[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: I have a brief statement which I should like to make to the ministry, upon which I wish to base a question.
In to-day's Ottawa Journal it is stated that Sir Walter Layton, personal representative of Mr. Churchill, recently came to Canada, and it was understood that he has offered certain advice to the government about our war effort. In my view, parliament has the right to know what that advice is, and whether or not that advice has been or will be accepted. In his speech on Tuesday last the Prime Minister made no reference to this important event.

War Materials
It is stated that the advice was to the effect that Canada's war effort should be rationalized, and that we should not waste effort and productive power on orders for things not vital. It is also understood that since Sir Walter Layton came and made known his views the government have set up a war production advisory committee, consisting of Mr. Towers, governor of the Bank of Canada; Mr. H. R. MacMillan, timber controller; Mr. R. A. C. Henry, the personal assistant to the Minister of Munitions and Supply; Major-General Crerar, chief of the general staff, and Mr. Chester, the new master of the ordnance.
AVill the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) or the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) during this debate tell the house and the country just what the position is with respect to this matter? Furthermore we should like to know about this advisory committee. Has it been set up, and if so, what does it propose to do or to remedy?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I might answer my hon. friend's question immediately. Sir Walter Layton was sent by the British government to confer with the government of the United States at Washington. While he was on that mission he paid what I think he would describe as a courtesy visit to Canada, and in the course of that visit was kind enough to come to luncheon with me and give me an opportunity of discussing with him some matters of mutual interest. He did not come for the purpose of tendering any advice to the Canadian government; nor did he tender any advice, so far as I know.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Did he not submit a memorandum to the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) as to what he thought ought to be done?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I regard Sir Walter Layton's mission as entirely confidential, and without his consent I would not think of seeking to intimate publicly anything with respect to what might have been regarded as a confidential communication. I have no doubt that Sir Walter Layton would give to our government any information he thought might be of help to us, but that was not the question my hon. friend asked. The hon. gentleman asked whether Sir Walter Layton came to give us advice on the part of the British government.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I asked what it was proposed to do, assuming that to be so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He gave no advice whatever; and any information he
may have given pertaining to the production of munitions of war would be information that it would be advisable for the British government or the Canadian government or the government of the United States to have, information which it would not be advisable to state publicly or disclose to the enemy.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What
about the advisory council?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Possibly my colleague the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) will have something to say about the advisory council when he comes to deal with the estimates of his department. That council was not established as the result of any advice tendered by Sir Walter Layton when he was here.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does that mean that we will hear about it next spring or next summer, on the estimates, or will that statement be made at this session?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot
understand my hon. friend's attitude. He seems to :be seeking to criticize the government rather than trying to get information which will be helpful to all.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, no; not at all. I am asking if there is such a committee, and when we will hear about it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: When my hon. friend the leader of the opposition asks whether the ministry intends to give this house certain information next summer or whether it will be given when the minister speaks, after I have indicated that the minister himself will deal with that matter, I cannot regard it as a remark which was intended to be helpful.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If I caught the Prime Minister correctly a moment ago, as I think I did, he referred to a statement being made "on the estimates". That was what prompted me to say next summer, because the estimates will not be down until after the long recess, as I understand it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am obliged to my hon. friend for drawing to my attention the fact that I mentioned the estimates. I meant to say during the present debate.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is good enough.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon. friend had asked me whether I meant the estimates I would have told him that was a slip of t.hn tongue.
90	COMMONS
Labour Dispute-Automobile Industry



LABOUR DISPUTE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) the exact date on which he issued an order, if any, declaring the Chrysler plant at Windsor, Ontario, to be a protected place under the defence of Canada regulations, and for what reason any such order was issued.


Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: The plant was declared to be an essential service under subparagraph 2 (d) of the defence of Canada regulations, not by the Minister of Justice but by the governor in council, in order in council P.C. 3264 of July 20, 1940. The purpose of the regulation is to enable the civil authorities to enforce defence of Canada regulations relating to trespassing and loitering on or near the said premises, and prohibiting the doing of any act with intent to impair the efficiency or impede the working of any undertaking engaged in the performance of essential services.


Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: May I ask the Minister of Justice whether the recent arrests of pickets at the Chrysler plant in Windsor, on the ground, as reported in the press, that they were illegally in a protected place, were made with the knowledge, consent or approval of the government?


Ernest Lapointe: I do not know anything about it. The administration of justice, even under the defence of Canada regulations, is under provincial jurisdictibn.


Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Minister of Labour):: My information is that the arrests were made by local and provincial police, under the instructions not of the dominion government but of the attorney general of Ontario.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Is it the opinion of the government that the application of an order declaring that certain premises are protected areas may have the effect of stopping picketing or other trade union activities in such areas?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Mr. Speaker, realizing
that this was a most important question I have asked for the opinion of the Department of Justice as to how far the application of the defence of Canada regulations may preclude picketing in general-not as related

to the particular situation in Windsor, because there are certain facts there which complicate matters.


Major James William Coldwell: What is the application of regulation 27, if it does not give protection to the men?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I have not had notice of the question, but I should think the answer would be covered in the opinion to be received from the Department of Justice.


Ernest Lapointe: I suggest that if this matter is before the courts it will be interpreted by them.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But that should not preclude discussion here.


Ernest Lapointe: No; I know that. But I suggest I should not be asked for lgeal opinion respecting incidents which have been submitted to the courts.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is right.


Mr. SPEAKER:: May I point out that some of the questions which are being asked might better be placed on the order paper. There should not be discussion across the floor of the house on a question asked on the orders of the day. I suggest that when an hon. member asks for a legal opinion from a minister he ought to have an opportunity of considering the matter before giving an answer.



LEGATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):: I should like to direct the attention of the Prime Minister to a Canadian Press dispatch from Buenos Aires, appearing in the Ottawa Citizen this morning, in which it is reported that the British ambassador to Argentina has notified the foreign minister of that country of Canada's decision to instal diplomatic representation, with the rank of a legation, in Argentina. May I ask the Prime Minister whether or not this report is accurate, and whether he would be willing to amplify it; also to let us know whether or not it is the intention to send ambassadors to any other countries in South America and, if so, to which ones.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If I recollect aright, when we were discussing the estimates of the Department of External Affairs at the close of last session, the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) asked whether the

Legations-Argentina and Brazil
government intended to have representation in the Argentine or any of the other South American republics. At the time I replied that the government was giving consideration to the matter. I am now in a position to state that the government has decided to have a minister sent to the Argentine and also to have a minister sent to Brazil.
At the time, when my hon. friend previously brought up the question, I indicated that the government was considering whether or not it might be possible to have an arrangement with respect to the South American republics similar to that which was made with regard to Belgium and Holland, having one minister represent this country at two capitals, in this case Buenos Aires and Rio de Janiero. For obvious reasons, however, it has seemed inadvisable to restrict the appointment to one minister and has seemed very desirable to have two appointments.
I might say that the formal approval of His Majesty the King is necessary before a step of the kind is taken. That approval has been obtained, and the governments of the Argentine and Brazil have been informed, at our request, by the foreign minister of the United Kingdom through the British ambassadors to those countries, that it is the intention of our government to make the appointments in due course. I should say that both countries intimated to the government some time ago that they would like to be in a position to send ministers to Canada. Each of these governments asked whether we would be prepared not only to receive their ministers but to reciprocate in the matter of making appointments to their respective countries. It is just within the last month or two that it has been possible to give them a definite answer on that point.
My hon. friend has asked me to elaborate. I do not know just what he may have in mind. It may be that he refers to the possibility of trade commissioners being able to perform the duties that ministers might perform; I notice there has been some comment in the press to that effect. I imagine, however, this would not commend itself to my hon. friend. I do not think any country has a finer trade commissioner service than Canada has, and the work that is being done by our trade commissioners in the South American republics is satisfactory in every particular. But as hon. members will realize, representatives of the Department of Trade and Commerce as such have not immediate access to foreign governments. In many countries to-day, in order that the ministry may be approached by a representative of another country, that representative must have ministerial standing. Hon. members also are aware
that at the present time matters of trade are becoming largely controlled by governments themselves, by means of quotas, prohibitions and restrictions of various kinds, so that it is becoming imperative to have someone with the authority of a minister to gain the contacts that are necessary with governments on these matters. Perhaps I need only add that the importance of the South American republics, both from the political and the economic point of view, is obvious; and the government feels that it would be in the national interest that we should have this representation at an early date.



MARKETING OF ONTARIO PRODUCTION-OPERATIONS OF BOARD FOR EASTERN DIVISION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. C. SENN (Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon). On August 2 last, in reply to a question by myself, the minister stated that the accounts in connection with the handling of Ontario wheat were then being audited, and that accordingly payments would be made in a very short time. He also said that there would be a final payment. The holders of participation certificates are anxious to know when this payment will be made; and can the minister state what the amount per bushel will be?


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Haldimand was kind enough to send me notification of his intention to ask these questions to-day. I am glad to say in reply that the wheat received from the producer in Ontario during the 1939-40 season has been sold, and the operations of the board completed. The result of the marketing of this wheat shows a surplus of $80,729.27, which amount, less the cost of distribution, will be paid immediately.
At the commencement of the marketing season the board, with the approval of the governor in council, sets initial prices for each grade and variety of wheat. Naturally these spreads cannot be estimated exactly, but as the wheat is sold records are kept of the variations between the prices obtained for the different grades, so that now when the wheat has been sold the producer will be compensated for any inequalities in the initial prices.
Wheat Marketing-Ontario

The amount paid on each grade of wheat, initially, for the 1939 crop, the average price obtained after deducting therefrom the handling and administrative costs, and the balance per bushel payable on each grade
is as follows:	Initial	Final	Balanceprice	price	per bushelcents	cents	centsCanadian Eastern Mixed Winter- No. 1	.. 70	71-623	1-623No. 2	.. 68	70-255	2-255No. 3	.. 65	68-351	3-351Canadian Eastern Red Winter- No. 1	.. 70	71-623	1-623No. 2	.. 68	70-108	2-108No. 3	. 65	68-265	3-265Canadian Eastern White Winter- No. 1	.. 70	71-623	1-623No. 2	.. 68	70-062	2-062No. 3	.. 65	67-715	2-715With the approv	al of the	house,	I shall be
pleased to place on Hansard a statement of
the operations of the board for this particular period (eastern division).
An announcement was made in the press yesterday advising the producers to forward their producers' certificates, properly endorsed, to the Canadian Wheat Board, 80 King Street West, Toronto.
Wheat sold at realized prices.... $3,241,354 85 Less wheat delivered by the producers at board fixed prices and for which producers' certificates have been issued	 2,957,301 14
Surplus on wheat transactions.. $ 284,053 71 Handling and administrative charges:
Storage and carrying
charges	$ 79,842 09
Elevation	
20,190	83Railroad charges ..	23,903	22Insurance	
355	20Reconditioning, grade adjustments, shrinkage	
12,897	01

Less handling charges
recovered	 11,154	00

Interest and bank
charges	$ 14,385 93
Brokerage	 13,146	60
Administrative and
general expenses.. 49,757 56

Surplus in respect of the oper-tions of the 1939 crop-eastern division	 $ 80,729 27

The per bushel cost of the uncontrollable expenses incidental to the physical handling of the wheat, interest and bank charges, etc., amounted to 3-610 cents per bushel, and for administrative and general expenses 1-169 cents per bushel. Deliveries to the board from the 1939 crop totalled 4,254,935-50 bushels.



EMPLOYMENT OFFICES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. JACKMAN (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, in the daily press of Toronto there has appeared over the week-end an advertisement under the authority of the province of Ontario, announcing the opening of five new employment offices. Would the Minister of Labour be good enough to say whether this is done with the knowledge or approval of his department, or of the unemployment insurance commission?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I am afraid I shall have to let the question stand as a notice. I have no information with respect to it, nor do I know what the commission has done in the matter. I shall be pleased to give the hon. member the information, but it is not available at the moment.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, November 13, 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. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture and National War Services):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I had not returned to Canada when the mover and seconder of the address spoke on Friday last. Therefore I was denied the privilege of listening to two speeches of the highest order, which were well delivered, judging from the reports in Hansard, and the remarks of previous speakers on both sides of the house.
I have had the privilege of listening to the speeches delivered by the leaders of the three groups sitting opposite, and the very excellent speech delivered by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). The Prime Minister, because of his very complete review of the activities of the Department of National War Services,

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
has made it unnecessary for me to say more about our activities at this time. As a matter of fact 1 do not rise to speak on the main motion, but rather to speak on the amendment which is before the house, moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) and supported in certain particulars by the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell).
The amendment of the leader of the opposition is in the following words:
That the following be added to the address to His Excellency:
"We respectful}' submit to Your Excellency that this house regrets that the government has continued to soothe the Canadian people regarding the war effort of the nation, thereby creating a false sense of security when a clear-cut call to action is desperately needed.
And this house further regrets that despite the serious condition of agriculture no effective action is proposed to alleviate that condition and to ensure to the Canadian farmer a just, fair and reasonable return for his products."
It is my intention to deal first with the reference to agriculture, and if I have time later I shall refer to my recent experiences in Britain in order to refute the suggestions contained in the first part of the amendment.
I would call the attention of the house to the statement that, "no effective action is proposed". The leader of the opposition had no suggestion to make other than a proposal that we should do for the potato grower what we have done already for the wheat grower and the apple grower. I suggest to him that if the application of the policy applied to the condition of the apple grower would satisfy, and if in his opinion we have done all that we should have done for the wheat grower, and if he had no special complaint to make excepts ing with regard to potatoes, he should have greatly narrowed the terms of his amendment. When he made a speech two hours and a half long and offered no proposals to alleviate the condition of the farmer about which he complained, he might have refrained from criticizing the government on that score.
But the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party did not make that mistake. He stated a grievance, and his long practice in stating grievances has made him an expert. He said:
War has effectively closed our principal markets for farm products.
And again:
Our agricultural problems are, however, not due to war conditions exclusively. Economic nationalism and the increase in production encouraged by the first great war, and made possible by the mechanization and scientific development of agriculture, have combined to increase the difficulties of Canadian agriculture. The lack of any intelligent policy or direction on the part of the governmeut has greatly increased the difficulties.
I take it that he does not blame this government for having brought on the war. We can as a government, therefore, claim that any difficulties arising out of the war are not of our making.
Economic nationalism certainly cannot be laid at the door of this government. When the present Prime Minister accepted the leadership of the Liberal party he condemned narrow nationalism in all its elements. He continued to lead the crusade both inside and outside the House of Commons until to-day he is recognized throughout the empire as the most internationally minded of all the political leaders of the empire. His followers campaigned with him for twenty-one years against the narrow nationalism of the official opposition and the state socialism of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation which is state monopoly of the most nationalistic nature.
The leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation then proceeds to condemn increased production, mechanization of farms and scientific development of agriculture as co-partners with economic nationalism and war in causing the problems of agriculture. He then goes on to state:
The lack of any intelligent policy or direction on the part of the government has greatly increased the difficulties.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I cannot conceive of a less intelligent discussion of the causes of our difficulties as related in criticism of the present government of Canada, and would therefore suggest that the policy pursued by the government to date may be quite as intelligent as could proceed from the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation source.
It is not the practice of a government to be announcing policies. Governments put their ideas into practice. The announcing of policies is the right of oppositions. When we were in opposition we announced a policy through our leader in these terms:
The Liberal party by its policies will continue to further the development of agriculture, lumbering, mining and fisheries by effecting reductions in the costs of production of Canada's basic products and by obtaining wider markets therefor, by encouraging export trade and by state assistance in the marketing of natural products.
We appealed to the country on that policy as opposed to narrow nationalism and state socialism as practised by the government of the day and advocated by the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. We were returned by an enormous majority and put those policies into effect for four years. War came.
The Address-Mr. Gardiner

We again went to the country, outlined our policies, and declared our intention to continue the policies advocated in 1935 and put into effect with beneficial results for four years. What was the result?


