme. It is abating the enthusiasm of some of the provincial governments, and without the cooperation of the provinces, the entire scheme of youth training would have to be recast.
In addition to that, there are many thousands of girls in their own homes throughout the country who would be only too willing and anxious to participate in any way possible in the war effort, but they do not know what to do.
Agriculture could be expanded along many lines, provided the farmer is guaranteed a price which would at least return the cost of production. I would point out, too, the absurdity of the present policy of the government in another respect. They are pleading with the people to save; saving is being stressed as a patriotic duty. At the same time there is a large body of highly specialized experts who are urging the people to spend. In the mornings I walk down from my room to the parliament buildings, and I pass a number of hoardings which have recently been built up. On these hoardings I am hold that I need a new car-"Eye it; try it; buy it." I see advertisements advertising new coats, and others telling me that I am ruining my eyesight, and that I should have extra lights in buildings. Then I may go down to a cafe to have breakfast. While there I may pick up a newspaper or periodical, either of which would be filled with advertisements. Thousands of those advertisements say to women, for instance, that if they are going to get their men they will have to maintain
The Address-Mr. Quelch

that school-girl complexion. Others are directed to fat people, telling them that if they wish to become stream-lined they should buy reducing appliances. Others are directed to bald men stating that in order to make a thousand hairs grow where one grows to-day they should use a special kind of lotion.
One may read thousands of advertisements each of which is attempting to induce the public to spend more money on certain commodities. Then one may turn on the radio, and likely he will be deluged with soap. It is at once evident that if this type of advertising did not pay, it would not be continued. Evidently the companies interested are obtaining results. They are increasing spending, because of the campaigns they put on.
And so we have the battle between spending and anti-spending. On the one side we have the government urging the people to do everything in their power not to spend, and on the other we have the highly specialized business advertiser urging the people to spend. One is reminded of the picture of the two donkeys tied together, both straining in opposite directions. It is time we got together and worked out the matter on a proper basis.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: Eliminate both donkeys.


Victor Quelch: If it is essential that we curtail spending for the successful prosecution of the war, then what possible justification can there be for the employment of thousands of people all of whom are trying to make us spend? What justification can there be for thousands upon thousands of pounds of materials being used in this apparently subversive action?
So, Mr. Speaker, I would say this: Let us utilize the services of all the unemployed, in order to expand our production to the maximum. Let us pay the primary producer a price which will make it possible for him to meet the cost of production, so that he may expand his production in any direction considered advisable. Then let us stop all forms of unnecessary advertising. That is as far as I shall go in discussing the speech of the Minister of Finance. After it has been printed one will be in a better position to analyse it.
I should now like to say a few words regarding the speech of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). I always find his speeches interesting. Nevertheless I do deplore the first part of the speech he delivered on this occasion. I do not think he did himself any credit, nor did he do credit to his party, or add anything constructive to the debates

of the house. In other words, it was the typical sort of political bilge water which flows so freely at election time.
There was one statement which I believe should be challenged immediately. He intimated that the election results were an endor-sation of the government's farm policy. In my opinion nothing could be further from the truth. I shall deal briefly with what I believe were the four main reasons why the government was elected-and certainly it was not through the agricultural vote.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) made the main issue one of national unity and Canada's participation at the side of Great Britain. I believe he was right in making that the national issue. It was stressed to such a degree that many people felt that a vote against the government would be considered abroad as a vote against participation with the British empire. If any hon. members read newspapers from abroad after the election they would know that was exactly how it was considered. The foreign papers stated that Canada had shown by the election that she was solidly behind Britain.
The next was what one might term a piece of political trickery in calling the election in the month of March. March is probably one of the worst months for the rural voters to get out to vote. As a rule in that month the roads are either blocked with snow or just opening up. I understand that in many rural constituencies it was practically impossible for the voters to get to the polls. In my own constituency two polls never even opened because the returning officers could not get through. In a number of other polls there were only four or five people who were able to vote. The agricultural vote in my constituency averaged less than thirty per cent, while the town vote was over seventy per cent. I think in that regard it is shown that the election was not an endorsation of the government's agricultural policy because in the majority of instances the farmer never had a chance to vote.
The third point to which I should like to refer is the splitting of the progressive vote. I am not blaming the Liberals for this, although they might be blamed in some respects. Until such time as the progressives throughout the country, whether they call themselves Social Crediters, Cooperative Commonwealth Federation or any other name, have sufficient sense to get together, work together and cooperate they will not deserve much representation in this house, and just so long will the forces of reaction continue in power at Ottawa.

The Address-Mr. Quelch
The next point with which I want to deal is the vicious misrepresentation carried on during the election. It will be remembered that in September last this group took a definite stand and advocated the mobilization of the resources of Canada in order to make as great a contribution as possible to the war effort. We advocated the mobilization of the financial resources, the mobilization of the industrial resources, and, lastly, the mobilization of man-power. During the election campaign we were attacked in the press, over the radio and on the platform as advocating the conscription of man-power, no mention being made of the fact that we had advocated, first, the conscription of our financial resources; second, the conscription of our industrial resources, and then the conscription of man-power. Just the one thing was mentioned. Time and again we were attacked by Liberals who stated that if they were put into power there would be no conscription. Yet within a few months after the Liberal party was elected the mobilization bill was brought down and now we have conscription. I am not attacking conscription; I am attacking the Liberal party for being willing during a time of national crisis to try to obtain votes by taking a stand which they knew was contrary to the welfare of this country. I would not have raised this question if the Minister of Agriculture had not in his political harangue tried to create a false impression of a most mischievous character and one which, if believed, in eastern Canada might prove of great harm to western Canada.
Coming down to the subject of agriculture, at the outset I want to make it clear that my criticism is not levelled against the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon). We realize that the wheat marketing problem did not arise yesterday, did not arise since the declaration of war; it has been growing steadily in magnitude ever since 1922 when the European nations first increased their production and decreased their imports. From 1922 to 1939 the wheat acreage of the world was expanded by somewhere in the neighbourhood of 52,000,000 acres. After the war the problem was greatly accentuated and to-day it has obtained major proportions.
It is true that this problem has been dropped into the lap of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but we feel that in reality it is the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture. I say this because it is largely as a result of the policies advocated by the Minister of Agriculture that the problem has reached its present proportions. On many occasions in the past the Minister
of Agriculture has stated in this house that his policy was to make it possible for the small farmer in western Canada to make a living. He stated that he was interested in building up a prosperous rural community. Furthermore he stated that he was not interested in helping the large farmer further to expand his operations. I think we are all agreed that that is a sound stand to take. I would point out, however, that unfortunately the results of the minister's policy have been just the opposite-there has been a gradual elimination of the small farmer. I am able to use the word "gradual", because provincial debt legislation has made it possible to guarantee the farmer security of tenure, even though his position might be one of financial bankruptcy.
The inevitable result in the grain belt of western Canada of a continuation of the present wheat policy will be that it will become an area of large mechanized units. The small farmer will be driven from the land and our rural communities will disappear. Many towns will become ghost towns, and depots will be moved out wholesale by the railways. Does the Minister of Agriculture consider that to be a satisfactory picture? Whether he does or not, the point is that this is actually what is happening to-day in the west. A very good article was written by Mr. Nesbitt, the publicity agent of the wheat pool, showing how this was happening, how it was the logical consequence of certain policies which have been pursued during the past few years.
Why do I say that this will be the inevitable outcome of the government's policy? I say it because we all know that it costs the halfsection farmer considerably more to produce wheat than it does the man with the large mechanized farm. Figures have been quoted on many occasions, and many hon. members have referred to the evidence of Professor Hope given before the Bracken commission. He pointed out that a half-section farmer, raising twenty bushels of wheat to the acre, would need 72 cents a bushel in order to meet his costs of production and debt charges. The section farmer would require 61 cents; and the two-section farmer. 51 cents. These figures are based on a yield of twenty bushels to the acre, whereas for the past ten years the average yield in Canada has been only fourteen bushels to the acre. I would remind the house that the acreage bonus is paid only when the average yield is twelve bushels to the acre on a township basis. Under these circumstances the farmer would have to receive considerably more than the amounts quoted by Professor Hope. In all
The Address-Mr. Quelch