Major James William Coldwell: Unemployment.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend says
"unemployment." There was unemployment for practically all the opposition candidates who opposed us. In proof of that may I recite this. The official opposition elected only three members from agricultural seats west of Winnipeg, and I see on the opposition benches only two members from eastern Canada who by the wildest stretch of the imagination can be called farmers. The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation was held to its original representation west of the great lakes and did not elect a single representative from a farming constituency east of the lakes. The Social Credit group had its numbers cut in two.
What about my own position, since I am the minister under discussion? I left a safe seat which I represented in the last house and deliberately challenged the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation on their policies for agriculture, in a seat which was entirely held by the radical opposition in the local house. It was a seat which had been abandoned by the ill-advised official opposition. I campaigned in every province west of Quebec for others, and the people of this western seat returned me by a handsome majority.
I may tell my friends of the official opposition that every traditional Conservative poll in the constituency gave me a majority.
Why should this government change its policies on agriculture? The policies are essentially Liberal. The policies were endorsed in peace-time by the farming population of Canada when proposed in 1935. The policies were put into practice for four years and endorsed in war-time no later than March 26 last. Two of the opposition now have the effrontery to pronounce against those policies in the house without waiting to hear the report of our mission to Britain in an effort to make our future practice conform to their needs. We have only two markets left for our farm products. They are Britain and the United States, the two countries whose markets have been cultivated since we took office and in these we have friends because of our actions during the years we have been in office.
After reviewing the position of the wheat farmer, the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation then went on, as an 
opposition should, to do what the leader of the official opposition did not do, namely, announce an alternative policy. He said:
Since similar conditions face other branches of agriculture, we would make these suggestions:
1.	That the marketing of all farm produce by appropriate boards with adequate producer representation be provided for.
We have boards, most of them with very adequate producer representation upon them, marketing wheat, bacon, dairy products, apples, and although with no assistance from this government, tobacco.
The hon. gentleman's second point was:
2.	The suppression of gambling and speculation in food products, including of course the closing of the grain exchanges.
I agree that gambling should be removed from the marketing of our products at all times. I do not think, however, that gambling and speculation are synonymous terms. I agree that when the butter market of Canada is protected by a five-cent duty persons should not purchase butter at 21 cents in the summer season and attempt to sell it to the consumers at 30 to 40 cents in the winter months. I am compelled to say, however, that when I, as a representative of producers, am asked by our only customer to maintain an open exchange when under the circumstances there can be neither gambling nor speculation, I am inclined to accede to his wish. That is what we are doing in Canada at the present time in the handling of wheat.
The leader of the Cooperative Common-weath Federation party proceeds through six planks, each one of which could be dealt with to indicate that in so far as they would be helpful the principle has already been complied with. He concludes with a seventh, which reads as follows:
7. The appointment of a full-time minister of agriculture devoting exclusive attention to the industry, and the transfer of all agricultural marketing boards from the Department of Trade and Commerce to the Department of Agriculture.
I presume that when the member for Rosetown-Biggar suggests the appointment of a full-time minister of agriculture he implies what others are stating-that two departments of the nature of Agriculture and War Services are too heavy for one minister. My hon. friend nods his head in assent. Well, that is an arguable position to take. But when in the latter part of the proposal he suggests that all boards having to do with the marketing of farm products be transferred to the Minister of Agriculture he is suggesting that the board of grain commissioners and the wheat board should be transferred to Agriculture.

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
May I state to the member for Rosetown-Biggar that one of the biggest single jobs confronting the government of Canada to-day is that of dealing with the marketing of wheat and the financing of the farmers who have not been able to market their wheat. That job in itself is bigger and more trying than the work of the whole department of war services, particularly when we were able, through the cooperation of the members of this house, to secure the cooperation of all the people of Canada both for the registration and for the calling of men for the training camps.
If it is only the health or capacity of the minister he is worrying about, then I submit that his proposal does not help the situation. If it is his desire to get me out of the department, then I want to tell him that whether I am Minister of Agriculture, War Services, both, or only a private member, or back on the farm where only one of his group ever made a living-


Major James William Coldwell: I never heard that the Minister of Agriculture did either.


James Garfield Gardiner: -I shall continue to fight the battles of the farmers of Canada. No adding to or taking away from duties or prestige will remove my life-long association with and love for farmers and farming.
I might add that with the government constituted as it is, wheat is under the joint administration of two ministers, one from the greatest wheat producing province in Canada and one from the second greatest. On the theory that two heads are better than one, the work should be lighter and carried out more efficiently as it is.
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury); What if there isn't any head?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am certain that I and the Minister of Trade and Commerce can cooperate to the benefit of the industry.
In reply to the suggestion of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) I know of only one group in Canada that is without any head.
The leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation immediately removes any suggestion that he desires a minister to have anything to do, by proposing that a planning commission should be set up which would take on all the duties of a minister of agriculture. He gives as the last duty of this commission that of arranging for the export to Great Britain without profit to Canada of surplus supplies of food now rationed in that country.
What does he mean by " without profit to Canada "? Almost forty per cent of our population live on the farm; easily sixty per cent are engaged in work which is such that they depend upon returns from the farm for their existence.


Major James William Coldwell: Returns are not profits, and the minister knows it.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am coming to that. Canada, in relation to profits, is the people of Canada. His proposal can mean nothing more or less than what is the essence of state socialism, namely, that the whole population, including the farmer, be placed on a bare subsistence basis.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: Rubbish.


Major James William Coldwell: The farmers are on that basis now.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I state what this government has done for agriculture?
Before the war, when we found every branch of agriculture floundering in the bogs of narrow nationalism, having had flung to it by the government of the day the rotten planks of state socialism, we offered it trade with a great friendly nation to the south and a mother country forced to prepare for war, with the result that we were returned to office.
When we returned we implemented our pledges, with the further result that the price of every single farm product increased. The volume of the product at increased prices went up. At the end of two years the increased sales to the two important countries had improved in value by more than fifty per cent. This continued in most products right down to the year in which war began. Wheat was the outstanding exception, and crop failure in 1937 largely accounted for that as well as the dropping off in the total farm exports.
No other government at any time has helped the western farmer from the. treasury of Canada to the extent that this government has. We have spent millions of dollars to assist farmers without crops. We have spent additional millions in rehabilitating farmers. I was referred to in the last campaign, a campaign carried on after the war began, as the Santa Claus to western Canada and western farmers.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: The people do not believe that.


James Garfield Gardiner: Look at the last election returns and you will be convinced that they do believe it-and they left half of your group at home.
The Address-Mr. Gardiner

Before war came we set up cooperative marketing organizations from coast to coast to handle farm products. Every one of them has been a success financially. Our guarantee enabled them to finance at the bank, and they were so soundly established that although they brought the farmer better returns not one of them required to take a cent out of the treasury of Canada. This demonstrated that the farmers of this countiy can organize and handle the marketing of their own products and make a success of it.
Before the war we paid a premium on good cheese and assisted cheese producers to improve their factories, with the result that quality cheese has been greatly increased both in volume and in price. It is this increase in volume and quality produced by more scientific methods which the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation associates with war and narrow nationalism as the cause of our present farm problems.


Mr. COLD WELL:: You know better than that.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend is quite an expert in a number of things, one of them being composition, which he taught for many years in a school in the city of Regina. If he will read the Hansard report of his speech he will find that what I am stating is exactly correct.
I differ from my hon. friend in his diagnosis of the case. If the peoples of Europe whom Britain has befriended for ages had been able to hold out against the attacks of nazism, every scrap of food Canada prepared against the day of trial would have been required by now and would have been selling at a price which would have partly paid the debts incurred during the days of narrow nationalism. But the war has brought destruction, pillage, rampant death and slavery to the small food-producing countries of Europe, and we, with our food supplies increased to greater surpluses than for years, are able to play a greater part in assisting Britain than we otherwise could have done.
Britain did not want our apples last year. We helped the apple growers as liberally as we ever helped the wheat growers. We entered into an agreement with Britain and set up a board to handle bacon. The price of hogs averaged about three cents a pound higher in Canada than in the United States where there was no agreement. We made an agreement on cheese, and cheese producers were assured of a price much better than the relative price of butter which was left to the tender mercies of our own market. Our farmers could not sell their wheat, and we

did what no government ever did under similar circumstances before. We paid them more by way of advance one year than we could get for it, and when the war break came and our storage would not handle it, we helped finance an increase in storage and we distributed the storage available so that all could get some. We pegged the price so that the speculator could not profit, and Britain came to our assistance and paid us more for wheat than she paid any other country in the world.
In the face of these facts I want to say that, before the trip which I made to Britain a few weeks ago, we had been functioning in the interests of agriculture in this country and had been giving considerable direction to production in Canada. We told the farmers, for example, more than a year ago that it would not be wise to increase wheat acreage; but wheat acreage was increased by two million acres. We cannot always be assured of the carrying out of undertakings which we advise people to enter upon on their own behalf. We advised them, it is true, to g6 on producing bacon. We had some difficulties with that before the end of last year, but those difficulties will be cleared away when I read the arrangements which we made in Britain when I was there in recent weeks.
Perhaps one of the greatest war services provided in Canada has been performed by the farmers. I think the remarks of the different oppositions agree with that. We are inclined to look upon munitions, arms and armies as being indispensable in war time, and they are; but sometimes we forget that the necessities of peace time are the fundamental requirements of war time. Food and clothing are as indispensable in time of war as man-power itself, because without food and clothing there could be no man-power.
The farmers of Canada and the enlisted soldiers from all classes in Canada have been required to make greater economic sacrifices than any others. First it was the apple growers, next the tobacco growers, next the vegetable and small fruit growers; and now the wheat growers have been compelled, because of the turn of the war, to accept much less for their products than they had every right and reason to expect. Farmers suffered as great, if not greater, losses because of war fear before war was declared.
Because of these losses, both before and since the declaration of war, I thought it wise to go to Britain and study the British position first-hand, taking with me, to assist, officials of the department who are entrusted with the task of helping to market farm products. We have just returned and have certain reports to make.

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
The first is that while the blockade lasts there is only one European authority to which we can direct food supplies, and that is the government of Britain. I have noticed from press reports since returning that certain persons have been suggesting while I was away that we should seek markets in certain quarters. I wish to state, in terms that cannot be misunderstood, that having witnessed the bombardment of London and other parts of Britain I would not remain for one hour in any government of Canada which would seek markets for farm products anywhere in the world if the marketing of them there would in any way tend to weaken the blockade Britain is enforcing upon certain sections of Europe.


Thomas Miller Bell: What about the selling of copper to Spain?


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, my hon. friend will find, if he reads this carefully, that the selling of anything to Spain is very well covered by what I have stated.
My observation would lead me to the conclusion that Britain will require to use every legitimate means at her disposal to defeat Hitlerism, and the blockade is the strongest weapon she has until munitions, planes, tanks, trucks, arms and men are pouring into the field of battle.
Britain is enforcing the blockade, and she alone must be in a position to determine where the food products can be placed to do the greatest good. In short, I think it is our duty to place the food supplies available for European consumption at the disposal of the empire through the food and shipping ministries of Britain, to be directed to any market they think advisable. I think we should receive in return from the British government for these supplies sufficient to make it possible for our farmers to carry on producing food supplies which are greatly needed and may be even more essential to ultimate victory.
The second finding we wish to report is that the British food ministry has established a list of essential food products in order of preference. We were not supplied with that list and I presume it is subject to change from time to time, but our discussion would lead us to believe it is at present arranged in about the following order:
1. Wheat and other cereals.
The reason for this is obvious. There is no food product produced anywhere in the world which in its natural state will keep longer than wheat and which at the same time will retain its full value longer than wheat.
2.	Dairy products.
3.	Fresh meats.
4.	Bacon and other cured meats.
5.	Fish, canned and frozen.
6.	Poultry and eggs.
7.	Canned fruits.
8.	Canned vegetables.
9.	Fresh fruits.
Britain does not want fresh fruits at all.
The only one of these farm products which we are not at present interested in sending to Britain so far as our own economy is concerned is fresh meats. We have a much better market in Canada and the United States for all our fresh meat, including live cattle, than we can secure in Britain or any part of Europe. I should like, Mr. Speaker, to ask this house to whom is due the credit for that? The fact that we have no problem in connection with the marketing of our cattle is due entirely to the agreement which we have with the United States, and which was made by this government. The only farm product which we did not need to discuss in Britain was that of beef and other fresh meats associated in similar trade. I think we should keep that in mind when we are talking about our relationships with some other parts of the world in connection with food products.
We did not, therefore, discuss the sending of fresh meat to Britain other than to make known to them the fact that we have certain surpluses which are being marketed in the United States. We made it very plain to them that if these surpluses were ever required to feed the people of Britain we would be prepared immediately to discuss their problem with them and try to cooperate with them in assisting them to a solution.
We discussed all the other products with them, and bearing in mind the two findings reported above, namely, that the blockade is necessary to victory and that Britain has an essential list of food products set up in order of preference, I wish to report to the house the result of our discussions with the British government.
First, with regard to fish: It was not my duty as Minister of Agriculture to put forward the claims of the fishing industry, but I was pleased to have the officials of the departments of Trade and Commerce and of Fisheries suggest that we include fish in our negotiations. I shall only state in this report, before proceeding with the discussion of agricultural products, that Britain agreed to accept from Canada canned salmon to a value of $5,538,000, other canned fish to a value of $3,145,000 and frozen cod to a value of $3,367,000, or a total in fish of $12,050,000.

The Address-Mr. Gardiner

Fruit. Britain does not desire to take apples and other fresh fruits at present. She does not say she will not take any but she does not desire to take them. This is due to the fact that she places them at the bottom of the list of essential foods, and even on the basis of empire policy considers that while they are fighting the effort of Hitler to break the blockade, shipping space should not be used for fresh apples and other fruits. We have accepted her representations for this year and intend to encourage our own people to use Canadian fresh fruits in greater quantities than formerly as a means of assisting our fruit
growers.
Britain is prepared to
Canned tomatoes to a Dried apples Canned apples Fruit pulp Fruit pectin Honey
take: value of

Or a total in fruit and honey of $4,541,000
In regard to poultry and eggs, we were unable to enter into an agreement because the British food ministry were not prepared to bind themselves to take poultry; it is looked upon more or less as a luxury. The food ministry felt that the eggs which we could provide would not be sufficient in volume to affect their ration lists; therefore they prefer to have these products marketed without agreements, and we agreed to assist in every way possible in the marketing of them without agreement.
With fresh meats eliminated there are three products left which we can supply in quantity. They are wheat, dairy products, and bacon. These are on the British list in that order of preference. I wish to discuss them in the reverse order.
First, bacon and other pork products. Last year we had an agreement with Britain to take 291 million pounds of Wiltshire sides at a price which for that quantity would have netted us 52-4 million dollars. Britain actually did take 321 million pounds which netted us 57-6 million dollars.
Bacon is placed fourth on her list of essential products. There is a strong sentiment in government circles and elsewhere- and this is important to the people of Canada -to the effect that bacon is not an essential product, and could be placed much lower in the list. This is supported by two contentions; first, that bacon costs too much for its food value, and second, that the sources of supply have been so reduced that it would be impossible to maintain a ration which would be worth while.