probability the average price this year will be 45 or 47 cents a bushel, or even lower. Not only will the small farmer receive nothing for his labour, but he will be forced considerably deeper into debt. That is why I say the small farmer will be eliminated, while the large farmer will be forced to expand his operations in order to reduce his overhead.
If the policy of this government is to try to build up prosperous rural communities we feel that instead of having a guaranteed price for wheat based upon the cost of production on the large units for all the wheat a farmer raises, we should have a guaranteed price based upon the cost of production on the smaller units for a limited quota per farmer. This would not entail a restriction of acreage. The government could continue with their policy of taking marginal land out of production. For a limited amount of his production the farmer would receive more than he is now receiving for his total crop. Any wheat in excess of the amount of the quota would have to be stored by the farmer, and it would mean that in a crop failure year he would be able to sell his surplus on the quota. In other words, it would act as a form of crop insurance.
Throughout the west and in other parts of Canada at the present time the government are being attacked for their lack of a sound wheat policy. They have been charged with bungling, but to me the bungling seems to be so flagrant that I doubt very much whether it is a matter of bungling at all. I am more inclined to believe that the situation exists as a result of a deliberately planned policy, for the following purposes: first, of putting into effect the proclaimed Liberal policy of expanding foreign markets and the maintenance of a favourable balance of trade; second, dealing now with the immediate situation, a plan of enforced saving.
To come back to the first of these two: in order to expand foreign markets and maintain a favourable balance of trade, under the usual orthodox policy the general practice is to maintain, on the one hand, as we have done for the past six years, a low standard of living, in order to reduce the demand against imports, thereby maintaining a favourable balance of trade, and, on the other, a low price for agricultural products, in order to make it possible to undersell our foreign competitors.
The result of this policy internally has been a great deal of unnecessary suffering. I say that because it would have been possible, by increasing our production, to maintain a favourable balance of payments and

at the same time to maintain a higher standard of living. During the past six years the production in secondary industry has been less than thirty per cent of its capacity. The result externally has been a condition of international friction, because when you refuse to accept the imports of other countries in payment for your exports you are making it impossible for those nations to acquire the raw materials they need, unless they are prepared to go into debt. I know that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has always complimented himself upon working for peace, but I would point out that any government which has a policy depending upon international competition instead of international cooperation is not working for peace. It is bound to result in international friction, and international friction leads to war.
Coming back to the second point, that of compulsory saving, we find in western Canada many farmers in a serious plight, owing to the fact that they have threshed a large crop and have been able to sell, perhaps, only a small proportion of it; or if the grain was tough, they were not able to sell any of it. Unfortunately, in many instances ten to twenty per cent of the crop, on account of its not having been threshed, still remains under the snow. The reason for this was that the elevators were refusing to accept tough grain, and the farmers held back hoping that the weather would clear in order to make it possible to thresh the grain dry. Those farmers who had sold only a small proportion of their crop were depending upon obtaining from the government an advance on the wheat that they had in farm storage, and they were justified in that expectation because of certain statements which have been made by cabinet ministers in this house and in interviews. But now, apparently, the government, in their insane desire to reduce the spending power of the people, have given up all idea of making an advance. If I am wrong in that assumption I hope the minister will correct me.
So, as a result of this policy, many farmers, in spite of the fact that they have threshed a large crop, find themselves practically destitute. It will be necessary for them either to seek relief or to get an advance of credit from the local storekeeper. Unfortunately, generally speaking the storekeeper in the rural communities is in no better position to finance the farmer than is the farmer himself. It is true that, according to the wheat policy, a storekeeper may accept wheat as collateral against a debt. On the other hand, few storekeepers have the storage facilities available to handle this wheat. Even if

The Address-Mr. Quelch
they do take it they are not able to pass it cn to the wholesaler, who, of course, demands cash and will not accept wheat. Therefore, although being able to accept wheat as collateral against a debt may make it possible for a storekeeper to collect an old debt, it does not help to solve the question of financing current expenditures.
Speaking in this chamber on August first, the Minister of Trade and Commerce made this statement:
Unless something is done to make available to the farmer more money than, owing to elevator capacity conditions, he can obtain from his first deliveries, there will be widespread suffering, and there would be widespread necessity for relief.
Later on, in an interview printed in the Western Producer of September 26, he points out that the government is working towards ways and means by which these advances can be made, and he ends up with the statement:
The wheat committee was ready to go ahead with that plan, and still is ready to do so.
In spite of that fact, as the house is aware, no advance has been made, and the reason given is that the banks have refused to finance the operation. It seems to me a rather humiliating position for any government to find itself in, that after a government has decided that advances should be made it has to back up on its proposals on account of the fact that the banks will not make available the credit necessary for these advances. I admit that I find it hard to realize that the leader of the Liberal party to-day is the same man who in 1935 appealed to the people of Canada for election on a programme of monetary reform. I believe hon. members will remember the statement he made at that time, that if the Liberal party were elected to power there would be a great battle in this country between parliament, representing the people, and the money power, for the purpose of regaining to the nation that which had been lost, the control of the issue of currency and of credit in order to make that currency and credit available in terms of public need to meet the industrial, social and domestic requirements of the Canadian people. Has anybody seen any evidence of that battle during the last six years?


Charles Edward Johnston: The banks won.


Victor Quelch: The only sign I have seen of any battle is a battle on behalf of the banks.


Charles Edward Johnston: A sham battle.


Victor Quelch: Yes, just a battle to fool the people.
I do not think anybody will dispute my statement that the wheat problem in western Canada to-day is a national one. Have we not the right to expect that the banks will be willing to monetize the farmers' wheat? Surely it is well worth monetizing. It is not perishable. It is a rather servile position for a government to be in. after investigating the problem and deciding that some action should be taken, to be told by the banking interests that they will not make this credit available.
Some of us in this house may in the past have been fooled as to what exactly was the true relationship between the Bank of Canada and this government. We were told, for instance, that the Bank of Canada was the instrument of the government. Two years ago we were very quickly disillusioned on that point, because Mr. Osborne, the deputy governor of the Bank of Canada, speaking to the board of trade at Ottawa, told them that no self-respecting central bank would accept from its government a policy with which it did not agree. I suppose the Bank of Canada is a self-respecting central bank. So, apparently, the tail wags the dog; the Bank of Canada decides the policies for this government. Who, I wonder, decides the policy of the Bank of Canada?
We in this corner have always believed that the policy of the Bank of Canada is dominated by the Bank of England. That is why we called for the tabling of the correspondence between the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England. We were refused access to that correspondence. Who controls the policy of the Bank of England? Members of parliament in Great Britain have asked for the names of the shareholders of the Bank of England and that was likewise refused them. All I have to say is this, that whoever are the controllers of financial policy in Britain and whoever are the controllers of financial policy in Canada, they have not for the past six years shown any real interest in the welfare of the Canadian people. In many ways one may charge that by their actions they have shown themselves to be good friends of Germany.
Before leaving the wheat question I would briefly summarize what in our opinion would be a sound wheat policy for the dominion. First of all there should be international cooperation instead of international competition. We feel that the four major wheat exporting nations-Australia, the Argentine, the United States and Canada, providing over 80 per cent of the world's exports of wheat-
The Address-Mr. Quelch

should get together and decide on a fair price for wheat, and then they should decide upon an equitable export quota for each of them.
Further, I suggest that Canada should maintain a 100 per cent wheat board, discarding the grain exchange and taking over all grainhandling facilities. I know that the Minister of Agriculture would approve that, because in April, 1939, speaking in this house, he said that if we continued to market wheat through the wheat board, then the only logical thing was to take over all grain handling facilities.
We feel that the government should be prepared to provide storage and take delivery of at least a stipulated quota per individual farmer, these quotas, in the aggregate, to be based upon the following considerations: (1) export requirements; (2) home consumption; (3) at least two years' reserve supply. Moreover, we are of opinion that the government should guarantee a price for the individual quota of the farmer, of at least $1 a bushel at point of shipment. There would be no restriction on production. The government would continue to take marginal lands out of production and the only restriction would be on deliveries. The farmer would have to provide storage for his surplus. This would constitute a form of crop insurance, so that in good years the farmer would have to hold a certain amount of wheat on the farm, and if he had a crop failure he would then turn in towards the quota what he had held in good years. The point is that on the limited amount sold he would obtain more than he receives for the total crop to-day. The farmer's quota would be based on average production of the former years, with a minimum quota to the small farmer. We are of opinion that a policy based upon such proposals would help to maintain agriculture on a sound basis and promote a friendly relationship with foreign nations.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: May
I first congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, namely, the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Claxton) and the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras). Not only were their speeches of a high order, but they contained references to many items, even of major policies, which might well have found a place in the speech from the throne itself. What I am concerned' with, however, is the feeling of lack of confidence on the part of many Canadians in the present Liberal administration, and the cause and removal of that lack of confidence.
I accept the verdict of March 26-as of March 26. It was not, however, the result

of absolute or unqualified confidence in the present Liberal administration. Even at the best, approximately one-third of the people voted for the policies for which my party stands, and I should like to take this occasion to say that, contrary to the amusement which some of the Liberal administration seem to derive from a false conception, I-like many of my fellow members-ran and was elected as a straight Conservative supporting the policy of national government, a policy which as a war measure I believe to be the only sound policy. Those supporting our party, together with those who supported the other two opposition groups, constituted nearly half the people of Canada. The representation in this house might not indicate it, but nearly half the people showed their lack of confidence in the Liberal administration.
That administration, in the eyes of many, carries on what can be described only as a partisan war effort, for only the inner group of Liberals know what is going on and what, if any, the government's long range policies are. Thus Canada has the invidious distinction of being the only British dominion where the government in power remains political in character and has not considered it worth while to gain the confidence of all the people, to say nothing of adding to its strength.
We have heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) play with words and ascribe to his government the term " national," possibly because its members have their homes in every province of Canada or possibly because with one exception they are all either lawyers or school-teachers. A truly national government must have in it representatives of all substantial bodies of political thought, including labour, having one common objective-to win a speedy victory overseas. As members of a true democracy, we accept the situation, but the case of those who have never had confidence in the administration, and those who have lost it since March 26, is deserving of the attention of this house.
I do not intend to try to rekindle party strife but rather, on the contrary, I should like to rekindle the spirit of national unity. May I assure the house that one's only interest can be the winning of this war and, perforce, making the present ill-suited political administration work so that the greatest contribution may be forthcoming from all. This government must give all the people, irrespective of party affiliation, confidence in its administration. That is a tall order for a party government. Would that our Prime Minister could say, in the words of the great Churchill, uttered in July of this year:
I stand at the head of a government representing all parties in the state, all creeds, all

The Address-Mr. Jackman
classes, every recognizable section of opinion. We are ranged beneath the crown of our ancient monarchy. We are supported by a free parliament and a free press.
We in Canada must likewise present a united and confident front to a threatening dictator. Lack of confidence is due not only to the fact that we are not told, the fact that the people were misled as to the nature of the country's effort during the first nine months of the war, the fact that there has been failure to form a national government. There has even been failure to appoint to the cabinet men who were first of all outstanding Canadians before they were outstanding Liberals. For example, the greatest industrial and mining centre in Canada and the greatest taxpaying community, contributing approximately one-third of the total income tax, the city in which lies the constituency I have the honour to serve, is without representation in the cabinet of this government.


Mr. FRASER (Northumberland, Ont.):: They elected you; that is enough.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I said that city is without representation in the cabinet of this government that is carrying on the war effort. When the Prime Minister tells us that he cannot find great Canadians, be they Liberal or Conservative, who will accept office in his administration, there must be a reason. Perhaps it is because of an insistance on personal loyalty. Perhaps the positions offered were not of a sufficiently high order to command the sen-ices of the men approached, or perhaps those positions had encumbrances attached or were otherwise unsatisfactory. Can the Prime Minister in 'time of national crisis, having in his gift the greatest honour this country is capable of conferring, not attract to the privy council men who are outstanding Canadians and who may be of non-partisan political views?
If I had to limit the explanation of that lack of confidence to one sentence I would say, We are not told. With good reason, many of us do not attribute to that government virtues or accomplishments which are not self-evident.
In September, 1939, when Canada declared war, the English-speaking element in our population were given to understand that it would be a full-out effort, that Canada was to become the arsenal of the empire. On June 18, 1940, when the Emergency Powers Act was being discussed we learned on the authority of hon. members that this government gave one section of the country to understand that our participation in the w-ar was to be a fullout effort, and another section to understand that our participation in the war was to be "free, voluntary and moderate."


Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: On a point of order, has the hon. gentleman now reading his speech prepared it himself, or has someone else written it for him?


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I am speaking for myself. Nine months after the declaration of war the Canadian Manufacturers' Association at its convention in Winnipeg drew up a resolution which was forwarded to this government and which stated that Canadian manufacturers had not been called upon to render assistance in the making of war materials to any appreciable extent. If we are sceptical now when we receive information from this government, it is because the veriest simpleton knows that "once bitten, twice shy." If the action of the government in failing to carry on a vigorous war effort belies its announced policy, is it a sufficient answer to.the Canadian people that the government took its cue from the British government who at that time still believed in the success of the policy of economic strangulation? I understand it was not so in Australia. Surely if there is one element which would give us a colonial status it is having a colonial mind. Let us think for ourselves and strive for mental autonomy as the first requisite and attribute of political autonomy. Perhaps nothing could better exemplify a need, if not the need, of an imperial war cabinet. In a democracy it is the duty of the government on a question of major policy such as our part in the war to acquaint the people with what the policy of the government is.
Consider the fact that in Great Britain parliament has been in virtually constant session. In the first fifteen months of this war we have been in session for scarcely one hundred days. Could anything be more obvious than that the cabinet, either or both, (1) considers the membership of this house useless or unrepresentative of or not responsible to the people of Canada; or (2) prefers to carry on as a dictatorship through orders in counoil having the force of legislation, of which 6,500 have been issued since the first of this year?
This house has heard from several ministers some factual accounts of what the government has been doing. I might say that I do not recall the hon. member who interrupted me a moment ago rising to interject his question when the ministers were making their statements, and I doubt very much whether they could have given the same answer as I gave.
The Address-Mr. Jackman