We presented our position to them, answering the last contention. We estimate that our entire surplus of Wiltshires this year will be 425-6 million pounds, or very close to the amount that Britain used to import from Denmark. We also estimated that we will have a million dollars' worth of offals and a million dollars' worth of bladders and casings which can be sold. We have therefore entered into an agreement under which we will deliver to Britain our entire surplus of Wiltshires, offals, bladders and casings for a total net to Canada of $69,300,000, or almost 17 million dollars more than the agreement of last year provided for, and more than 10 million dollars in excess of what we sold last year. This should clear our own market of all surplus, and maintain the ration in Great Britain at four ounces for this year. This should result in our own market being in a healthy condition, and encourage Britain to maintain either the present or a higher ration of bacon in future years.
May I throw out this warning: that this does not mean that we would be safe in Canada at the present time to go on greatly increasing hog production. We should establish hog production in Canada at the present time, put ourselves in a position to supply this amount throughout the year, and if we are successful in doing so, of good quality and in the quantity required, then next year I think we shall be able to persuade Britain at least to continue the present ration, and probably to increase it.
The terms of the agreement have been so drawn as to permit of the contract being operated this year on a lower cost basis than last year, and the quantity should make it possible to avoid the periodical gluts of last year. These two factors should result in the price level to the producers holding a favourable relationship to last year's average price.
The total number of hogs required to fill last year's agreement would have been 2-5 million. The total number required to fill this year's agreement will be 3-6 million. The total minimum earnings under last year's agreement would have been 52*4 million dollars. If we deliver only the minimum under this year's agreement, the total on Wiltshires will be 67-3 million dollars, and for all pork products, $69,300,000.
With regard to cheese and other dairy products, Britain did not wish to enter into an agreement to purchase butter from us if it would interfere with the quantity of cheese to be delivered.

The Address-Mr. Gardiner


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would the minister be good enough in connection with bacon to name the prices of these commodities?


James Garfield Gardiner: The price to the farmer of course cannot be named; it is a price that works out over the period. I have not the
price at a Canadian port before me at the moment, but it will be published. I hesitate to try to quote it. I think I know what it is, but I might be a fraction of a cent out.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Is it as high as last year?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, not quite as high as last year, but the better arrangements in connection with maintenance, margin for storage and that kind of thing, should result in a price to the farmer which compares very favourably with that of last year. But the price for delivery is not the same; neither are the conditions under which delivery is to be made.


Mark Cecil Senn: Is it a set price and a constant price that is expected?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is a set price to the government at the port, and the board determines what the packer is to get from it.
Britain places cheese next to wheat in her preference list. She could not offer as much for butter as our farmers can get in their own market. We therefore decided not to press for an agreement on butter, but to enter into an agreement on cheese. This does not mean that Britain will not take any butter, but if she does it will require to be marketed in the
ordinary way, and any influence the government can bring to bear on the marketing will be brought to bear if advisable.
Last year we had an agreement to deliver 78-2 million pounds of cheese at a price which nets us 14 cents a pound at Montreal. We delivered 90 million pounds and received for it 12-6 million dollars. This year we have agreed to deliver 112 million pounds at 14-4 cents at Montreal. This will net us at Montreal 16-1 million dollars. If we can deliver more, Britain will take it. There is no limitation, either in our discussions or in the agreement, on the total amount, but she wanted us to commit ourselves to a minimum amount in order that she might be able to deal with her rations.
In addition to cheese there is an arrangement under which we may deliver condensed milk to the value of at least $3,750,000 or to the amount of 1,000,000 cases. If one totals these figures it will be found that if we deliver only the minimum amounts of food products the contracts call for, we will sell $93,691,000 worth of food products other than wheat and fish. If we include the fish and not the wheat, our export of food products to Britain this year will amount to $105,741,000. This will be the largest return from these products since the latter part of the last war.
Here I Should like to place on Hansard the record for the last seven years, including the record under this agreement on the minimum amounts, in order to indicate what that means to the food producers of the Dominion of Canada:



VALUE OF EXPORTS OF CERTAIN CANADIAN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND FISH TO THE UNITED KINGDOM

[Stage Direction]
CALENDAR YEARS 1935-41 (*)
-	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	9 months 1940	Minimum for 1941$ 19,733 529	% 25,138,590	% 32,467,171	% 30,494,762	% 32,287,291	$ 42,445,697	$ 67,300,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
719,283	462,428	559,887	422,118	319,315	547,951	
							
	20,452,812	25,601,018	33,027,058	30,916,880	32,606,606	42,993,648	69,300,000
							
	5,986.819 1,069,666	9,359,453 577,538	11,825,692 1,362,651	11,023,338 1,733,533	10,802,873 1,251,404	11,253,203 1,202,597	16,100,000 3,750,000
							
							
	7,056,485	9,936,991	13,188,343	12,756,871	12,054,277	12,455,800	19,850,000
							
	150,856 638,757 31,980 335,783	195,562 573.272 24,351 320.272	198,331 1,452,754 34,724 500,588	281,067 1,210,198 13,034 655,316	288,696 1,872,899 17,454 932,416	990,412 521,170 125,489 767,745	554.000 2,658,000 177.000 664.000 266.000 222,000
							
							
							
							
							
							
	1,157,376	1,113,457	2,186,397	2,159,615	3,111,465	2,404,816	4,541,000
							
	28,666,673	36,651,466	48,401,798	45,833,366	47,772,348	57,853,264	93,691,000
							
	4,158,825 1,307,875 21	3,460,188 985,353	3,798,818 1,128,547 204	3,726,527 1,195,525 267	5,517,273 1,078,471 67,027	4,293,978 1,126,923 69,246	5.538.000 3.145.000 3.367.000
							
							
							
	5,466,721	4,445,541	4,927,569	4,922,319	6,662,771	5,490,147	12,050,000
							
	34,133,394	41,097,007	53,329,367	50,755,685	54,435,119	63,343,411	105,741,000
							
(*) Not listed separately in trade statistics. (2) Includes tomato juice.
The Address-Mr. Oar diner

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
Richard Burpee Hanson: Will the
minister also say whether he will table those agreements?


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, yes; they will be
tabled as soon as they are in shape for tabling.
What about wheat? The position has been stated quite fairly by both the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and the leader of the Social Credit party in so far as crop returns and storage are concerned. I did not go to Britain with authority to make an agreement on wheat. The duty of selling wheat has been entrusted by this house to a wheat board. It is not the duty of any minister to market wheat, but that of the wheat board which under the act reports to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
Both the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the chairman of the wheat board asked me to discuss wheat and instructed their representatives in Britain to facilitate the discussions in every way possible. I wish here to state that I and those with me appreciated the assistance received from the very competent staffs of the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Department of External Affairs, including the high commissioner. In so far as wheat was concerned the assistance of Mr. Biddulph was indispensable. No official could know his job better or carry it out with greater courtesy and efficiency.
To illustrate Canada's wheat position to Britain I used certain figures, as follows:
Million
bushels
Wheat carried forward from previous years into 1940-41 and now in
storage	 282
Canada's crop in the year 1939-40...	561
Stocks in sight to dispose of at August
1st, 1940	 843
Canada will probably consume in
1940-41	 130
Canada therefore has for sale	 713
In the 14 years before the war, Canada sold to the United Kingdom
an annual average of	 90
Canada exported to the United Kingdom in calendar year 1939	 132
Canada exported last year to all countries, except the United Kingdom which it is now open to her
to sell	 25
Canada exported before the war to countries now blockaded, an annual average of	 35
The wheat carried forward from previous years covers the amount in the elevators of Canada at August 1, 1940, because I was dealing with the storage situation.
The United Kingdom imported 230 million bushels of wheat in the year 1938-39. It appeared, therefore, that Canada could meet
the entire demands of the United Kingdom for wheat for the next three years out of her present stocks of 843 million bushels. Canada realized, of course- these were the representations made-that the United Kingdom would want to buy wheat also from countries other than Canada. But it appeared that in recent months about seventy per cent of the United Kingdom purchases had been of Canadian origin, and I suggested that the United Kingdom might think it desirable to maintain this percentage. On this basis it appeared that the United Kingdom would want to take about 160 million bushels of wheat a year from Canada.
With regard to the future, I examined the prospects first on the demand and then on the supply side. On the demand side, assuming that the blockade would not be lifted for two more years, Canada expected to be able to dispose of 160 million bushels a year to the United Kingdom, and to raise the consumption within Canada for food and feed from 130 million to 160 million bushels a year. During this two year period it thus would be possible for Canada to dispose of 640 million bushels at home and to the United Kingdom. In addition, Canada expected that after the blockade was lifted it would be possible for her to dispose of 160 million bushels a year to countries now blockaded, or say 480 million bushels over a three year period. Thus during the next five years, assuming two years of blockade and three years of offensive warfare or peace, it should be possible for Canada to dispose of the following quantities of wheat:
Million
To the United Kingdom:	bushels
5 years at 160 million bushels
a year	 800
By internal consumption:
5 years at 160 million bushels
a year	 800
To countries now blockaded:
3 years at 160 million bushels
a year	 480
Total	 2,080
On the supply side, Canada could expect to produce on an average 380 million bushels of wheat a year. That is her average for the last fourteen years and more than her average for the last five years, including the last two crops. Her total production in five years thus would amount to 1,900 million bushels. To this should be added the 280 million bushels carried over into 1940-41 from previous years, making a total quantity of 2,180 million bushels which it would be necesary for Canada to dispose of in the five year period.
It appeared, therefore, according to the above figures that Canada would have 2,180 million bushels of wheat to sell in the five
The Address-Mr. Gardiner

year period, and that during the same period she probably would be able to market 2,080 million bushels, leaving a carry-over at the end of that time of only 100 million bushels. Moreover, if Canada continued to be able to sell 30 million bushels a year to those countries outside Europe which were not being blockaded, instead of there being a surplus of 100 million bushels at the end of the five year period the demand for Canadian wheat would be 50 million bushels greater than the supply.
I did not consider, therefore, that Canadian wheat producers need be pessimistic, but may I say again that there is nothing in these figures which should induce Canadian wheat growers to increase their acreage this year. As a matter of fact there is very much in them upon which to ask farmers at least to go back to the acreage they had in the year previous to last year, which was 2,000,000 acres lower than the land sowed to grain last year.
Canada could supply Britain's needs and did not anticipate that unsold stocks would grow to excessive amounts. The difficulty, however, was that of financing the quantities of wheat which would have to be carried. About 800 million bushels of wheat would need to be financed, of which roughly half would be financed for two years at a cost of about 80 cents a bushel and the other half for one year at a cost of some 75 cents a bushel, if the present arrangement is continued. This would mean that the Canadian government would require to put out about $320 million on the two year arrangement and about $300 million on the one year arrangement, making a total of S620 million. The dominion government is obliged to pay the farmer any additional amounts received for the wheat. It is generally admitted that 70 cents advance at Fort William, which nets the farmer about 50 cents a bushel, does not cover his total costs of production and therefore does not maintain him as a contented producer. If he is to receive more money, it -must come from the sale price of wheat, or from the taxpayers of Canada, or from both.
Those were the representations made. We made it plain to the British government that we were there not to discuss an agreement but to get their opinions with regard to the wheat situation. I have received those opinions as a result of the representations made through officials of the department concerned, and I have presented them to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) to be given consideration under his direction by the government of Canada. When

he is in a position to make the pronouncement he desires to make with regard to the policy to be followed as a result of them, he will make the announcement to the house.
I believe I have more than exhausted my time. I am sorry I had not time to deal with the situation as I saw it in Great Britain.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Georges Parent: With unanimous consent the hon. member may proceed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that under standing order 37 the minister is entitled to continue, in reply to a motion of want of confidence. He is the first minister who has had an opportunity to reply.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, no, but let him go ahead; I am quite satisfied. I would not for one moment attempt to stop him.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My point is that the rule applies not only to one minister, but possibly to two or more ministers replying to the motion.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is only quibbling; but let him go on.


Georges Parent: It might be well to point out that standing order 37 is in these terms:
No member, except the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, or a minister moving a government order and the member speaking in reply immediately after such minister, or a member making a motion of no confidence" in the government-


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is it.


Georges Parent: "-and a minister replying thereto-"


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is it.


Georges Parent: "-shall speak for more than forty minutes at a time in any debate." The minister is now replying to that which, in essence, is a motion of no confidence in the government. Therefore he is entitled to speak longer than forty minutes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is stretching it. How many replies are there?


Georges Parent: This very point was raised in the session of 1931 when the present member for Yukon (Mr. Black) was in the chair. On that occasion a minister was replying to an amendment which was considered to be a vote of no confidence in the government, and it was ruled that in replying the minister was entitled to unlimited time. I take the same position. The minister is now replying to that which in essence is a vote of

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
no confidence, and under standing order 37 he is entitled to speak more than forty minutes.


James Garfield Gardiner: I had not intended to continue beyond the point I have now reached, and because of that I did not bring any notes with me to deal with the matter. For that reason I shall discuss it only briefly, in any case-at least, I hope I shall be brief. If I were to tell the Whole story I could not be.
In order to follow up the observations I made at the beginning of my speech it will be necessary for me to read the first part of the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson).


Richard Burpee Hanson: The motion of want of confidence is that of the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore). I submit in his observations the minister is going beyond the rules. However I have no objection; I believe he ought to be allowed to make his speech. If he had not taken so much time with his blitzkrieg at the beginning, he would have had time to complete what he had to say.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker has given his ruling, and I am proceeding on the basis of it. With reference to the " blitzkrieg "
I would just like to suggest that when the leader of the opposition can rise in his place and move an amendment Which to all intents and purposes is one of want of confidence in the government, and when the leader of another group can get up and make a similar motion, and it is then suggested that no one can reply, I say we have gone a long way from the democratic kind of government.
I do not wonder that the leader of the opposition does not want me to read the amendment again, because the first part of it is in these words:
We respectfully submit to Your Excellency that this house regrets that the government has continued to soothe the Canadian people regarding the war effort of the nation, thereby creating a false sense of security when a clear-cut call to action is desperately needed.
The clear-cut call to action, Mr. Speaker, came on September 3, 1939. The government of Canada acted even in advance of that date, in order to prepare for that clear call. When the clear call came, the government of this country placed itself side by side with the government of Great Britain to fight the enemies of democracy. So we have remained, down to this day.
During the time I was in Great Britain I had the opportunity of seeing most of what is to be seen. The government of Great Britain did what they always do for representatives of this government who go over
there. They placed their officials, they placed themselves and all the organizations set up to take care of the production of munitions and arms and shipping at the disposal of myself and those who went with me. Not only did they do that, but they placed at our disposal facilities to enable us to see everything that was to be seen.	_ _
I visited everything that I cared to visit from the port of Dover in the south-incidentally it was being shelled and bombed the day I weis there-to Kyle in the north of Scotland. I visited Wales. I visited many of the parts I cannot name. I visited shipping points. I visited plants in which aeroplanes were being constructed. I visited munitions plants and saw all stages of their production.
I visited plants that are producing small arms, and other plants that are building the largest guns being produced in Great Britain at the present time. I should add to that something which is perhaps as important as anything I have said up to this point, namely that I spent all of four weeks, but three week-ends in the city of London, where bombing is going on continuously.
After seeing all that I have seen-eleven million people walking the streets of London in day-time and at night, if they had to go out, making their way about in the darkness as best they could-I have come back with the feeling that if I never had pride before in the fact that I am a citizen of the British empire, I could not but be inspired by the endurance of these people and the courageous front they are presenting to the attacks of the kind which are being made-attacks not on armies, but on old men, old women, boys, girls and mothers. Fourteen thousand civilians have been killed in the battle of Britain, and less than three hundred soldiers. _ Yet the civilian population of Great Britain, and particularly that of London, is standing up to the attack with all the fortitude and endurance of a well-trained army.
When I went to Great Britain I took with me a picture I had seen in a theatre in Ottawa just before leaving the country. It showed the wharves and docks in east London, burning. The landscape as far as one could see was dotted with chimneys standing alone and with walls of buildings partly destroyed. The final scene was that of a group of school boys and girls who were looking at a demolished tenement which had once been their home. I took that picture to Great Britain. I took a picture which I had envisioned from broadcasts I had heard, some of them from Germany. When I left Canada I thought that Great Britain must be fairly well tied up as a result of the attacks which are being made. But when I arrived on
The Address-Mr. Gardiner