Another department, of the doings of which we have not yet heard, and which is a key department in the carrying on of our war effort, is the Department of Labour.
My chagrin was never greater than when the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) told this house that he was not going to tell us anything new; that it had all appeared in the papers, but that it might serve a useful purpose to have it formally placed on the record. As promised, his was a dry speech which told us nothing new except that after the next two training periods the period would be extended from one month to four months. Everyone knows that a period of six months would be a minimum. In the United States they consider a year little enough.
What did we learn about the policy of his department? From the senior Minister of National Defence surely this house has the right to know how and why he proposes to raise a large sized army, and why only one dollar should be spent on the Royal Canadian Air Force for every two dollars spent on the land forces; what proportion is being spent on the navy; are destroyers, corvettes or freighters likely to be the crying need; what do present plans call for? We heard something of future plans from the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) and the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald); but why are they doing that much, and why only that much? Of course it is understood that schedules are subject to change by reason of subsequent events; but how large an army does Canada contemplate, how large a navy, how large an air force; how much money is to be spent on each; how much is to be spent on home defence preparations, and why; how much is to be spent on the first line of defence, which to-day is in Great Britain and Egypt? How is the war effort being coordinated? What uses are the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle if you have not the picture before you?
These are questions of policy about which the Canadian people have a right to know. Perhaps this house can contribute something to the brain trust-many of whose members are drawn from outside the membership of this house-which is now carrying on the business of government of this country. Is it to be the policy to spend every available effort and every possible dollar in creating a greater Royal Canadian Air Force, as some believe should be done? Only last week the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Gardiner) was reported in the press as saying that aeroplanes serve chiefly to demoralize

the enemy, that we must have vast mechanized land forces to ensure victory. If the principle of cabinet responsibility still applies-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Cabinet
solidarity.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Cabinet solidarity, then- are we to take that as the considered opinion of this government, or are we to regard it as the care-free expression of a man who is happy to be safe once more on the shores of Canada? One thing which no British people have ever done since democratic principles prevailed has been to leave the deciding of general war policy to those who in the popular mind are known as brass hats. It is their function to carry out the policy; it is the duty of parliament to lay down that policy.
Is this country fully cooperating with the British war purchasing board in the United States and the war department in Washington in the purchase of supplies; and if so, since when? Or do we still demand United States steel, to be paid for in United States exchange, for the construction of the railway station in Montreal? The answer is yes. The same effort cannot be spent in two places. This country has only so much of human and material resources to throw into the war effort. The direction which we give to those resources and to that effort is all-important and may decide the issue. In his speech the Prime Minister pointed out that the enemy now exceeds us in the production of iron, steel and aluminium; and unfortunately, owing to the victories which the enemy has achieved to date, he has greatly increased his capacity, so that his margin over us is greater still. We in Canada can contribute only so much. It is important that we contribute that effort where it will do the maximum good. To ensure victory we must be skilful in direction, great in production and unsparing in sacrifice. Realizing that we are the second most important nation fighting against Germany, it behooves us to remember that often much good work is spoiled for want of a little more.
The members of this house and the people of Canada cannot measure the activities and results of this government by explanations as to why, after nine months of war, some units had rifles with which to train and others had not; why some had Bren guns and the officers were allowed five rounds each, while some had the guns only " briefly "; why boots and socks were not part of the regulation issue to nonpermanent units in war time, when they should have been. Is the minister going to take refuge in the moribund peace-time regulations governing a starved militia? We cannot judge the war effort of the government

The Address-Mr. Jackman
solely by explanations as to why tanks did not exist and were not ordered in Canada; why signalling equipment, even though the order had not been placed, was not forthcoming from England until long after the proper army authority had requisitioned the equipment; by innumerable contracts let but unfinished; by a maze of detailed information; by paeans of self-adulation and the dulcet tones of the Canadian Broadcasting Corpor-tion, which invariably ends each government broadcast with the ringing words, "I am happy to say we are ahead of schedule." In a struggle for life and freedom we can never be ahead of schedule. What is that schedule, and why?
Is this house to receive reports for its guidance-and when-from the advisory committee on economic policy, the wartime prices and trade board, the national labour supply council, the United Kingdom air liaison mission, the newly formed wartime requirements or priorities board and the many other organizations that have been set up? These are the boards that are running the business of government, which to-day is by far the greatest business in the country. What are the reasons for the findings of these boards, which the ministers may or may not accept in determining the policies of their departments? This house will appreciate the difficulty of playing even a game of euchre with a mirror behind one and a stacked deck.
Fill] publicity is a prime requisite to an informed public, and the radio is probably one of the most effective means of publicity. Therefore it would seem to be of great importance that public confidence in the government-owned radio should not be impaired. In view of the charges made by one of the directors, who has been with the organization since its inception, who was one of the protagonists of a publicly owned radio, and who previously had made several reports on this organization, I urge the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) to call together during this session a parliamentary committee in order that these charges may be considered and changes made or confidence restored.
Members of parliament, Conservative, Liberal, Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, and Social Credit, representing the people of Canada, are interested in learning something of the nature of the complicated problems which this government is facing or is about to face. What is now being done to prepare the Canadian people to make the inevitable sacrifices which will have to be made in their standards of living if we are to win this war?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) touched upon the great problem of agriculture. His five-year plan does not solve the distressing situation with which the western wheat farmer is confronted in the winter o.f 1940. I do not claim first-hand information on western conditions; but if there is as much generality as there is truth in the accounts of conditions on some western farms, then more must be done for the western farmer than this government appears willing to undertake. When I heard the Minister of Agriculture outline the supply of Canadian wheat and our possible sales over a five-year period, ending with a perfect carryover of 100,000,000 bushels, I knew that if the minister was a good teacher forty years ago he must have been an even better pupil fifty years ago, for when he came to arithmetic he must have first looked up the answers in the back of the book. Whatever the longterm solution of the western wheat problem may be, it is the duty of this parliament to see that no human suffering results, particularly in those sections of the country where there are cases of extreme hardship.
To inspire confidence in the government, what else must be told, if the government has any policy to tell? What are we to believe about the need for harnessing industrial manpower and woman-power to the war effort of Canada? It is recognized by all that increased industrial output is as necessary to the fighting forces as food is necessary to a starving man. When we consider the five-year start which the enemy has in the production of armaments we realize that we and our allies cannot produce too many of the instruments of war. Even in 1938 Germany's expenditures on armaments amounted to $4,400,000,000. Between 1935 and 1939 her own industrial capacity increased by fifty per cent; and now, if rumour be true, further sources of supply are being made accessible to our enemy.
If there is not an acute shortage of labour in Canada after more than a year of war, then I say it is a striking condemnation of this government. I would ask the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Gardiner) if in Great Britain the government permits the enlistment of workers in certain reserved occupations. Only last Friday the Minister of National Defence told this house that his department was not in competition with war industry but in cooperation with it, and he also spoke of methods whereby that cooperation might be made more effective. The less publicized but sometimes more informative bureau of well-informed rumour has it that the Minister of Munitions and Supply

The Address-Mr. Jackman

(Mr. Howe), who is responsible for the industrial war production, does not see eye to eye with the Minister of National War Services with regard to the impact of military training on certain needed workers on war orders. What is the policy of the. government, and is there any uniformity among the various departments? How is the coordination effected, and who is the coordinator? It is common knowledge that the real bottleneck of our industrial war effort is the lack of highly skilled workers, even though they may comprise as little as five per cent of the total, as stated by the Minister of National War Sendees who, like a peace-time tourist, spends two weeks in a country and then writes a book about it. The bottleneck is like the weak link in a chain; it is the gauge of its strength.
What has the government done in preparation for the need in connection with the upgrading-to use the term current in the old country-and the training of mechanics for the highly skilled jobs of toolmakers, patternmakers, precision workers and expert machinists? Time is too short to turn out fully qualified experts, but men can be trained to be proficient in particular trades, and specific branches of those skilled trades. There are still good workmen in my constituency who have not regular employment, because they have not the expert skill required for some particular job in connection with war orders.
I understand, as has already been mentioned this evening, that there has also been failure to place approximately 23 per cent of those trained since last June for war industries, under the youth training plan.


Mr. McLARTY:: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member, but I know he would like to state the facts correctly. In making that statement I have no hesitation in telling him he is incorrect.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Then I think in fairness I should ask the minister what the percentage is. These figures are taken from the Financial Post of a few weeks ago, and there may be a discrepancy of 4 or 5 per cent. It is only fair that the minister should answer the question.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I believe the occasion may come when I shall answer it. I will say that I believe 25 per cent is too high a percentage of those not absorbed in industry, and who have taken a basic training in our vocational schools.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: If the minister has not the figures I could hardly be expected to have them myself. It does seem too bad that

these men trained under the youth training plan should not be able to find work in times such as these.
What means does the government have of making known the needs of industry in one town to workers in another town? May I say that this question is very much in point. Labour is just as important as uniformed men, and it is a singular omission on the part of the government that this house has not yet heard from the Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty). Will he tell us something of the work of the national labour supply council? I may tell the minister who, we all know, is extremely good-natured, and perhaps takes these things in the manner in which we would wish him to take them, that his portfolio is as important as any in the government.
Will the minister tell us about the work of the national labour supply council with its membership of twenty-two leading Canadians? Will he tell us why on November 7 a new labour board was announced, consisting of six departmental heads? When was the need for that committee first discovered, and is it charged with promoting coordination? I shall read the description of the duties of the board, as they are set out in a newspaper:
.	.	. charged with promoting coordination,
anticipating man-power requirements, considering the need for training special groups of workers, maintaining contact with war industries, obtaining the "considered opinions" of employers and employees, eliminating war industry competition, and formulating plans for the transfer of employers and employees from non-essential to essential war industries with the least disruption.
Who or what has been doing that work in the last nine months-in fact, in the last year? If no one has been doing it, why not?
As I said in the house last June:
The first thing in order to put forth our full war effort industrially and make of Canada, as the Prime Minister stated last September, the "arsenal of empire", is training for our workers and multiplication of the lower grades of workers by intensive mass instruction, and to bring in a regiment of -women and other workers from non-essential trades. The second thing in the planning of this much needed task is a proper distribution of the workers in the proper industries.
Time does not permit elaboration of other points, but opportunity will no doubt shortly be accorded to discuss at greater length those factors which the government knows the people of this country must face, but about which it prefers to maintain a political silence. From a certain point of view the Prime Minister has an extremely happy faculty of timing his policies. If it is admitted that one cannot act in advance of public opinion,.

The Address-Mr. Jackman
surely in a time of crisis the Prime Minister will do something to inform that opinion as to what inevitably lies ahead.
The war must be won. Canada's contribution is limited only by her human and material resources. The measure of our war effort is but the sum total of the war effort of the individual. What more can the individual do? What more must he do? In one word 

sacrifice. The great majority of the population

and I except only those whose standard is already too low-must be willing to experience a lowered standard for the sake of keeping our country free from foreign domination. We may be thankful that in some commodities we already produce far more than we require.
If a single soldier, sailor or airman is prepared to sacrifice his life, then we at home are prepared and willing to sacrifice our comforts and our necessities, if it will help to win this war-and it will. There are no longer any half-way measures, and speed of preparation is vital. He who serves now serves twice. The civilian population, under a full-out plan, must give up purchasing those articles which compete with war production. I refer to those articles requiring the use of iron, steel, aluminium andi certain other essential war materials. More specifically, I urge the government to tell the people of Canada that the purchase of a whole list of articles containing such materials should be avoided or postponed. This is doubly difficult in the face of rising family incomes, after a period when families have had to do without many of the things we have come to look upon as little less than necessities.
In turn the money represented by those increased incomes must be saved and invested in war savings certificates and war loans in order to pay for this war from day to day, so that there will be money for payrolls at the end of the week. The happy day will come when that saved money will be just as welcome as it is now, if not more so. In the meantime the government is giving interest on the savings.
The consumption of articles which must be imported from the United States should be restricted. Gasoline is one. There are many others. The advertisements of our department stores urging the purchase of empire products is to the point, but more should be done. To-day Canada can pay for United States products only with the proceeds of goods and services which she sells to the United States. On balance we have always bought more merchandise from the United States than we have sold to them, and the balance is running heavier against us
every day because of our tremendous purchases of aeroplanes and war supplies in that friendly country. There is nothing unfriendly to our great, good neighbour in this attitude. We shall spend in that country every United States dollar we have available for essential war supplies, and if they will lend us United States dollars we shall no doubt spend- those also. In the meantime we have only so many United States dollars, the only kind we can use, to spend in that country and the problem is what United States goods are most important to us to-day. We cannot spend the same dollar twice. We must subordinate our comforts to the need of equipment for our fighting forces. There is no alternative.
Why does the government not tell the people what we are up against? Is there anything in the argument that we are fighting for democratic principles and that too much interference with the individual's right of living his own life and spending his money as he chooses savours of regimentation? Democracy has never stood for licence, but has always stood for liberty. When a democracy is fighting against a power which wages total war and the destruction of women and children, then some of the attributes of peacetime liberty become nothing but wild licence. Our willing acceptance of the duties and responsibilities of our citizenship at the present time is nothing more or less than the acceptance of that spirit of sacrifice which is at the same time the key and the strength of our Christian faith. When it comes to sacrifice for that which we believe to be right, there is no pagan religion of nazism which can hold a candle to the sacrifice and fortitude of those who fight under the banner of Christianity, Nothing makes a people feel its common brotherhood like fighting for the great cause of freedom, and where there is equality of sacrifice, who minds the extent? If, for example, we should have to resort to-gasolineless days, who w'ill mind walking if cabinet ministers also have to walk? Such a sight would be a source of strength as well as pleasure to all the people.
We have in Canada the most magnificent people in the world to whom to appeal. When the need is shown to them, their response is not exceeded even by that of the people of Great Britain. This spirit was shown by their magnificent response to the second war loan when it was obvious to all that its failure would be a reflection on our country, likewise by the spontaneous offering of their services by 200,000 volunteer workers in carrying out the national registration. The best results will come from an informed and understanding people. Never underestimate that spirit. The results obtained by the spontaneous coopera-
The Address-Mr. Jackman

tion of an understanding people far transcends that which can be obtained by coercion. This parliament must give the lead in education and understanding. Let the members and the press be the means of conveying that understanding.
The king's ministers, forming the executive of this government, are responsible to this parliament. I have no doubt that because of the sheer force of numbers the opinion of the government party will prevail; nevertheless it is the duty of this parliament to decide in open debate what shall be the policy of this country. Otherwise what would be the purpose of bringing us here? Is the government to be permitted to assemble the representatives of all the people for the sole purpose of stating that which has been told already, and after the Prime Minister has shown to the world that the institution of parliament has been observed by due perfunctoriness and adequate lip-service, to send us all home like a lot of schoolboys, while he retires to his sanctum with a wily smile and an irrepressible chuckle?
The people of Canada know the character of the enemy. We know that Hitler stands for doing away with personal freedom and for submission to the nazi overlords. We are prepared to work, to sacrifice, if necessary to die, in order that we and our children may continue to live as free men. Woe betide the leaders who do not lead. We are not told. We must be told. We are prepared.