the other side I was agreeably surprised to find that in the port at which we landed I had to go round and look for the buildings which had been destroyed. I had to search for damage to wharves. I had to search for damage to shipping. As I went down in daylight from that port on my way to London I had to search for any damage that had been done, either to the artery' of transportation upon which I was travelling or to the surrounding country.
When I reached London the picture was a little different. But even though buildings were destroyed here and there, for every one destroyed there were a hundred or a thousand, depending upon the district concerned, still standing. We heard of one store being bombed while we were on our way to Britain, but I was able to buy in that particular store most of the things required while I was in Britain. I walked into it a few hours after I reached London. I saw young girls and clerks who had been working there for years. I saw men and women who, I suppose, had been associated with the business all their lives-standing behind the counters and doing business in the same old way. I walked up and down the streets and saw signs "open as usual" on building after building, and on those of which the windows had been broken, I saw the inscription, "more open than usual." That showed the spirit of the people.
On my second day in London I was walking down Piccadilly and I heard my first bomb when outside. I wondered whether it was landing just on the other side of the building which I was passing, or whether it was a mile or so away. I looked around to see where I might go if the next one hit a little closer, and I was surprised to see young men and women riding up and down the street on bicycles, going to their work as usual and carrying on with a spirit which indicated that Hitler could not scare them. I am reminded of an incident which I think will impress everyone in the house. On the boat going over was a group of Americans on their way to fly in the service of Britain. One of them came back on the ship on which we returned, having to return to the United States on business. He told us that he had been in a certain hotel when one wing of the building was blown away. He came down the next morning and was talking to the lady in charge of the hotel. She said, "You know, Hitler puts those whistles on the bombs to scare us." He replied, "Well, he has made a hundred per cent job of it with me." He then went on to say that Hitler certainly had not succeeded in scaring the proprietress of this 
hotel, or the girls who were waiting on the tables. He had not succeeded in scaring those who had to go to their different places of business.
This is the spirit of Britain at the present time. Having seen Britain carrying on in that way, having seen London carrrying on in that way, I do not think the people of Canada or the members of this house need have any worry as to the final outcome of the war.
In his speech the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) referred to a remark made by the Prime Minister of England to the effect that England would be ready to take the offensive in 1942. That is the spirit of Britain to-day-that they will be ready to take the offensive in 1942. In the meantime they are carrying on. In order to bear out the contention of the first part of his amendment, a little later on the leader of the opposition referred to the fact that when the members of the United States delegation were in Canada the week before I left they found that Canada was preparing to be in position to take the offensive in 1942. Having regard to those two statements by the leader of the opposition, I can scarcely understand the necessity for his amendment.
Britain is carrying on with the idea that she has sufficient forces, sufficient supplies, sufficient in the way of defence, particularly in her fleet and in what air force she has at the present time, to prevent a landing in Britain. She is confident that if an invasion is attempted by Hitler she will be able to repel it, even though some troops do land on her shores. She is saying to her people and to Canada that the most important task to be performed at the present time, while Britain is holding the channel, while Britain is holding the fort for the democratic nations of the west in order that they may prepare and help her prepare, is to provide the wherewithal to put men in the field. Without quoting anyone on the matter, may I say that the impression I gathered from my discussions in Britain was that it would be a crime on the part of any government in any democratic country to play into the hands of the totalitarian states of Europe by attempting at this time to put on an offensive.
Our task to-day is that of holding the line where the line now is, in the channel, in Britain, and doing everything we can as a country to help Britain out in her herculean effort. At the same time we must keep it in mind that when the day does come to go forward, not only must we have every man fully supplied with guns, with all the

The Address-Mr. Gray don
machines of war and the means of transportation necessary to take him forward as rapidly as Hitler crossed Europe, but we must have the necessary trained man-power to handle all the instruments of war and put them into operation against Hitler on the continent. It will require the most careful coordination possible to bring these two desired results to completion at the same time. It is only when our armies have driven his armies back to the borders they should occupy that we will have proven to the world that democracy must and will be kept secure.
Britain believes that this continent is going to do more to help her than any other part of the world in the supplying of foodstuffs, such as I have been discussing this afternoon, and in providing the necessary munitions of war and equipment. More than anything else, we can help by providing the ammunition to be put into the guns that are to be used by the army. Britain is in position to-day to defend herself and she will be in position in 1942 to go forward on the offensive. When she is in that position Canada will be marching side by side with her just as she has been ever since September, 1939.


Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, along with other hon. members I listened with rapt attention and concern to the latter part of the speech of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). I listened with deep interest to the middle part of his speech, and I listened with not a little humour to the first part of his address. I want to say to all who are within range of my voice that what the Minister of Agriculture so aptly said at the end of his speech was something which the Canadian people needed to have said to them. Perhaps the same thing would apply to the middle part of his speech, but I say with all seriousness and concern that the Canadian people in these days did not need the first part of the minister's address.
I doubt if there is a member in the chamber who has a higher regard personally for the Minister of Agriculture than I. I think we all realize his abilities and capacity. I was going to say at the start of my address, had the minister not preceded me, that this house and parliament were meeting in a different atmosphere from that which prevailed last session, but I had to amend my remarks because the minister's speech to-day was very much like the one he made at the opening of the previous session of the house. May I say to him in all kindness and good humour because I do not want him to take any offence-I would rather he take a lesson than take offence-that many people 14S73-8
in Canada feel that, however much of a colossus the Minister of Agriculture might be regarded by many other persons in different parts of the dominion, the work of the cabinet should be divided up among the various ministers. If the Department of National War Services is as important a department as we were led to believe when it was first formed, and if one of the most important domestic problems facing the people of this country to-day is that of the farmer, then surely if people are complaining to-day that one man should hold in his own hands these two portfolios, what will they think after his speech this afternoon when he constituted himself the minister of national Liberal defence in the dominion? It almost seemed to me as he was speaking that he was posing as one of the commanding officers of a Liberal Maginot line which had long ceased to exist so far as being an important factor in the public affairs of Canada is concerned.
The atmosphere of the house has changed somewhat since last we met here. It will be recalled vividly by every hon. member how this house met last session in a very sober and serious, almost a militant mood. We were fearful of certain consequences from the events then taking place abroad, and our fears seemed to justify every precaution being taken and every warning which was then being given.
But to-day, because of the very circumstances which the Minister of Agriculture so well explained in the latter part of his address, the people of the Dominion of Canada are convinced that Great Britain is not in the same dangerous position she was in during those days. She has shown by the courage and grim determination of her people from one end of the British isles to the other that Great Britian is prepared and able to take care of herself against the best that the aggressor nations can throw against her. Therefore to-day, while danger still exists, there is much more confidence among our people and the world at large in Britain's chance of success. But that does not mean that there should not be a word of caution given to the Canadian people to-day. I am afraid that throughout the length and breadth of this country there does appear at times to be a certain apathy regarding our war effort. I am not going to lay the blame for that on any particular individual or any one organization or any particular government. But I say that if Canada and its people, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said, must pass through darker and more terrible days before victory is achieved, then if the government does no more than show

The Address-Mr. Graydon

by its war effort as it is unfolded to us that it is earnest and aggressive in seeing to it that the last ounce of Canada's strength is utilized for the purpose of achieving victory for the empire, it will have done a good job in calling parliament together at this time.
To my fellow members of the opposition I say that our duty as I see it is not to embarrass or unnecessarily to criticize the government in power, which is charged with responsibility for the conduct of our war effort. As I see it, it is not our duty as members of his majesty's loyal opposition to place political barbed wire entanglements in front of the efforts of the government in power, but rather as members of the opposition we should see to it by way of criticism, suggestion and otherwise that the war effort of Canada is increased in its tempo and that the maximum results are obtained by reason of our efforts in that direction.
While I say this to our own members on this side with regard to unnecessary criticism of the government, may I also say that a similar responsibility rests upon the Prime Minister, his colleagues in the cabinet, and the government supporters in this house. I say this seriously, I mean every word of it, and I direct it particularly to the Prime Minister now sitting in his seat, that there has been, I believe, in the past some thought in the minds of the government that everything that those sitting on this side of the house brought forward had some reference to the political fortunes of the party with which the speaker was identified. I hope that that will never be thought of his majesty's loyal opposition, because, Mr. Speaker, the opposition is sincerely anxious that Canada's war effort be prosecuted with the utmost vigour; and when criticisms are made, it is the duty of the government to take those criticisms in that light, as made for the advancement of the welfare of our fighting forces and of our Canadian war effort generally. It is a means whereby public opinion throughout the country can be brought solidly behind our war effort and a means of ensuring that every essential thing is done in the proper prosecution of our war effort. Within the four corners of what I have outlined lies, I believe, the real function of the opposition in this house. I myself have never felt more earnest in my desire to see the government do its best in prosecuting Canada's war effort. Let the Prime Minister and members of the government generally take all the political kudos they like out of that war effort, but let them give us the very best they have. That is what we are asking and we ask for nothing less than that.

I shall make only three or four suggestions to the government, and I believe they all have an important bearing on our national war effort at this time.
May I say first that I believe we are not exercising proper economy in the ordinary expenditures of this country. I may be entirely wrong but I am convinced that the government is not meeting the wishes of the Canadian people so far as ordinary expenditures are concerned, apart altogether from our war effort. People do not mind money being spent on our war effort, although even there they want it spent in a proper way, because all our people realize that their money in the banks, all the money they have invested in property, bonds and in insurance companies will amount to nothing unless Great Britain, Canada and the empire generally win this war. That is why they raise no objection to money being spent properly on our war effort. But may I point out that for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1939, the budgeted ordinary expenditures of the dominion-and I am taking these figures from the estimates themselves-amounted to $430,000,000. That was in time of peace. Those same ordinary expenditures for carrying on the affairs of the country amounted in the fiscal year ended March 31,	1940, to
$520,000,000. During part of that year we were at war. But the estimates for this fiscal year ending March 31, 1941, so far as ordinary expenditures are concerned, were cut only to the amount of $448,000,000, which is $18,000,000 more than our expenditures amounted to in a time of peace in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1939. This is not good enough for the people of Canada. They want economy in our ordinary expenditures.
Another thought which has been much in my mind for a number of years is that this government might devote a good deal of attention to the question of the height of the salaries which some men are getting for their participation in our war effort. Let us have a fair deal in this respect. I would not like to be considered a demagogue, but, regarding the salaries which are received by civilians connected with our war effort who take no risk whatsoever, I would plead with the government to review the circumstances and at once remedy the inequalities, wherever they may be found.
We have experienced, in the present stage of our war preparations, a great scarcity of trained men and trained women. There are many who would go back as far as the time before the declaration of war to criticize the government on this account. To my mind, however, that is water under the bridge: I

The Address-Mr. Gray don
am not going to bring that up because after all it will not assist or advance our war effort. But I suggest that it is not too late for the administration to take a firm grip of the matter and see that, for the strenuous years that no doubt lie ahead, there will be a sufficiency of citizens trained for the necessary activities to which our war effort will lead. Already there are groups of women throughout the country taking the initiative in this matter. I suggest that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) take cognizance of these groups which are in training and see that they are given the necessary encouragement, so that we shall have not only an adequate number of men and women trained for defensive purposes, but also an adequate number of men and women trained for our requirements in connection with the manufacture of munitions of war.
References were made in the able speech of the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. White) to the question of soldiers' transportation. Perhaps nothing more need be said than again to draw the matter to the minister's attention. I believe the Minister of National Defence will be well advised to take into sympathetic consideration the merits of this claim, which is being voiced not only by the men of the armed forces, but [DOT]by their dependents all over Canada who are suffering from the inability of these soldiers, because of their financial obligations, to pay the cost of transportation for long distances while on leave.
Akin to this is another matter which I do not believe has been mentioned. I am sorry that the Postmaster General (Mr. Mulock), who is a neighbour of mine, is not in his seat. I am one who believes that we cannot do too much for the men who are standing between us and Hitler and Mussolini. Sometimes we forget this. Sometimes, absorbed in our big administrative set-ups, our war boards and the like, we forget that there has to be somebody to stand eventually at the point of the gun between the aggressor nations and ourselves. The men who have enlisted, the men who are in active service for our country, deserve in my opinion very special consideration. The question of transportation is one matter; another is the provision of some arrangement for free postage on parcels and letters going from Canada to our troops overseas and vice versa. It might even go further and include the troops in this dominion and elsewhere. After all, it is not very much to ask of the government. There would not be any great loss of revenue, and it would be one more 14873-8i
indication that the people and the government of Canada are anxious to do something for those who in their behalf have taken upon themselves the risk of losing life or limb.
I wish now particularly to draw the attention of the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) to a matter which, although it has already been mentioned in this house, has perhaps not been emphasized to any extent. It is the minister's onerous duty to look after the affairs of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in so far as their relation to the House of Commons is concerned. I am one who has consistently urged, in this chamber and out of it, that we should have some review of the situation at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, so that what I have to say this afternoon is no new idea of mine. I was amazed to find, in the issue of the Globe and Mail of October 24, 1940, under an Ottawa date mark of October 23, the following news item:
Alan B. Plaunt, member of CBC's board of governors since 1936, has resigned because he could "not continue to accept responsibility for conditions of organization and management," he revealed last night.
The news item goes on to say:
Plaunt tendered bis resignation on August 30, to Hon. C. D. Howe. Dissatisfaction with conditions in the organization led to his making a confidential survey last summer, Mr. Plaunt said to-night. His report was submitted to the board of governors last autumn and no action has since been taken.
In his letter of resignation Plaunt stated he was taking the step because, "I feel that as a public trustee I should not accept responsibility for the internal organization and executive direction of the corporation when I have long ceased to have confidence in it."
That is the situation, Mr. Speaker, which, I think the minister himself will agree, should be aired before the country at once. I shall be very much surprised if he will not bring this to a parliamentary committee for review at once. I think I know something about his view in this matter, and I am sure that all that needs to be done is to draw his attention to it. The letter which is alleged to have been sent by Mr. Plaunt to the minister contained these two paragraphs, which are so short that I should like to put them on Hansard:
I would have taken this step early in the year had not my colleagues given me some reason to hope that the serious defects revealed by the reports prepared at their unanimous request by Mr. J. C. Thompson and myself would be remedied. I have however finally been obliged to conclude that this is not the case.
It is my considered view that the present conditions seriously hamper the corporation in fulfilling its function in the war emergency and prejudice its survival as an effective instrument of national unity afterward.
The Address-Mr. Gray don

I have always been a supporter of the national idea in broadcasting; and for that reason and others, may I suggest that the minister lose no time in, first of all, tabling the correspondence between that member of the board of governors and himself, and any other pertinent letters. This, I see, has already been asked for on the order paper. More than that, I call upon the government now to see that we have a special committee this session to deal with the matters which were raised by Mr. Plaunt in his letter of resignation. Remember that in this country nearly $3,000,000 of the people's money is collected through radio licence fees, and the public have a right to know what is going on. This letter of resignation was tendered in August, and I suggest that the government should lose no further time in dealing with the matter so that the people of Canada can come to a conclusion once for all.
I want now to deal with a matter referred to by the Minister of Agriculture this afternoon. I do not know whether I was one of those to whom he referred who could not by the greatest stretch of imagination be called farmers. Perhaps he is right with regard to that; I would not suggest that I am a farmer. But when I was out west this year I learned that he was not a farmer either, he was a school teacher, so I do not think people who live in glass houses should be throwing too many missiles my way.


James Garfield Gardiner: That was about thirtyfive years ago.


Gordon Graydon: I understood the minister did not claim to be even that old. But what the minister said about agriculture being one of our main problems is correct. I think agriculture should come into its own this session as far as attention in the debates of this house is concerned. While industry in many places has been getting a fair share of war orders, and the labour slack has been partly taken up, the war seems to have meant very little in the way of helping the farmers of Canada in the marketing of their crops. In many instances markets have been cut off. I could not help feeling sorry for and having a deep sympathy with the men and women of western Canada when I paid them a visit for a couple of weeks this fall. I realize to the full, as everyone in Canada must who sees their conditions, that the western farmer, as well as the farmer of eastern Canada, must have a fair break if he is to exist at all in this economy as w'e have it. There are certain major items which affect the farmer's condition. The war effort has of course produced a scarcity of farm help. There has also been a rise in the prices of many commodities that the farmer

buys. Many men in our part of the country have had to pay a good deal more for binder twine and agricultural implements this year, to say nothing of the ordinary expenditure for maintaining their homes and their undertakings. But while all this is going on, let us see whether the bright picture of wider markets painted by the minister this afternoon is as bright as it ought to be. While he went overseas to try to get markets for Canadian producers, he might have barred the back-door before he left so as not to let too much come in; for, after all, it is not much use selling on one side and taking it in on the other.
I have here a few figures which I should like to quote. From January 1 to September 30 of this year-September being the last month for which we have figures-according to the bureau of statistics we allowed into this country over 34 million pounds of United States pork and pork products of a value of $3,405,530.


James Garfield Gardiner: Nearly all in the first
two months.


Gordon Graydon: I will take the minister
up on that. He is always very good at figures although he did leave some important ones at home this afternoon. Perhaps these are some figures he has not seen. In the first two months exporters to Canada did pretty well; in January we bought over eight million pounds and in February nearly fifteen million. But we have not dried up the source because in the following months our imports were:
Pounds
March	 2,086,000
April	 1,600.000
May	 1,827,000
June	 1,353,000
Even in September we have over 1,500,000 pounds of pork and pork products coming from the United States.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is all in the quota.


Gordon Graydon: That brings me to something the minister said this afternoon. Some mention was made of apples and other fresh fruits and vegetables. When the minister talked about the war being the cause of the troubles of our fruit and vegetable growers he went a long way to find a cause, for this is something which has been before this house for a good length of time, as he well knows. He had better make a trip to Washington before he loses the idea of travelling; it would be a good bit of business for him.


James Garfield Gardiner: I was just quoting the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation.

The Address-Mr. Graydon


Gordon Graydon: I understood he was one man the minister never quoted. We have this question of fresh fruits and vegetables in which the minister is so much interested;
I wish he had shown more interest earlier. This is the position with regard to fresh fruits and vegetables entering Canada from the United States in 1939, the year in which the war broke out. We brought in from the United States fresh fruits to a value of $13-5 millions, and fresh vegetables to the value of $5-4 millions, and certain other items bring the total close to $21 millions. We shall see what has happened this year.
The worst feature of this is that not only are we taking this market from the fruit and vegetable growers of Canada, but look at our foreign exchange position with regard to purchases of war materials. Everybody in Canada knows that this government needs every dollar it can get its hands on to buy materials to fight this war, and much of those materials come' from the United States. Yet up to the end of September, 1940, this government has allowed to come into this country nearly $12-5 millions of fresh fruits and over S5 millions of fresh vegetables-in line with what we imported in the same period of last year or preceding years.
Men who come from fruit and vegetable growing districts have pleaded for years with the government not to let the fruit and vegetable growers bear an unfair burden of the tariff arrangements between these countries. If ever there were a reason for doing something for these men and at the same time doing something vital for Canada, now is the time. I call upon the Minister of Agriculture and the government to help save our exchange position and at the same time remove this detriment to our fruit and vegetable growers. Let them act quickly, because action is long overdue. Whether they are right or wrong, there are among the farming population many people to whom I talk who believe that everything they sell is in a measure pegged in price. I have no objection to the pegging of the price of butter, as indicated in the newspapers yesterday, provided the pegging is going to take some of the profits from speculators in butter in Canada, but I do not think any of the consumers want to take the hide off the farmer in having the price of butter pegged. The farmer now says, " If you are going to peg all my prices you had better start to peg some of the high salaries being paid people in Ottawa in connection with our war effort," and that is only fair.
I only want to add that as far as Canada is concerned we in this country will have to go through a period of blood, sweat, toil and
tears, as the Prime Minister of Great Britain once said. I believe we shall have to make greater sacrifices than we have made so far.
I am sure the Canadian people will be glad to make those sacrifices, but in these times it is of the utmost importance that in a democracy such as this we have good leadership. I am going to ask the government to review the entire salary set-up, not only with regard to the war effort but in every other connection as well, in an endeavour to show the people that we are really serious in this business of beating Hitler and Mussolini. We in Canada no longer can expect to sit by and maintain the accepted standards of leisure, comfort and convenience. I think that day is hastening to a close. Let me warn the government that the world of yesterday will not be the world of to-morrow, so let us as a government, as a parliament and as a nation prepare for the changes which must come about. As the representatives of the Canadian people, for whom we speak, we pledge their support to the government so long as the government gives the right kind of leadership in carrying out Canada's part in this great empire effort.
I should like to conclude with the suggestion that parliament was called to meet this month principally for one purpose, namely, in order that the story of the government's war effort might be properly given to the Canadian people. There is only one subject in which the people of this country are interested now. They are not interested in whether it happened to be a Liberal, a Conservative, a member of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation or someone else who advanced some particular suggestion years ago. I want to tell the Minister of Agriculture that if he holds that belief he belongs to an antiquated political school.


James Garfield Gardiner: Then how does my hon. friend explain an amendment dealing with agriculture?


Gordon Graydon: I am sorry the minister has been so busy talking to his neighbours. I thought I had given a complete explanation in that regard, and it may be that even some of the more important subjects with which I have dealt have escaped his attention as well. This war effort is the only thing that counts. I tell the minister it does not make any difference whether one party or another survives in this country, so long as we win this war. That is the main thing. I would like to see the minister, with all his ability, drop his partisanship from now on and continue along the line of the last two parts of his speech. He was wonderful then, and I was glad to be a Canadian with him; but I was not so glad when I listened to
no
The Address-Mr. Gray don

the first portion of his speech, and I hope that sort of thing is never repeated in this house.
We were called here to discuss the war effort, and to find out what the government have been doing. We gave the government a blank cheque. Perhaps I should not be carrying out my undertaking if I said anything about blank cheques; the Minister of Agriculture and I have a truce in connection with this matter, so I shall not again in this house bring up anything in that connection. But the government did obtain a blank cheque from parliament and from the people of Canada last year, and from time to time that blank cheque has been extended. There have been conferred upon the governor in council powers such as were not dreamed of in the past, but many people in Canada because of this change are not acquainted with the development and progress of our war effort. For that reason it became important that this session should be devoted to a thorough airing of the entire war effort of this country. I was amazed that the first two or three days of this session were not given over wholly to a complete story of what has been done by the various ministers; that was what I expected and that was what the Canadian people expected. That is what the people want. I should like to serve notice on the government this afternoon, not only on my own behalf but also on behalf of the party to which I belong, that the sooner they bring down full reports of our war effort, the better the people will like it. More than that, Mr. Speaker, anything less than the speediest possible elucidation of the situation will not satisfy Canada.
I leave that thought with the government this afternoon in the sincere and earnest hope that a disclosure of our entire war effort will show that something worth while has been done to help the empire and in particular to help good old England in her hour of trial.


Mr. F. W. GERSHAW (Medicine Hat):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to tell the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) that we are glad to see him back in his place. We congratulate him upon his trip and we congratulate him upon his speech this afternoon. His words will bring fresh hope and courage to many of our Canadian producers. We will get good government only when we have a strong cabinet and a watchful opposition; but if the opposition claims the right to criticize every action taken by the government, surely the right of the government to reply should not be questioned.
Something has been said about Canada being soothed into a false sense of security.
[Mr. Graydon.1
As I meet people throughout this country I certainly do not get that impression. I believe the Canadian people have done a marvellous job of preparing for the great struggle in which we are engaged; and as the days go by, I am sure the ministers will explain fully what great strides have been made towards turning Canada from a peacetime economy into a warlike camp. I should like to pay tribute to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), because during the many years in which he has led a large party in this country he has had one great aim and ambition, to keep united the various races and interests in this dominion and to maintain good will with our immediate neighbours. Now that the great testing time has come, Canada goes into this war as a united country, and our neighbours are in sympathy with us. Not only is this fact recognized throughout the length and breadth of the dominion; the Prime Minister of Great Britain, than whom there has been no greater, said this in part in a cable to the Prime Minister of Canada:
I am glad to have this opportunity of thanking you personally for all you have done in the common cause, and especially in promoting harmony of sentiment throughout the new world. This deep understanding will be a great factor in . . . the rescue of Europe from a relapse into the dark ages.
With your gracious permission, Mr. Speaker, since hon. members are allowed wide latitude in this debate I should like to discuss some local problems, and also attempt to give the house some reasons, as I see them, why Canada is engaged in this great conflict.
As has been said here to-day, agriculture is the greatest industry in the country, because it provides our supplies of food. In the west we have 60,850,000 acres of improved farm lands, of which 38,320,000 acres are sown in different cereal crops and 17,850,000 acres are annually under summer-fallow, for moisture conservation and for the control and destruction of weeds. There is also in pasture and unbroken land an area of about
35,000,000 acres, used for the support of
3.900,000	cattle, 1,900,000 horses and 1,300,000 sheep.
Between the years 1929 and 1938, Canada experienced a series of crop failures owing to drought and soil drifting. The area involved corresponds closely with what is known as the Palliser triangle. In 1860 the British government sent to Canada a man named Palliser to make a survey of the western country. He carefully observed the nature of vegetation he found on the land, and marked out an area beginning in the western part of Manitoba, running northward and westward to Saskatoon and Battleford, and


The Address-Mr. Gershaw
then south and westward to the Rocky mountains, at a point just west of Lethbridge. The base of that triangle is the international boundary line. This area, he reported, would not support a farming population.
To-day this area corresponds generally with the area under the control of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. In 1937, one of the worst years, the average yield in the area was only 2-6 bushels an acre. In 1939, which was not so bad, by any means, the 300,000 farmers each received an average income of only $1,605.
I am sure hon. members will realize that this small amount would not go far toward paying for machinery and hired help, as well as providing other necessities of farm life.
Doctor Archibald, who has compiled most of the figures I have before me, points out further that various governments, and particularly the one now in office, have done a great deal to help those engaged in agriculture in that district, and throughout western Canada generally. For instance, 200,000,000 trees have been distributed. What has been learned in the light of recent discoveries seems to indicate that different methods of agriculture will bring better results, as climate and soil conditions are better understood. Then, 3,454 stock watering dams have been constructed, to provide water for live stock. In addition, 9,945 dug-outs and 833 irrigation projects have been completed. Marginal lands for some thirty community pastures, with an average acreage of 20,000 acres each, have been procured. Ninety per cent of the land has been covered by recent soil surveys. Development by experimental farms of early ripening wheat, such as marquis wheat, has in many instances saved crops from early frost damage. Reclamation stations and regrassing demonstrations have been established at about 600 points.
Then, in order to help the man who, through no fault of his own had experienced a crop failure, some 58,000 farmers were paid an acreage bonus, because they received such a small yield from their land. These payments have cost the government about $12,000,000, and about $2,000,000 of the amount has been collected by a tax of one per cent on all grains.
In addition, about 204 agricultural improvement associations were formed. I see great possibilities in these organizations, because men from certain districts with similar problems may gather together, pool their experience, work out policies and advise the government about their particular districts. They have rendered a great service in connection with the distribution of seed, and matters of that kind.
The wheat problem will be fully discussed during this session. I can say only that it is fortunate the government has stepped in to buy wheat. Otherwise there would be little or no market for it. While the farmers are receiving a price below the cost of production, yet I say it is a price better than could be obtained in any other way. Great help has been given the live stock industry through the trade treaties which have been made. If there is one policy which has worked out successfully, I would say it has been the trade policy of the government. We now have admission to the great markets in the United States. We have generous quotas, and the rates of duty are about half of what they were in previous days.
Many other things have been done to help the farmer. Yet, every hon. member coming from western Canada must be convinced that, so far as the farming industry is concerned, we are still almost in a state of crisis. If one drives through the country he will see buildings falling in ruin; he will see homes lacking furniture and ordinary comforts. In that country there are women and children who lack the clothing they should have. Reading material, and many of the useful things which tend to make life on the farm less wearisome and lonesome are lacking in those prairie homes. Recently I visited a district consisting of quite a number of people, and yet in that section there was not one radio. Children and adults are not living under those ideal circumstances where one finds equality of opportunity. The children are greatly handicapped because of the distance they have to go to school, and the work they must do. Adults have to endure [DOT] many hardships to make a living. I say, therefore, that there are things which the people in the west need, and need urgently.
We need more irrigation. There should not be one gallon of water allowed to trickle northward to the Arctic ocean, when it is badly needed in the drought stricken areas of the middle western part of Canada. There is an old Chinese saying that one picture is worth a thousand words. I am sure if some hon. members could see the results of irrigation schemes which have been completed, they would not hesitate to vote money for more schemes of a similar kind. In the spring time streams of water flow down from the sides of the mountains and the hills. But in the summer those streams dry up, and we have nothing left but the dusty, barren soil. In many instances dams can be constructed, and thereby great bodies of water can be saved and released when they are needed. In that way the farmers may keep beef cattle or milch cows for the benefit of
The Address-Mr. Gershaw

their children. They may plant gardens, and produce flowers and things of that sort, which would make their homes more homelike. No investment could give better results.
Then we need good roads. We have not a satisfactory trans-Canada highway at the present time. It is true that it has been gravelled, but in places the gravel is quite thin and the gumbo works up so that the gravel is down and the gumbo is up. The result is large lumps on the road, and the tourist from the United States comes once, but never again. He goes home and tells his neighbours not to come, and the result is that Canada loses considerable revenue. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) loses considerable exchange which he values so highly. I believe expenditures on roads would be money well spent. Good roads would attract more people to this country to help consume our surplus products and bring about a measure of prosperity.
It has been said that markets for our products, particularly wheat, are becoming hard to find. Such being the case, we should divert our efforts to the growing of crops that can be sold. Britain, a thickly populated country, produces something like 22 per cent of the sugar she consumes. The United States produces something like 25 per cent of its consumption, but Canada, a sparsely populated country, produces only 15 per cent. I believe the encouragement of this industry would help to do away with our great surpluses of wheat and bring about more prosperity. There are other things we need, such as social legislation to provide for the aged and the sick. There should be a more equitable relationship between the prices of those commodities we have to buy and what we receive for the products and services which we have to sell. If that is brought about, it will be much easier to balance the budget in the average home.
For the remainder of my time I should like to discuss that great issue which is to the fore in all countries of the world at the present time. Why is Canada fighting? We are fighting for self-preservation. For two hundred and fifty years Great Britain has known that her safety depended upon the sea lanes being kept open and the countries of Europe being prevented from coming under the domination of any one power. The sea lanes must be kept open in order that Great Britain may bring in the foodstuffs necessary for her great population. When Hitler showed by his repeated aggressions that his ambition was conquest, the very existence of Britain was endangered. What did Britain stand to lose? After a long, struggle through the centuries,

after many trials and errors, her people evolved a civilization based upon a Christian code, based upon honour, a civilization having the freedom of democracy. Why should all this be surrendered for a lower state of civilization? It has cost the people of Britain dearly to gain what they have. Governments have fallen, kings have been dethroned and beheaded, and much blood has been shed. We of the present day, as custodians of what has been won in the past, must not surrender these precious things.
We do not want a civilization under a dictatorship where our citizens would not be allowed to criticize the acts of the government. We do not want a civilization where of freedom there would be none, where opposition would not be tolerated for a moment or be punished by death or internment. The continent of Europe is under the control of dictators. There is not one public speaker on the platform or over the radio, there is not one editor who dares to express opinions different from those held by the dictators. We are fighting for our empire and for our liberties, but we are also fighting for something more. We are fighting to maintain Anglo-Saxon ideals; we are fighting to preserve a country where there is more and more of self-government, where there is a greater abundance of comfort and the good things of this world. We are fighting to preserve a civilization which has less of that monstrous doctrine that might is right.
Defeat means that we shall be a vassal state. We are fighting for our possessions, but that is the least of the things for which we are fighting. Sacrifices are not being made to preserve just our material wealth. We are fighting in the interests of mankind in general. We have a vision of a land fit for heroes. W'e are fighting for a better world where there will be no unprovoked aggression, where women and children will not be heartlessly bombed. I should like to compare the aspirations of the heads of the two chief combatants in this struggle. Hitler says that Germany will be mistress of the sphere, that she will hold that position by the power of her victorious sword. He says that Germans must show that they are bom to be masters. He says that their destiny is to master Europe. He might have said the rest of the world. It will be noticed that he proposes to govern by the sword. There are to be overlords and underlings.
I should like to compare that statement with one made by a British cabinet minister. He said that when the time comes we will liberate the nations of the world and build a