Mr. HARRY LEADER (Portage la Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, Canada is a democracy and parliament is the very bulwark of that institution. I think all hon. members appreciate the great privilege of being sent to this House of Commons by the different districts of this great dominion in order that we may voice the opinions of the people we represent as well as our own. I come from a farming district in which is situated a fair-sized city. I was born on a farm and I have never lived anywhere else. Therefore I think it is perfectly natural that I should have something to say for agriculture. When I speak for agriculture I know that my electors in the city of Portage la Prairie know that I speak for them, because the prosperity of that -city is entirely dependent upon the prosperity of the surrounding country. I think sometimes the people of the larger cities forget that they owe much of their prosperity to the initiative and hard work of the agriculturists.
I want to pay a tribute to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). I want to pay it at this time because of his work in fostering friendship with our great neighbour to the south. I am sure that there is not

another man in Canada who has done more to bring this about. When history is recorded, I believe that he will be given premier honours. I am thinking particularly of the trade arrangements which he made with the United States. I am thinking of what they mean, not only to Canada but to all concerned. I have always taken the stand that a trade arrangement in order to be lasting must be mutually satisfactory to all those whom it affects. I believe that this was always in the mind of the Prime Minister when he was dealing not only with the United States but also with the mother country, Great Britain.
I am happy to be able to recall that when, in 1936, I took occasion to speak on these trade treaties, I said that the treaty was more than a trade treaty, it was the hand of friendship stretched out to a nation that was our kin. Then, in 1939, when this treaty was renewed for another three years, I took the attitude that the most important thing about it was that it had at last brought the mother country, our cousins to the south and ourselves around a table, and that we had negotiated a treaty beneficial to all concerned. In my view a great deal was done through these treaties to cement the friendship which stands us in such good stead to-day.
Hon. members know that the exchange of fifty destroyers for naval and air bases in the western hemisphere was a direct result of the friendship which Canada always exhibited towards the United States. I say that is absolutely true; and I believe that the joint defence scheme of the three democracies, in which we can include all of the British empire, will be the means of defeating the evil forces of nazism which oppose us in Europe.
Our war effort, of course, engages the attention of everyone in this house and outside. Speaking as a farmer, I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the farming population of this country is behind the government in their war effort. To use an expression which I have heard on some occasions, they are behind them to the last man and the last dollar-and, sir, they will soon have our last dollar. We realize that the wheat grower is actually the first casualty of this war. We farmers are willing to accept our share of the responsibility, its inconveniences, and an even lower standard of living, in order to fight this war to a successful conclusion.
Let me now return to my agricultural topic, that wheat question which is affecting western Canada more than anything else. The other day the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. MacKenzie), asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), whether the

The Address-Mr. Leader
fact that we had 561,000,000 bushels of wheat in western Canada was any reason why this year should be declared an emergency year. Strange as it may seem, it is an emergency, and an emergency of such proportions that it may destroy the whole economic life of western Canada, in which event the people of the east will feel it also.
Last year the emergency existed, and the government were slow in announcing a policy with regard to our wheat problem. One cannot blame them so much. The wheat was there; they knew they did not have the storage capacity to take care of it, and they knew we had a restricted market. We cannot, I say, blame them so very much. But I am afraid that some supporters of the government may say that everything is well in western Canada and that the policy which was announced worked out satisfactorily all round. It would be comforting if that were true, but it is not. I do not want to dwell at any great length on this matter, nor do I ask hon. members to take my word for it. I will read an extract from a letter, written in answer to one I wrote, by a man who, as they say, knew his onions-I mean the wheat problem. He stated:
There are also many other things to consider under the present legislation now before the house, and the members have a big responsibility. We shall naturally be very much relieved when the amendments to the wheat board act are definitely brought down as there is nothing but confusion at the present time. However, I expect we shall be receiving definite word within the next few days.
This letter, I believe, was written about August 2, at a time when considerable threshing had been done in western Canada. Then it was announced that there was a five-bushel quota on, and the farmers had to scramble round and build granaries, or sweep out their driving sheds or horse stables to find some place to store their grain. All this, I think, could have been avoided had the government announced their policy a little sooner. But that is past. No doubt they did the very best they could under the circumstances. But, with that experience behind them, there is no excuse for the government not to announce in good time this year their policy with regard to the wheat problem. They know we have 561,000,000 bushels of wheat in store, and it may be assumed that there will be another 560,000,000 bushels from the next crop to be stored. I say they know that that is, in general, the situation, and I urge them to-night, with the knowledge they have, to give western Canadian people an announcement of their policy in time for them to make provision to take care of some of this wheat. I shall have something to say a little later with regard to the storage question.
At the present time wild rumours are floating round with regard to government action for this year. I have some newspaper clippings here. I am not going to read them, but I notice a summary of a report issued by the United States department of agriculture, whose figures show that they have a good knowledge of the situation in this country, and there is reference to different schemes which Canada might adopt with regard to the storage and the sale of our wheat. In the last issue of the Winnipeg Free Press which has reached us, I believe Tuesday's paper, it is said that the government are much exercised with regard to our wheat problem, and one or two solutions are mentioned. Well, one cannot control the newspapers, and after all, rumours do not amount to so much. But all this keeps the farmers in a continuous state of indecision; they do not know what is going to happen. I hope that the government, looking at the situation as I know they must do, will decide upon and announce a policy just as soon as they possibly can.
Perhaps I have been rather critical. It is not that I intend my remarks to be regarded in that way, but I am trying to declare to the house the situation as I see it. Living with the farmers as I do from year to year, knowing their problems and sharing their confidence, I know they feel pretty much the same as I do about this matter.
I am now going to offer some suggestions to the government. Whether they would be helpful I do not know, but I believe they would tend to strengthen our morale. I would suggest-and the government might make this announcement immediately

that they pay $1 a bushel. I do not hear any comments.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Harry Leader: Perhaps hon. gentlemen will not cheer so loudly when I get through. This SI a bushel, I suggest, should be paid on the first 1,500 or 2,000 bushels from each farmer in western Canada. I suggest 1,500 or 2,000 bushels as the minimum, but perhaps some people would want to raise it. But if you want to cut down production you cannot encourage it by paying this price on too many bushels. I would pay this SI a bushel to every farmer who had wheat to sell. There are many farmers in the west who sow only 5, 10, 15 and 25 acres of wheat a year, according to the records we have from the bureau of statistics. Of course these are men who produce other commodities besides wheat. But the man with 200, or 400 or 500 bushels would get from this SI a bushel the means of sustenance for himself and his family during the year, and it would enable him to remain on the farm,
The Address-Mr. Leader


Major James William Coldwell: How long would "long
enough" be?
The Address-Mr. Leader


Harry Leader: Well, I direct that observation especially to the Liberal party because I know the Conservative party do not hold that view.


An hon. MEMBER:: The Liberals do not either.


John Horne Blackmore: It is getting higher
all the time.


Harry Leader: I wish now to refer to another matter along the same lines, with which the Acting Speaker (Mr. Macdonald, Brantford City) is more or less familiar, with the emphasis on the "mower". I think the government, in order to help the farmers out of the extremity in which they find themselves at the present time, might make the implements of production a little cheaper by reducing the tariff on farm machinery. It is a sad reflection on Liberal principles and the party which I support that I must say that never was the tariff higher than it is at the present time. I heard that accusation made in the house the other night by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson).


Major James William Coldwell: It is true.