The Address-Mr. Sinclair
new order based on cooperation, tolerance and mutual good-will. Hitler makes everyone his servant; they all must serve his purpose. Mr. Churchill has told us that the public men of Great Britain are proud to be the servants of the people, that they would be ashamed to be their masters. During the last year or so the King and Queen of Great Britain and Canada and our sister nations have endeared themselves to our hearts. Mussolini travels in an armoured train which is heavily guarded. Hitler travels in one even more strongly protected and he hides away in a rock-bound shelter high up in a mountain fortress. The king and queen have visited the bombed areas of London absolutely unguarded in order to encourage and cheer the hearts of their humblest subjects.
The British people high and low are undaunted by the evil that has befallen them. There has been no grander spectacle in history. This has been one of the finest things that has developed in our civilization. We are fighting for an ideal. We are fighting for a way of life. We are fighting for a legacy which we are to hand on to the generations to follow, that we hope, will never experience the terrible things which have been experienced by this generation. The president of the Canadian legion expresses it in this way:
We must look to the future with ever increasing confidence and hope and faith. The month before us may seem dark but beyond that darkness a light shines. It is the light of freedom, of love of charity. When the hate and lust of our enemies have vanished for all time we shall emerge into a world better and brighter than it has ever been before.
In closing I should like to place on Hansard something that Mr. Churchill has said which I believe will appeal and has appealed to the people of Canada from shore to shore. It expresses something of the undaunted courage of the British people. Mr. Churchill said:
We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, on the seas and oceans. We shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air.
We shall defend our island whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches and the landing grounds, in the fields, in the streets and on the hills. We shall never surrender. And even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British fleet, will carry on its struggle until in God's good time the new world with all its power and might steps forth to the liberation and rescue of the old.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. JAMES SINCLAIR (Vancouver North):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak this
evening I must first thank those who made it possible for me to speak so early in this debate. I am quite aware that there are many who are quite senior members to me who would like to speak this evening, and since my leave has expired and I am returning to my post to-night I feel grateful to them for having yielded me this opportunity.
To-night I am speaking not so much as the member for Vancouver North, but as one who has had the good fortune to be accepted in one of the services. I regard it as good fortune because we who are private members have no more rights and no more exemptions than any other citizen of this country. So we can regard it as good fortune to be in an active service unit. It may be that some of my constituents feel that because I am in the service I cannot give to the affairs of my riding the time and consideration which they should have. I can reassure my constituents. Perhaps I have suffered some handicaps, but the minister and my colleagues among the private members have been more than kind in seeing that the affairs of my riding have not been neglected.
I regret exceedingly that I was not in the house last night to hear my hon. friend the member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. White) speak. Although we are both in active service I must say that there is little in his speech with which I can agree. That, probably, is a good sign of a democracy-that even in a service where men in the positions we hold may be expected, if they think at all, to think the same, we hold these diverse opinions.
I think I can say, on behalf of other hon. members on our side who are in the sendee, that we feel strongly about the inference one would draw from the opening paragraph of the hon. member's speech, that he regarded it as a virtue not to have had a commission from this government. I should like to point out to the hon. member that the great majority of the men in the active service of Canada to-day are not professional soldiers; they are ordinary peace-loving citizens during times of peace. When we joined up we did so, not under a Liberal government or any other government, but as citizens entering the Canadian army. I should like to point out, too, that we private members who are fortunate enough to be in the service are not in it because we are in politics. I can assure
The Address-Mr. Sinclair

him, as can many other hon. members, that we are in it despite the fact that we are in politics, because the recruiting officers and the chiefs of staff of the three services have shown a real reluctance to have members of parliament in their ranks-perhaps an understandable reluctance based on a fear that w>e would take advantage of our position. Other members of this house have tried since the beginning of the war to enlist and would, I believe, have been in the service a long time ago had it not been for the fact that they were in politics.
The hon. member made some mention of "lightning promotions." The only promotion I know of among hon. members who have enlisted is the promotion recently given, and-I can say this from the bottom of my heart-most deservedly given to the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey), who is now at Trenton camp doing a wonderful job. That was no "lightning promotion"; it was to my mind a normal promotion somewhat overdue.
Perhaps I may be allowed in a kind way to say just one more thing to the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough. He said that his was not a political appointment from this government. He was appointed in August, 1930. Hon. members may recall that the government of the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett was elected in July, 1930.
The whole tenor of my speech will be a little different from that of my hon. friend, in that I do not think this house is the proper place in which to bring up a great number of quibbling little matters, for instance as to whether certain units of the non-permanent active militia went to camp with one, or two, army shirts. Surely one who has the rights of a member of parliament should bring these matters directly to the minister concerned-the one man who more than any other wants to see that the army is run as efficiently as possible and who will do everything in his power to that end.
There has been criticism of delay in supplying certain articles, such as socks and shirts, to the non-permanent active militia. But these men were not naked; all of them had clothes and shirts of their own. They, too, realized, I think, that we are in a war. Those who saw the terrible pictures which were shown early last week, by the courtesy of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon), of the German war effort and the way in which the Germans smashed through the Netherlands, will realize that whether or not the non-permanent active militia were all outfitted completely at the start does not matter very much. The thing

which matters is, whether our first line, the navy and the air force, is being properly equipped as fast as this country can equip it. Speaking for the only service I know, the air force, I can say in this house to-night that it is.
I do not intend to speak at length on the general plan or the success of the empire air training scheme. The activities of the air force generally have been widely discussed and have received abundant praise from independent military authorities in this country and in the United States, and, what is most important of all, from those authorities in the United Kingdom who are fighting the fight in the air and who should know whether or not this scheme, which is now becoming the back-bone of the defence of Britain, and what we hope will soon be the battle of Germany, is succeeding.
A great deal has been said about the wonderful organization of the air ministry in their development of this empire air training scheme. Sufficient credit will never be given to the minister, the deputy minister and the air staff in the tremendous task they have faced, one phase of which, for example, has been to enlarge a force which numbered a thousand a year ago in the active force to over thirty thousand at the present time.
I do not intend here to enumerate the fields and hangars and planes, or the instructors and the pilots turned out already. That has been done, that will be done by people more competent than I am to speak, but I will say that one thing has been overlooked. This scheme could not have succeeded as it has, and as it will, if it depended only upon the work of the minister, the deputy minister and the air staff. This plan has succeeded mainly because the rank and file of the air force, the aircraftmen, the non-commissioned officers, the warrant officers and the junior officers, have faith and confidence in the staff; and the reason why they have that confidence is that they know that the men heading this effort are no mere brass hats; the heads of the air force are men who fought in the last war, know what war is and will stand for no red tape. That, to my mind, after seeing a little of the force, in a very lowly rank, is the real reason why this government, why the minister and why his excellent organization have functioned so well. [DOT]
I do not intend to enlarge upon how well the empire air training scheme is progressing. I think it would be as wrong for me to say here to-night, in connection with the first classes that are turned out, how many pilots, how many observers and how many gunners are being sent overseas, as it was for another

The Address-Mr. Sinclair
man in another place to say recently how many British airmen were planning to make the hazardous trip across the submarine-infested ocean. I did not, however, come here to speak praise of the air force organization; it speaks for itself. I do, however, want to speak as a man in the service and as a member trying to represent these great numbers of voters who have left their ridings and are now living in barracks and camps and who deserve an active voice in this house. I am going to bring up two or three little points which to them are important.
The first is the matter of rentals in soldier towns. As hon. members know, in a great number of the air force and soldier camps the wives of the men, especially those without families, have tried to follow and stay near their men as long as possible. In the little villages alongside these encampments this has led to unwarranted profiteering. These women who want to stay with their men are naturally not very well off. The government has begun recently to control these rentals in the larger towns. May I ask them to extend that control as soon as possible to the little towns in the neighbourhood of air force and service camps, because to attempt to profiteer at the expense of these soldiers' families who want to be near their men as long as they can, seems the harshest of all sorts of profiteering.
There is also the matter of rentals in industrial centres which have boomed because of war activities. In these centres also there have been instances of rental profiteering. In North Vancouver and in the town of Powell River activity has increased, there has been a demand for space, and rentals have been rising. I received this morning a letter from a soldier's wife in Powell River who complained of her rent being raised, the inference being that these workers coming in can pay more and therefore she is being squeezed out. I hope the government will as soon as possible extend the rent control to these smaller centres.
Another matter about industrial war activity that I might mention in relation to my own riding is the problem of the shipyards in North Vancouver. These are the best shipyards on the Pacific coast, perhaps the best in Canada. There was considerable trouble a year ago with regard to awarding government contracts there because of the fact that labour costs in British Columbia are higher. We are proud of that in British Columbia, in that we have a higher standard of living than the rest of Canada, but that militated against our getting the contracts. I am glad to say that the minister did place contracts for mine-sweepers and corvettes, but these ships
have now been built and the shipyards are laying off their men. We have read rumours that cargo boats are to be built in the United States for the British government, and certain United States yards are getting ready for a shipbuilding programme. As our men are being laid off, there are agents in North Vancouver now attempting to induce our workers to go to Bremerton when their work in North Vancouver is finished. These shipyard workers I believe are just as important to the war activities of this country as are the riggers and fitters in the airport across the harbour, and must be kept employed here.
There is one question in the mind of every soldier, sailor and airman in Canada at the present time. Every night now when they pick up a newspaper they want to see what parliament has done about this matter of transportation on leave. There has been perhaps a good deal of nonsense talked by people who knew little about the matter, but whose hearts cry out for soldiers to get every concession the government can give them before they go overseas. One of the most popular misconceptions is that leave is one of the soldier's rights. The soldiers and airmen understand that leave is not a right, it is a privilege. If their conduct has been good and if the service at the time can spare them, certain leaves may be granted: in the air force, for example, thirty-six hours at the week-ends in which they are not on duty; forty-eight hours once a month, and two weeks once every six months. These leaves are not necessarily for the men to return to their homes; these men joined up to fight a war and certainly they do not expect to get home for every forty-eight hours' leave. Leaves are for relaxation and refreshment and to get away for a little while from army discipline. There is, however, to every man in the service one great attraction, that of home. In the kit box of the airman in the barracks are pictures of those he left behind. When they talk in the barracks, around the hangars, it is of their home towns and the friends there. When they think they are going overseas, it is only natural to desire to go home; that desire is very strong.
It was pointed out last night that the average soldier who has a home and a wife to whom he has assigned pay; in other words, the man who is anxious to go home, has for himself at the most 819 a month. That may be enough for a man at Petawawa whose home is in Ontario to get home, but it will not finance a trip from Vancouver back east or vice versa. I do not suggest for a moment that free transportation should be given to
The Address-Mr. Sinclair

soldiers on the short leaves, but I do think, and I believe the people of Canada think, and certainly the soldiers, sailors and airmen feel that the government might give them the bare cost of transportation on their semiannual two weeks' leave. In the Royal Air Force, in fact in all the services in the old country, that is done. Of course distances there are shorter, travel does not cost so much as here, with our great distances. But that argument can be used just as truly the other way. The smaller fares for those short distances can be more easily paid by the British soldier than the fares for the long distances that some of our soldiers have to travel. From my conversations with people coming across Canada recently I am convinced that the people feel that this thing should be granted no matter what the cost. We in this house are so used to appealing to the government for money that perhaps we tend to forget that it is not the government's own money, it is the money of the people of Canada which they have entrusted to the government to spend. I believe this is one thing which the people of Canada do wish for their soldiers, and this adds strength to our plea that at least on their long leaves some consideration be given to provide free transportation-not for officers, because they can provide their own, but for the men at $1.30 a day, soldiers, sailors and airmen.
One other question relating to leave which I should like to bring up is the inequality of leave, especially in the air force, as far as this two weeks' leave is concerned. The air force was recruited, not as the army was, by localities; the air force is recruited on a national scale from Victoria to Halifax. The men pour into central pools and are then sent out to stations as they are needed, without regard to the localities from which they come. Yet, when their two weeks' leave is granted, if it can be granted, it is inequitable. For example, we have a number of large training centres in Ontario. The boys from British Columbia who get two weeks' leave have really five or six days' leave, by the time they travel home and back. If a man has the good fortune to be close to his home he gets twelve or fourteen days. I might go further and take the hon. member who spoke last night as an example. The government have ruled that we members are entitled only to the army leave that we get as ordinary soldiers. It may be a little hard on us, but as far as the feeling of the force is concerned it is an excellent thing that we get no special privileges. On the one hand a soldier member who lives in Ontario can get to the house for almost his whole
fourteen days' leave, but my colleague the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Chambers) or myself get at the most seven days. I feel that some consideration should be given to this matter by the Department of National Defence. Here again the Royal Air Force have taken this into consideration. In their most recent orders regarding leave they say:
Personnel proceeding on leave to and from the Orkney and Shetland islands are to be granted sufficient total leave to ensure that they have seven days at home.
I would respectfully suggest to the government that some such provision also be made for the long leaves of those who must travel great distances to get home.
There is one special plea I should like to make to-night for one very special group, the air crew's. Under the empire air training scheme these men graduate in classes, and they are given what is called a last leave of ten days in which to return to their homes. I think that expression "last leave" is fitting in this instance, because they know, as we do, that a great number of them will never return, and that is their last chance to see those whom they leave behind. Here again the same situation obtains; the British Columbia boy who has been trained at Trenton, for example, where so many of them finish, will have only two days of his last leave to spend a.t home. It is true that they receive half fare warrants on the trains. I suggest that this one special group, to which Winston Churchill must have referred when he used the expression that has become immortal that "never in history have so many owed so much to so few"; this special group who will be hurtling through the air in Hurricanes and Spitfires, be given half fare warrants not on the trains but on the trans-Canada planes, so that they may have at least eight of their ten days at home.
The air training scheme has become really an empire scheme within the last two months, with the arrival of the Australians and New Zealanders. We in Vancouver have had the pleasure of seeing these recruits pass through our city, and it can justly be said that they are the cream of the antipodes. They have come a long way; they get here after spending three weeks at sea. We all know that first impressions are the most lasting, yet these men are hurried through our city to their training centres. We all agree that speed is the main essential of this empire air training scheme, but the people of Vancouver would like to do something for these Australians and New Zealanders as they pass through, to show them how Canada feels about their arrival. The last contingent arrived in Vancouver at six o'clock in the evening, after a voyage lasting three weeks, and at seven-fifteen

The Address-Mr. Wright
they left for a station on the plains of Saskatchewan. I do not know whether the minister is the proper person to approach, or whether this should be said to the Australian authorities, but I should like to suggest that at least one day and one night be allowed between disembarkation and the trip to the prairies, in order that two things may be accomplished: first, that these men may be given a proper reception in the loveliest city of Canada and, second, that the people of Vancouver may have an opportunity to show these men, who have come so far to fight in the common cause, what they can do for them. Various service organizations in our city are only too willing to undertake in rotation the entertainment of each contingent as it arrives.
In closing I should like to say one thing to the minister and the government on behalf of the rank and file of the air force. They believe in this government; especially they believe in the minister and staff who are running the air force. That is why they do not mind going into camps that may be not quite finished, perhaps without water for a day or so, without public complaint. They grouse privately, but as we all know, soldiers always grouse. These men understand the driving necessity of expanding operations as quickly as possible. They are willing to overlook minor discomforts because they realize that this is a war. On behalf of these men, the riggers, the fitters, the engineers and the air crews, I say to this government and to the minister in particular, "Keep at it the way you are going".