Harry Leader: It is true on account of inescapable circumstances, on account of the high rate of exchange on our money and this new ten per cent exchange tax, which, after all, is a tariff. So I recommend to the government that they at least take off this ten per cent exchange tax which was imposed last year.
I have here a little pamphlet, and on it there is a graphic picture. I am not going to speak of this at any length, but I received this pamphlet at a meeting held at Regina this summer. The meeting was called by Canadian Cooperative Implements Limited, a company of farmers who got tired of waiting for government action, and so decided to see what they themselves could do in regard to reducing prices of farm machinery. I went to that convention because I thought it might help me in my work here as well as at home. No one knew my identity, I just dropped in and kept my ears open, and there I found this pamphlet. It shows that the cost of a binder in 1913 was $167, and the number of bushels of wheat which it took to purchase that binder at that time was 261. Then it tells us that the same binder, or a similar one-they tell us it is improved, and it certainly is, but I do not think the cost of production is any higher-in 1940, is $340 and we have to trade 637 bushels of wheat for the binder, or about two and a half times as much as the binder cost in 1913 in terms of wheat. That conven-
tion was interesting, and if time permitted I would like to tell the house about it.


Mr. McGREGOR:: What was the price of that binder in 1930?


Harry Leader: I have not the figures; it would be a guess-


Robert Henry McGregor: It was a little higher, was it not?


Harry Leader: It might be, yes. I was very much impressed with the speech made by a man representing the government of Alberta, the province from which some of my hon. friends opposite me come. It seems that the government of Alberta have taken the bit in their teeth and are doing something for themselves, because this is a government measure, and while they asked for the cooperation of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and were promised it, it was so long in coming that they went on by themselves.
They thought they could save by cooperative buying on the cost of repairs to binders and other farm machinery, so they came to eastern Canada and asked the Canadian implement companies if they would make contracts with the cooperative for the distribution and sale of repairs to farm implements. The Canadian companies refused to make any such arrangement. Then the cooperative went to the United States-can one blame them?-and made arrangements with United States companies. Distributing houses were set up at seven different points in Alberta. I should have liked to know how much they saved the farmers, but when the question was asked the reply was, "We have saved the farmers a good many dollars in the cost of repairs to their implements." As a matter of fact the scheme has been so successful that instead of seven distributing centres in Alberta they intend next year to have thirty.
I have tried to point out that if you lowered the cost of farm implements you would help the farmer reduce his costs of production. I want now to say something about the charges we have to pay for the handling of our grain. Storage charges were reduced last year from one cent to three-quarters of a cent a bushel a month. I did not think that reduction was sufficient under existing circumstances, and I know many hon. members on both sides felt the same way. We believed the reduction should have been to at least one-half cent. I am still of that opinion, and I believe if the government were wise they would reduce the storage rate to one-half cent this year, thereby saving the farmer another one-quarter cent a bushel.
But I have another criticism to offer with regard to the payment of storage. As I understand it, as soon as you dump a load of

The Address-Mr. Leader
grain, into an elevator the storage charges begin. So I think if we wish to be fair to these farmers who have put up their own granaries at home, their storage also should start immediately. Let me give a personal example; I am engaged in the business, so I know I will be excused for these personal references.
We were allowed this year a quota of five bushels to the acre, so we got it out first and put it in the elevator. Then we went on threshing and filled our granaries. The grain was taken to the elevator about the middle of August, and of course the storage charges began at once. It was a pool elevator, but that does not matter; it was an elevator, and the storage began the day the wheat was delivered. But on the wheat I put in my own granary the storage did not start until six weeks later. If you are going to pay the farmers storage at the same rate you pay the elevator companies you should begin to pay that storage when the grain is delivered to the granaries, just as you do when it is delivered to the elevators. I think that would be only fair. Some people have told me the trouble is that further west they are later with their threshing, and there has to be one general date. I do not think that is so at all; certainly it is not the case with the elevators. If we in Manitoba are threshing two or three weeks ahead of the farmers of Alberta, why should we have to wait for our storage to begin becav.se Alberta happens to be a little later than we are? No; we must pay the farmers on the same basis that we pay the elevator companies. That is the only fair thing to do.
The suggestions I have offered to the government to-night more or less have to do with a long-range programme; they need not be scrapped when the war is over. I feel satisfied that once the farmers get into the way of diversified farming, as many of them are doing even now-and especially the bigger farmers further west-they will continue with it long after the war is over .
I should now like to refer to a matter that has been mentioned by many other hon. members on all sides of this house. I am in favour of the government issuing passes to our soldiers who want to go home at Christmas time. Some of the boys from Portage la Prairie are down here in Ottawa, and I have been told that they will not be able to eat their Christmas dinners with their loved ones unless they are given passes on the railways. What is true of my district no doubt is true of every district in this country, and I think that request is only reasonable. I do not consider it a privilege; I think it is a right that belongs to these soldier boys of ours.
14873-2?
I have five minutes left, Mr. Speaker, and in that time I should like to refer to an article which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press of last Tuesday. This article attacks Mr. II. H. Hannam, president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. The Free Press admits that this gentleman occupies a high position, but they ascribe a sinister motive to his comments with regard to the reduction in the price of Canadian bacon. I think I should read this article, which is very short, in order to be fair to the Free Press. It is as follows:
Mr. H. H. Hannam, president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, is indignant and declares that the Canadian farmers will also be indignant over the reduced price for bacon fixed in the new bacon agreement.
Indignant against whom? Not against Great Britain, Mr. Hannam hastens to explain. Then the indignation must be directed against the Canadian government. On what grounds? Obviously on the ground that the Canadian government did not say to the government of Great Britain: Pay the price that our distinguished and patriotic Canadian, Mr. Hannam, president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, demands, or go without bacon.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Macdonald, Brantford):: Order. I must inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


Harry Leader: I should like to finish this article.
Some lion. MEMBERS: Go ahead.


Harry Leader: The article continues:
No doubt Mr. Hannam will resent having the matter put thus crudely; but is it not pretty much to this that it boils down? A man big enough to hold his position ought to be able to look at this transaction in its entirety, instead of from a narrow angle. Thus examined, it might be found to have a great many good points.
And listen to this:
But Mr. Hannam is in the business, in which he is not alone, of trying to stir up grievances in the hope of being able to capitalize on them later on. It is a discreditable business. Also dangerous.
The only comment I have to make is that the author of this article is discredited and that its publication is dangerous. That is what I want to say to the house most definitely. I am glad to have the privilege of putting this article on Hansard, where people can read it for themselves. I cannot understand what motive would prompt the Free Press, one of our great newspapers, to print such an editorial, but there it is; and I believe, as the Free Press says, that the situation may be dangerous.
I wish to thank hon. members for permitting me to continue beyond my allotted time.

330	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. LaCroix (Montmorency)


Major James William Coldwell: If I may ask a question, was it understood that the table to which the hon. member referred was being placed upon Hansard with the consent of the house?