Mr. P. E. WRIGHT (Melfort):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate this evening I should like first to correct the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), who this afternoon in his usual style attempted to define the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation programme as state socialism, although of course he did not bother to define what he meant by state socialism. The minister knows better than that what is the programme of this party. He disagrees with that programme. That is his privilege, but that is no reason for misrepresenting it. As has been stated many times in this house, this party looks to the formation of a cooperative society in Canada under which the economic resources of the country will be used for the welfare of all its people. This is a noble aim, and the desirability of this objective is not to be diminished a bit by the slurs of the minister. As a matter of fact his recent visit to Great Britain proved the correctness of our policy. He did not go as a private individual from Canada to deal with private interests in Great Britain; he
fMr. Sinclair.]
went as a responsible government minister to negotiate with responsible government officials in that country, and it was the British government that decided what and how much to buy, and what not to buy. That decision was based not on profit or privilege but on a plan which took into account the needs of the people in their struggle against Hitler. The conditions of the war have persuaded the British government to put into effect the policies and controls advocated by the British labour party, which are the same as the policies advocated by the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation in Canada.
There are two classes of people who want to win this war, and for two different reasons. One class, the minority, want to win it in order to maintain the present system and the privileges which they enjoy under it. The other class, the majority, want to win this war in order to preserve that measure oi democracy we now enjoy, and on this basis to build a better and wider democracy in the economic as well as in the political field. The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation belongs to this latter class.
It is my intention, Mr. Speaker, to speak to-night principally on domestic matters, and I hope no hon. member will rise in his place and remind me that there is a war on. We in Saskatchewan realize that fact more, if possible, than the people in any other part of this country. During the last war we had the greatest enlistment, according to population, of any province, and I believe that is the case again to-day. Our main industry, the growing of wheat, is selling its production to the mother country at less than cost, and making a greater sacrifice than is being made by any other industry in Canada. Both capital and industry have stated in no uncertain terms that they will not engage in a one hundred per cent war effort until they receive what they deem to be a just return on their capital investment, and this principle has been acknowledged as fair by the government. Let me quote the words of the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) on this point, as contained in a news-letter issued recently:
... 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 the contractor, and so limit the productive facilities of the dominion.
Surely when this principle is recognized by the government as being fair when applied to every other industry, it should obtain also in connection with agriculture. I think it ill becomes either hon. members or the public press to criticize the west or the agricultural industry when all they ask is equal treatment
The Address-Mr. Wright

at this or any other time. We in Canada realize that the war is the paramount issue to-day, and we all stand united behind the government in an effort to bring it to a speedy and successful conclusion. Last session we gave the government almost unlimited powers, but now many of us view with alarm the use to which the government is putting those powers, by transferring them to boards and controllers who are responsible only to the government and who have been appointed largely on the recommendation of the industries they control. We are willing to give the government unlimited powers in military matters, but when it comes to civil and domestic affairs we believe that parliament should be supreme. The government pays many of these men a dollar a year and their expenses. Industry supplies them, and after the war is over, industry is going to take care of them again. It is only plain common sense to realize that while nominally they work for the government, it is industry that controls them.
It is largely, however, with the question of wheat that I wish to deal to-night. For the last twelve years or more the government has been dealing with this matter, without as yet having come to any definite long-term policy. They have dealt with it from year to year as emergencies have arisen.
A number of years ago when it was proposed to set up an international committee of wheat experts to study the case, this government was not too enthusiastic. Nevertheless it is only by the setting up of some such committee, and by obtaining some definite relationship between supply and demand that we are ever going to be able permanently to solve our difficulties. We are faced to-day with a huge surplus of wheat. This afternoon the Minister of Agriculture gave us the figures. We have at least two full years' supply on hand. Statistics show that we shall not have this year's crop moved off the farms until next August. What about the nexf year? Are we again going to leave everything to the last minute, and at the last minute bring in a bill which does not deal with the situation in detail?
The day after I arrived home following the last session, a farmer drove into my yard and told me that on August 7 he had delivered a carload of barley to the elevator. On August 8 the elevator agent received notice that on August 6 a regulation had been passed placing a five-bushel quota on barley. It developed that in receiving the grain the agent had been outside the law, and rendered himself subject to a heavy fine. He immediately drove to the farmer's place and asked
[Mr. Wright.l
him to remove the grain, because he could not obtain a permit for shipping. As a result, the farmer came to see me, and to ask what he ought to do about the matter. I told him he had better wait for a while to see if the government would not do something about it. Finally, a few days after this incident, the regulation was changed and the farmer was permitted to ship his grain.
I delivered a quantity of last year's wheat to an elevator, in order to obtain harvesting expenses. The wheat was accepted, but when I came to get settlement for it I found that because I had already delivered the ' 5,000-bushel quota last year, the board would not accept it. It had to be sold on the open market. There were thousands more bushels of grain then on the open market than it would absorb. Therefore my year's quota was filled. I could neither deliver any more wheat, nor receive pay for that which I had delivered. Some four weeks later, the board decided to accept all such wheat, and I was paid for it. Yet to-day the board is prosecuting other farmers who delivered over the 5,000-bushel quota last fall. Why the difference?
Why do I relate these instances? I do so simply to show the utter confusion which existed last summer after some of these ill-conceived regulations were issued. We do not want that to happen again next year. I believe at this time the government should appoint a full-time minister of agriculture. It should appoint a special committee or a commission with power to call before it witnesses and marketing experts. The recommendations and suggestions made before such a commission should, if acceptable to the government, be incorporated in a bill passed through this House of Commons before March 15, 1941. This action is necessary, so that the west may know what the government will require of them before seeding operations are begun next spring.
It would appear at the present time that some reduction in the amount of wheat grown next year would be advisable. Any reduction in acreage, however, should be authorized only after consultation with the United Kingdom as to its requirements, and only when we are assured that we have at least two years' supply on hand. If such action is necessary, how best can it be carried out? Some people suggest that it can be done by economic pressure. They urge that if we let the price of wheat go down to 25 cents a bushel, instead of 50 cents as it is to-day, the farmer will stop growing it.
Past experience does not prove this to be so; rather it has proved the contrary. In 1932 and 1933, when wheat was at its lowest

* The Address-Mr. Wright
level in 400 years, there was no decrease in acreage. This is what often happens: I, as a farmer, may have certain commitments to meet. Let us say that I may have a $400 payment on my land, a $100 payment for taxes, and a $500 payment for machinery. Wheat is my main cash crop. I know that at the present 50-cent price I must raise 2,000 bushels in order to meet those payments. But if wheat were only 25 cents a bushel, those payments would remain the same. Immediately I look round to see whether I can raise 4,000 bushels. It may be that I have some raw land which I could break up; it may be that I have some grass land which could be utilized. In short, I will do anything to raise more wheat so that I may meet my obligations.
That is what has been happening in the west. The lower the price of wheat, the more wheat the farmers are going to raise, so that they may meet their debts. Therefore, any proposed reduction in acreage, if it is to be successful, must be accomplished by a better price for what is grown, or a reduction in farmers' debts. A blanket reduction in acreage would admittedly be unfair. The man who is maintaining his family on a small acreage should not be asked to reduce that acreage to the same extent as the large operator might have to reduce. Some fair plan can and should be worked out, if it is decided that a reduction in acreage is advisable.
We believe that at this time the government should make a full statement respecting the 1939 crop. Last year when we asked what the board had received for the crop, we were told that it was not in the public interest to disclose that information. When we wanted to know the amounts remaining to be sold, we were told again that it was not in the public interest to give out that information. But the only information which was of value to the enemy was disclosed by the government, to save its own face; I refer to the information to the effect that 170.000,000 bushels of wheat which had been purchased still remained in Canada. The disclosure of that information made it clear that the enemy would still have a chance of sinking that amount of wheat. To-day the Germans are not interested in what Great Britain is paying for wheat, or indeed in whether or not she has paid for it. The enemy is interested in the measures taken to ship the wheat. Germany is not fighting this war with dollars and cents; she is fighting it with tanks, aeroplanes, guns and men; and the sooner we realize that fact in Canada, and begin to do likewise, the better for all of us.
There is no legitimate reason why the government should not give a detailed statement of the 1939 crop, to date, and thereby
let the west know if it is going to get the ten cents a bushel promised on the eve of the last election by the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Gardiner). Perhaps he is saving that money to pay on the eve of the next election. On what they have handled the pools have made a five-eent payment over the board price. The line elevators have made a smaller payment, and we feel that the government should make a complete statement at as early a date as possible.
We believe that through the wheat board the government should take full control of all grain handling facilities in Canada, and for the duration of the war operate them at cost. There is no doubt that money is going to be made-and plenty of it-in the storage of the grain on hand. Why should private individuals or companies be permitted to make a profit out of a situation which has developed because of the war? Why should they make those profits at the expense of the growers and consumers of grain, or out of the pockets of the taxpayers?
In paying storage to the farmer as well as to the elevator companies, the government took a step in the right direction. In failing, however, to give the farmers an advance on grain so stored, they have again deliberately played into the hands of the grain trade. To-day the companies may construct all the storage space they like. Immediately it is constructed, they notify the board that so much more space is available. The quota is raised and, in order to obtain a little cash, the farmer takes grain out of his own storage and turns it over to the storage operated by a company. The refusal of the government to make an advance on grain stored on the farm is equivalent to a guarantee to the elevator companies that all their available space will be kept filled as long as there is a bushel of wheat left on the farm. On the other hand, an advance would have meant that the farmer could have received enough to meet his immediate obligations. He could have left the grain on the farm until the spring, and received the full benefit of the act.
We contend that the government should change the basis of paying for wheat. Instead of the price being 70 cents a bushel f.o.b. Fort William, the same price should be paid for the same quality wheat, no matter where the farmer resides. It costs as much or more to grow a bushel of wheat in the Peace River district than it does in Winnipeg, and it does not seem fair that the government should bonus the growers in one section of the country more than those in another section. This principle has been established already- Vancouver was made a port of delivery along with Fort William. Growers in certain parts
The Address-Mr. Wright

of Alberta receive at the present time more for their grain than growers in Saskatchewan, although their grain is shipped to Fort William. I understand that the 'board pays the difference out of the general fund. We contend that payments for wheat should be the same to all farmers, that the basis of payment should be f.o.b. the local point.
There is also the matter of domestic freight rates. These have been under discussion at various times during the past few years, and it seems that this would be an opportune time to have something definite done. It costs about 30 cents a bushel for barley and 24 cents a bushel for oats to ship from the average shipping point in the west to the Ottawa valley. This is more than is paid to the farmer in the west for his grain. These rates are almost prohibitive, and a reduction would contribute to the benefit of the shipper as well as of the consumer in eastern Canada. With prices of dairy products being fixed by the government, feeders in eastern Canada cannot afford to pay this tariff. Hog raisers in eastern Canada were scarcely breaking even before, and with the lower prices to be received under the new agreement, it will be even more difficult for them to get along.
When the Minister of Agriculture announced his wheat legislation two years ago, he stated that he was introducing it in order to keep the small farmer on the land and to make the family farm possible. I can assure him that after two years' operation, this legislation is having exactly the opposite effect. The small farmer is going broke to-day with the spread that exists between what he receives for his grain and what he has to pay for what he buys. Only the farmer with a large acreage, with modern equipment and good land, can produce wheat at 50 cents a bushel and live.
In the constituency of Melfort is the Carrot river valley, probably the finest farming area in western Canada. Some of my friends from the Roset,own area or from the Soo line may dispute this statement, but the fact remains that for the last twenty years we have had the most consistent production of good crops of almost any area in Canada. But round the fringe of this area lies an area of marginal land. Under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act the government placed settlers from the dried-out areas upon homesteads in this section. Seventy-five per cent of the farms in it are either quarter or half sections, the family-size farm. Three weeks ago I was in one of these areas in order to hold a meeting and I arrived in a village or hamlet at about seven o'clock. The storekeeper told me he had a case which he wanted to bring to my attention, to see if something could be done about it.
He took me down to the edge of the village to a little log shack with a tar-paper roof about twelve feet square. We rapped at the door, but there was no answer. We went in and found an old lantern hanging on the wall. There was a rough board bunk in one comer filled -with hay, a rough board table, two blocks of wood serving as chairs, and an old tin heater. In the bunk was an old man rolled up in a gray blanket. We tried to wake him up in order to get some information, but he seemed to be past the point of being able to take care of himself. I asked the storekeeper about him, and he told me that as far as he could find out this man had come to Canada in 1901 and had homesteaded in the district in 1911. In 1920 he had lost his homestead and from then on had worked for lumber companies and different farmers in the district. Some five years before he had become unable to work and had used up what little capital he had in order to keep himself alive. Two years before, the municipality had endeavoured to get him an old age pension, but they were unable to establish his age. The municipality granted him a pension of $5 a month. He had been paying $1 a month as rent for the shack and what wood he required, and had been living on the other $4. About a year ago, he reached the state where he could hardly take care of himself and was finally spending about twenty hours a day in his bunk. He would get up, stagger over to the store to buy a loaf of bread and a piece of bologna, and then go back to his shack.
The storekeeper wanted to know if I could do something about the matter. The next day I reported the case to the mounted police, but they told me that there was nothing they could do, that the responsibility rested upon the municipality. I told them that if I had a dog or a horse which I was starving to death and this was reported by a neighbour, they would have me arrested for cruelty to animals. I told them that someone was responsible for this old man and that it was their duty to see that this responsibility was assumed. They said that the only thing they could do would be to telephone to the municipality, and they got in touch with the reeve, the clerk and the local health officer. Two days later I happened to be back in that municipality and I went to see the reeve. He told me that he had known of this case for some time, but it was not the only one in the municipality. He said that there were twelve other cases, some of them in worse condition.
He told me that the municipality was broke, that there were thousands of dollars of uncollected taxes. This year the crop had

The Address-Mr. Wright
been frozen and hardly any taxes are being collected. He told me that they would like to place this man in a hospital, but that they owed the hospital thousands of dollars. The hospital was receiving only emergency cases for immediate operation. Apparently there is no place in Saskatchewan to which such a case can be sent. There are two private homes, but their charge is SI per day, which the municipality could not pay. Apparently this man will have to freeze to death.
The next week I was in the district between Prince Albert and Nipawin. This district extends for one hundred miles on the north side of the Saskatchewan river, approximately one-half being in the constituency of Prince Albert, represented by the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). I visited the town of Smeaton, which is about half way between Prince Albert and Nipawin. While there, I met a deputation of citizens who had just been to interview the doctor in an effort to have him remain in the district. He had told them that he had some $3,500 or $3,600 in bills which he had not been able to collect, so he figured he would have to move out. I found that he was the only doctor in the one hundred miles between Prince Albert and Nipawin. In the four towns of Snowden, Smeaton, Shipman and Weirdale there are some 1,100 householders, representing a population of about 5,500. When this doctor pulls out, it will mean that these people will be from forty to fifty miles from medical attention.
I know the Prime Minister is a kind-hearted man. According to a recent newspaper report he takes his dog for a walk every day. While he is doing that, I should like him to remember that this winter there will be hundreds of mothers in his constituency who will have to drive forty to fifty miles in open sleighs in order to get their children to the nearest doctor. There will be other hundreds of mothers who will be giving birth to children without proper medical attention. This is the direct responsibility of this government because it is the economic policies introduced by this government which have brought about the present condition of the people of Saskatchewan. This afternoon the Minister of Agriculture referred to the 50-cent wheat policy, but I submit that the condition of these people is the direct result of that policy. Districts in western Canada of marginal or near-marginal land are broke as a direct result of the action of this government in protecting other industries while the farmer has to take the world price for what he has to sell.
I am not one of those who believe that the government can be Santa Claus to any class of people or any section at the expense
of any other section, but I believe that it is the duty of the government to see that the national income is so distributed that all parts of the country and all classes of our people are able to obtain their fair share and enough of the national income to purchase the medical services, educational services and social services to which all self-respecting Canadian citizens are entitled. I urge any member of this house who may think that these conditions obtain to-day to read the report of the Sirois commission or look at the payments of income tax in the Toronto and Montreal districts and compare them with income tax payments in the three western provinces, and he will soon be disillusioned.
Take, for instance, the district extending from Montreal to Windsor. It is a small portion of the whole dominion but enjoys one-half of the national income. Is it any wonder that we in other parts of Canada object? Furthermore, into this area are being crowded over 75 per cent of our new war industries. Why not give the rest of Canada an even break? Are all the private members on the government side of the house satisfied with these conditions? If not, why do they not raise their voices in protest?
One way in which the government could assist the small farmer in the west at this time and establish a more equal distribution of income is by means of the processing tax, and it could be done at no extra cost to the government. We believe that the processing tax should be raised to 50 cents a bushel. Adequate steps should be taken by the wartime prices and trade board to see that no undue rise in the price of flour or bread resulted. The money so collected should be placed in a special fund and paid to the farmer as a bonus on the first 1,000 bushels of wheat raised on each farm. It should be paid to the actual farmer, not the mortgage company, or the absentee landlord such as the present Minister of Agriculture.
Before the adjournment of parliament in August, we asked that the government declare this an emergency year so that areas with a yield, of twelve bushels or less to the acre might come under the acreage bonus scheme, and we again urge upon the government the necessity of such action being taken.
I should like to draw the attention of the government to a special condition obtaining in northeastern Saskatchewan, on account of the frost experienced there during every month last summer. Many of the settlers there have no gardens, not even potatoes.
The Address-Mr. Wright

They have a yield of from ten to twenty-five bushels of frozen wheat to the acre. I believe that in this andl similar instances where grain is frozen, any township with a yield of less than twenty bushels to the acre of frozen wheat should be included under the acreage bonus scheme; that is, twenty, fifteen and ten bushels to the acre should be the basis of participation instead of, as at present, twelve, eight and four bushels. Twenty bushels of frozen wheat is worth less to the farmer than twelve bushels of No. 1 wheat, and it costs more to harvest.
Finally, I believe that if the government will give all classes of our people and all sections of the country an equal opportunity, it will have no difficulty in floating their war loans, in obtaining recruits, and no difficulty at all in having a body of satisfied labour which will contribute 100 per cent of its energies to our war effort. But if the government fails to give equality of opportunity to all classes of our people and to all sections of this country, we are bound to have trouble.