Harry Leader: There was no objection.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I understand
the hon. gentleman had leave to place the table on Hansard.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.
Mr. WILFRID LaCROIX (Quebec-Mont-moreney):	Mr. Speaker, I deem it my duty
to say a few words about the war effort, and the recent speech of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston). May I first on behalf of my electors thank the government for having helped the eel fishermen of the isle of Orleans, situated in my constituency, to dispose completely of their catch which had accumulated in cold storage for several years. These fishermen were in a pitiful condition, the Italian and German markets which had absorbed the major part of their production having been completely closed to them since the outbreak of the war. Without the government's intervention they would have entirely lost the fruit of their labour for the past two years. I tender my sincere thanks to the government.
May I also thank the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) for having recommended to the Minister of National Defence the removal of an injustice which, to my mind, served only to protect and enrich the meat monopolies of this country, reviving painful recollections of the last war when great fortunes were built up thanks to a monopoly organized to the detriment of the citizens of Canada in general.
In this connection, I shall quote a letter which I wrote to the Minister of Agriculture: Quebec, October 2, 1940 Honourable James Gardiner,
Minister of Agriculture,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir:
The war purchasing board ruled a few months ago that only slaughtering establishments operating under the inspection of your department would be asked to tender for meat supplies required by the Department of National Defence.
This ruling is unjust and vexatious for producers and small dealers who can make use of abattoirs subject to federal inspection to slaughter the cattle they wish to sell to the army, in full compliance with your inspection regulations, and to submit tenders on the same footing as others.
Everyone is participating in the war effort and should therefore receive the same treatment. The fact of eliminating the producer and small dealer creates a monopoly in favour of 40 or 45 large companies owning abattoirs.

Why not make it possible for small dealers and producers who w'ish to have their cattle slaughtered in these recognized abattoirs, where they would undergo the required inspection, to sell their meat directly to the Department of National Defence.
I strongly protest against this ruling and, appealing to your spirit of justice, Mr. Minister, I ask you to take the necessary measures to change this situation which is creating among the public a state of mind unfavourable to the government.
I am under the impression that the war purchasing board made this ruling without knowing that the producers and small dealers, though having no slaughter houses of their own, are able to have their cattle slaughtered in a public abattoir where there is permanent inspection and thus supply a product equal in quality to that of the abattoir-owning companies.
Should this policy not be changed, I shall regretfully be compelled, because of the protests made to me, to submit the whole question to the attention of the House of Commons at the next session.
Awaiting your reply, I beg you to accept, Mr. Minister, the expression of my best sentiments and to believe me,
Yours very truly,
Wilfrid LaCroix,
M.P. for Quebec-Montmorency.
On November 6, I had the pleasure of receiving the following letter which will undoubtedly please all those who are in a position to supply meat bearing the stamp of dominion inspection:
Ottawa, November 6, 1940 Mr. Wilfrid LaCroix, M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.
Dear Mr. LaCroix:
Your additional letter respecting the basis on which the Department of National Defence calls for tenders for the meat required for the troops stationed in Canada clarifies this question which so greatly interests you.
I am fully in agreement with you regarding the desirability of widening the field from which tenders may be accepted, in order to include all individuals or companies in a position to supply meat bearing the dominion inspection stamp, *whether or not they are owners of the establishment in w'hicb the slaughtering has been done. This would make it possible to supply meat slaughtered on order in an inspected establishment, as you suggest.
I am making a formal recommendation on that point to the Minister of National Defence. In the light of unofficial conversations which have occurred this week between officials of both departments, I am confident that the question will shortly be settled to your satisfaction.
Yours very truly,
H. Barton,
Deputy Minister.
A first step has thus been taken by the Minister of Agriculture. Let us hope that the Minister of National Defence will hasten to agree to the formal recommendation of

The Address-Mr. LaCroix (Montmorency}
the Department of Agriculture, for it is the latter which is responsible for the inspection of the meat supplied to the army.
Everyone is sharing in the war; everyone should share in the patronage resulting therefrom.
I listened attentively to the speech delivered last week by the Minister of National Defence. I wish to underline the following words which he uttered regarding the possible lengthening of the training period to four months:
We propose, before final authorization of this extension of the training period is given, to examine the situation on the ground when I am in England in consultation with the governmental authorities and staff who are concerned with this phase of the war effort.
In this connection I should like to quote from an editorial published on November 16 in the organ of the Liberal party in Quebec, Le Soleil, under the caption " Military Service in Canada."
It has been suggested that the British system of military training would probably give the same results in Canada as in Great Britain. It must be remembered that conditions are entirely different in England. Over there, industry has not yet employed all the workers available and the government has not been able to give military training with full equipment to all its conscripted soldiers. Here in Canada it is expected that unemployment will soon be restricted to the winter season, and, quite naturally, it has been thought of taking advantage of this climatic condition to call up farmers' sons for training during the period usually called the " slack season." But this season is extremely rigorous in the Laurentian country, at Valcartier for example, where stormy weather will mean considerable loss of time to the recruits who will be there next month and afterwards. This drawback could easily be overcome by the construction of barracks and drill-halls in the main centres of each district of Quebec. The soldiers -would be made more comfortable and their training more effective.
Would it not be wise to adopt for Canada a system of military service particularly adapted to the exceptional conditions of Canadian life?
Last session I voted against the National Resources Mobilization Act because section 64 remains in the Militia Act. Nevertheless it was passed by parliament. Respectful of the laws of the country I submitted to it like all my compatriots who, even if a law is not to their liking, know that the first duty of a citizen is to submit to the laws passed by the civil authorities.
We have, however, been so often told and retold that the mobilization act concerned only Canada and was intended solely for the defence of Canada that it seems to me that at least we should follow the advice given in the article which I have just quoted from Le Soleil, the organ of our party at Quebec.
14S73-221
Furthermore, in this speech the Minister of National Defence recognizes for the first time that our first line of defence is in Europe. I must admit that it is with apprehension for the interests of Canada that I look forward to the results of the trip to Europe which the minister intends to make next month.
As to the extension of training from one month to four months, I cannot do better than quote from an article published in L'Action Catholique on November 15, 1940, under the heading " Harmful and Ill-advised Zeal." This is what it says:
Mr. Hanson's suggestions are somewhat reckless. To compel our recruits to do four months of training would be disastrous for industry and trade, as it would necessitate a periodic replacement of experienced workers by newcomers without experience. As to placing our young men in the army reserve after they have undergone their training, that is simply a trick the purpose of which is to have them at hand in case of conscription.
This view expressed by L'Action Catholique, and which I Share, accurately reflects, I believe, public opinion on the matter. As to the harmful and ill-advised zeal of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson), I must say I am not surprised at it, for he has dared to utter in this house the following words:
For us, aid in the defence of Britain should be our first objective: the defence of our beloved country will follow.
The words "will follow" are words which no Canadian who loved his country would dare to utter; yet they faithfully depict the man who at present leads the opposition. No one has worked harder than he since the outbreak of the war to disrupt national unity. If the present session is to have no other result than to allow our conscriptionists and imperialists to continue their work of disintegration, parliament cannot prorogue too soon. If the Frencli-Canadians have accepted a policy of compromise, be assured that they will never depart from it. Why blame us when the United States are doing still much less than this country, since they have not declared war and are not sending a single soldier to Europe?
Our economic and military participation is already on a grand scale and even beyond the limits of our capacity. In my opinion the effect of this will be to make it impossible for us to solve the problems which the after-war period will bring. We desire the triumph of England which is fighting with admirable courage for the preservation of her empire and of the social and political ideals represented by her institutions; but, for heaven's sake, let us not forget that we are part of America and that we should have at least some thought for Canada which, whatever may be said, is still our country.
332	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. LaCroix (Montmorency)
I take this occasion to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) upon the military agreement which he has succeeded in concluding between Canada and the United States. Such an agreement should have been made long ago. Thanks to the long-standing friendship between our Prime Minister and the President of the United States, we have made an important step in our political history through this definite statement that our geographical interests are bound up with those of the United States. I conclude by voicing my ardent desire that these common interests will guide us in the examination of the demands which England may make upon us. Let us not, following the example of an elderly senator seemingly little interested. in the rising generation, state in advance our intention to yield to all her demands.
On motion of Mr. MacKinnon (Edmonton West) the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Crerar the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Friday, November 22, 1940.