Mr. J. A. ROSS (Souris):: The Address-Mr. Ross (Souris)
Later in his address he states:
Our present efforts must therefore concentrate on two things. We must utilize to the full all the skill, ingenuity and facilities we now possess to advance the fundamental training of all ranks now in our army in the science and art of their profession. We must also intensify our efforts towards the complete provision of the armament required by those men before they are called upon to meet the enemy in battle.
He also says, referring to the initial training period:
Firstly, the short training period enabled a larger number of young Canadians to gain a proper conception of their national obligations within a given time. Secondly, our limited supply of modern weapons made it impracticable just now to carry the individual training of these young men beyond the basic stage, and a month or six weeks of instruction was sufficient for that limited syllabus. These factors, though important at this time, are not of enduring importance and, as my minister stated the other day, consideration is being given to possible alterations in the training schedule.
It has been suggested by other speakers, and I wish to support the proposal, that the minister should extend the period of training to at least three or four months; thereby we as a nation will receive a great deal more in return for the expenditure which is required for this particular scheme. I want to make it quite plain that I am heartily in favour of the idea of a training period, but that I believe that the thirty-day system does not begin to do the job and that it is most extravagant.
I desire also to add a few remarks to those of several previous speakers concerning this matter of free transportation, especially on the occasions of the Christmas leave and the furlough of our soldiers at this time and in this country. I feel sure there was a misunderstanding yesterday when the minister was understood to have made the statement that we did not receive free transportation during the last war. I believe that the minister misapprehended what was said by a previous speaker, because he will recollect, no doubt, as well as I do, that while we were on service in Great Britain in the last war we were granted free transportation.
I want to point out that, in contrast to the last great war, when the first line of battle was in the countries of France and Belgium and the second or defensive line was in Great Britain, to-day our first line is in the British isles and our secondary line of defence is in this country, which is thus in somewhat the same situation as was Great Britain at that time. In that respect the picture is changed. Moreover, it can be said, without any breach of confidence, that the distribution of our troops in Canada to-day is vastly different 
from that of the various centres or of the army throughout Canada during the last war. Very many of our young people serving in the forces in various parts of this country to-day are at a great distance from their homes. Figures have been given by previous speakers as to the limited funds which many of these chaps, not commissioned officers, have at their disposal; and I personally know of hundreds of young people who, unless they are granted free transportation along with the Christmas leave to which they are entitled, will not be able to join their families at Christmas this year. Therefore, despite the fact that the Minister of National Defence stated that they would have to pay a oneway fare, I sincerely trust that he will reconsider that statement and will see that these many thousands of young men who have offered their all for this country, under very different conditions from those of the last war, are allowed to return home at Christmas time, or when they receive their furlough, wdth free transportation. I am sure that with the minister's past experience he wall reconsider that matter and that they will be granted that transportation free of cost.
There is another matter which has been mentioned by previous speakers. The Prime Minister announced very suddenly on the opening day that the various provincial governments would be summoned to Ottawa during January to consider the report of the Sirois commission. I would make an appeal, as suggested by my leader, that the Prime Minister go a little further. I well remember that, when this commission was being set up, it was intended to take evidence only from provincial governments. I am glad to say that this was enlarged in the instructions to the commission and that they heard representations from many fine bodies throughout this country; I have in mind particularly municipal unions and other organized bodies that did much toward the upbuilding of this country. I am happy to think that the representations of these bodies have been embodied in that report for the government's consideration, and trust that they will be implemented. I hope that the Prime Minister and the government will consider seriously inviting some of the heads of these other organizations to confer with them at that time. I know it would be a stupendous task; they could not invite all organizations who might want to be heard, but this is a most important undertaking and the consequences will be far-reaching. I am glad that this conference is going to take place, because this matter is most essential in the carrying on

The Address-Mr. Ross (Souris)
of our war effort, and we from western Canada especially are pleased that it is to take effect at this time.
As to the agreement which the Minister of Agriculture brought back from the old land, I must confess that I as a westerner was much disappointed. He told of his success in being elected in western Canada and belittled certain hon. members in connection with his election last March. It might be recalled that during that campaign there appeared a report in the press throughout western Canada to the effect that the Minister of Agriculture, along with this government, was pursuing a "middle-of-the-road" war policy. I know that he has since denied that statement, and I accept the denial, but the report was carried in the press during the election campaign without denial and it probably had some bearing on the result of that election. Moreover, despite his assertion this afternoon, he did not have a majority of electors in his constituency support him. Be that as it may, I should like to see the minister, who has a great deal of driving force, campaign in any rural riding in my province to-day, armed with these agreements which he stated had been made for the benefit of agriculture, and I venture to say that the result would be vastly different from that of March 26 last. I cannot speak so well as to his own province, but I judge the outcome would be the same in any riding in Saskatchewan, or, in fact, anywhere in .the prairies at this time. It was stated this afternoon that the producers could not be informed exactly what they would receive for these products at the present time. I am confident, however, that the packers of this country will not be working for nothing, that they will be well taken care of.
We have at present in Canada a situation where fish is going to waste in the Magdalen islands, fruit rotting in British Columbia, and we have on the prairies millions of bushels of wheat which cannot be disposed of. Surely that is not a condition to make our producers so happy as the minister suggested this afternoon they should be. Approximately half the population .of this country are directly dependent on the success of agriculture for their living, and agriculture is in a very sad plight at this time.
This evening a previous speaker referred to the methods of handling the wheat crop. I am sure no one will boast of the results of our discussions last summer on the methods of handling wheat, discussions which ran on into the days when harvesting had commenced in western Canada. An advisory committee was finally set up, on which the producers were supposed to have a majority representation. I noticed, in looking over the personnel of that
committee, the name of a man for whom I have great respect, Mr. D. G. McKenzie, listed as a producer. I do not have to remind any agriculturist that Mr. McKenzie is vicepresident of the United Grain Growers Elevator company. He is a grain trader, and his company is very well looked after, as is the grain trade as a whole in my opinion. The grain trade in this country have never enjoyed better days than they have during the last year or two through the agreement with the wheat board under this government.
I might give some examples of the favouritism which has taken place in the handling of this quota business this year.
I know of one shipping point in my riding where there are three different grain companies operating, of which the United Grain Growers is one. When the quota was raised from five to eight bushels, despite the fact that many producers in that community were not able to deliver one bushel of wheat, quite a controversy took place there. Finally an order came through from the wheat board to the United Grain Growers' buyer to ship out immediately 29.000 bushels of wheat, or approximately twenty cars. Two opposition elevator companies were not allowed one car at that time. I do not need to point out what controversy arose following that situation. That is an example of what has taken place this fall. I could give many other examples; the handling of this quota business this fall has been most unsatisfactory, and the producers have, not majority representation on that advisory committee as suggested. Mr. McKenzie is human just as you, sir, or I; after all, if we are working for our company, we ore going to do our best to see that it produces returns, and he is rightly doing so, but the producer is neglected.
I wish to support the view expressed by other speakers that at this time we are justly entitled to a full-time Minister of Agriculture. As I have said, nearly half the people of Canada are directly dependent upon agriculture for their livelihood, yet they are entirely neglected by this government, because the present incumbent of that office is also acting as Minister of National War Services, and that alone if properly done is a real job for any man, no matter how much previous experience he may have had or how good his qualifications for the job.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He does not do it; Mr. Davis does.


James Arthur Ross: I want to add my voice to those who, on behalf of agriculture, have bespoken the appointment of a fulltime Minister of Agriculture. Following that, a plan must be worked out before seeding

The Address-Mr. Ross (Souris)
time next spring for the handling of next year's crop. Let us avoid1 what happened last summer. I plead with the government as a whole and especially with the new Minister of Agriculture, whoever he may be, and the wheat committee, to bring into being before next seeding time a definite policy, so that the farmers of the west may be guided in their operations. I sincerely trust that this may be done.
I am going to suggest to the government also that earnest thought be given to a plan which might have a far-reaching effect. For some years I have thought that we must work out a soil conservation programme in western Canada. This has been done with success in other countries. I know some will object to the cost involved in any such programme, but let me state in general terms what I have in mind. Supposing you took the total cultivated area of the prairies and paid the producers $5 an acre for summerfallowing one-third of that area. That may seem to involve a tremendous amount of money, but I suggest that the cost would not be any greater than the amount paid under the acreage bonus and the guaranteed price, and certainly there would be a great improvement in farming methods. When I speak of the acreage bonus scheme, I want it understood that I am whole-heartedly in favour of some system of crop insurance, but the acreage bonus scheme has brought about a tendency towards a poorer system of farming. I do not think there can be any argument as to that; it does not tend to develop up-to-date methods. Under the conservation scheme I suggest, with one-third of the cultivated acreage in wheat, one-third in foddier crops and one-third in summer-fallow at $5 an acre, ultimately farming methods in the west will be placed on a much sounder basis and the cost would be no greater than that of the plans now in effect.
I am sorry the Minister of Agriculture is not in his place. However, I see the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) here. He is vitally concerned in this matter, and I trust that he will give serious consideration to the points I have suggested. I do not wish to take up any more of the time of the house this evening, but I did wish to make an urgent plea that a plan for handling next year's crop be drawn up and made known well in advance of seeding, so that the farmers may make definite plans for the whole season's operations of 1941.


Mr. DANIEL McIVOR (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, as far as possible I intend to follow the example set by the speech from the throne; I shall try to be brief and intelligent. First, I should like to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in his choice of hon. members both last year and this year to move and second the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Last year both the mover and the seconder belonged to this corner of the chamber; this year the seconder sits in this part of the house. So, when the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) speaks of "we on this side of the house," he is speaking of members of at least average intelligence.
I had not intended speaking at this time, and would not have done so but for the references that have been made to the land that gave me birth. I was not born in Canada, but I was bom. The country that gave me birth is a great country and I am proud of it, but to me it was not the greatest country on earth or I would have stayed there. When Venerable Archdeacon Scott and the leader of the opposition spoke of Ireland, it made me stop and wonder, but in what they said I could see at least one very fine thought. Both the reverend gentleman, for whom I have profound respect, and the leader of the opposition, who has plenty of sense, must have seen something great in our Prime Minister, or they would not have suggested that he attempt the almost impossible task of causing Mr. de Valera to agree with England.
When I think of Ireland I think of the land that has given the British empire its greatest soldiers: Lord Wellington, General Roberts, Lord Kitchener, General French and many others. So I believe that when everything is weighed in the balance, neither the north nor the south of Ireland will be found wanting. I am sure, however, that the Prime Minister has sense enough not to try to tell Mr. de Valera what is his duty and how he should do it. There are three great "eras" in Ireland, as someone has said: the stone era, the middle era, and de Valera. The first two refer to the whole of Ireland; the last, only to part of it. I would remind hon. members that before conscription was adopted in England, the north of Ireland had enlisted one hundred per cent, and that perhaps the greatest shipyard and dock in the British empire is at Belfast. No part of the British empire is more loyal than that part of Ireland from which I come, and of which I am proud, I expect that before this war is over, all Ireland will be supporting our cause, fighting for freedom for which Ireland has always struggled.

The Address-Mr. Mclvor
I should also like to congratulate the government on the way in wmch they put across national registration. I think the leader of the opposition realized the magnitude of that task when he said that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), if he could put it across successfully, would be one of Canadas great men. The hon. gentleman has not stated that the registration was not successful, so by his silence he has agreed that notwithstanding what has been said about him, the Minister of Agriculture is one of Canada's great men. That was a great task. Last session, when we were told by the minister and by Mr. Justice Davis what was to be done, we wondered how it would be possible to put it across. The minister showed his greatness in being able to get other people to cooperate with him. Members of all parties cooperated and put across this national registration in such a splendid way that even in this house we have not heard any criticism of the manner in which that work was done. I am sure most hon. members were volunteer workers in connection with the national registration. I know that some cities in western Canada paid all expenses, even down to expenses for stationery. Again I say these facts show that the man in control of the registration was not lacking in ability to get things done.
I appreciate, too, the government's action in connection with the control of prices and profits. In the city of Fort William we expected to obtain a contract for the manufacture of shells, but we were informed that we could not get it because another contractor had made a lower bid than we could make, that, too, when from the sister city of Port Arthur comes the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe).
We know, too, that rents have been controlled. I join with the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) in saying that the government would do well to look carefully into the question of rentals. Obviously, soldiers like to maintain their homes as long as possible. In Fort William the question of rentals is an important one, and some unfortunate circumstances have been disclosed.
Those of us who have stopped to remember what we had to pay for sugar during the last war, and compare that price with what we have to pay to-day, will immediately say thanks to the government for the board which has been set up to prevent unfair profits.
May I mention, in passing, that I have been most grateful for the press releases which have reached me regularly. I have read them almost as consistently as I read the Old Book, and I believe I have derived a good deal of benefit from my reading. Sometimes I read them twice, because I am a little dull. So long as those press releases are available,
it is not necessary for me to listen to cabinet ministers in the house who tell about what is being done.
Since I have come to the house I have heard criticism of the non-permanent force, and the one month's training to which it has been subjected. Again I may have to admit dullness, but I must point out that any man who has been an athlete knows that he can get into training in one month. I visited the camp at Fort William, and I must say that in no more than two days after the boys were called in they had developed to a point which surprised me. I know they took the drill and everything connected with it just as ducks take to water. Those boys are a credit to Canada. Some of the parents of the boys who have gone to the camp have said to me, "You can thank the government for at least the thirty days training."
May I at this point thank the government for increasing the pay of private soldiers from $1.10 to $1.30. I expect, as do other members, to be in a position to thank the government for giving the soldiers in the lower ranks free transportation during the Christmas holidays and during the leaves to which the hon. member for Vancouver North referred.
In Fort William we have some problems of our own. I hope the government will not cancel their housing scheme, and that they have not made plans to curtail it. I say that because one of our greatest problems in Fort William and Port Arthur is that of housing. During the years of depression people could not build houses, and the result is that we now have a great scarcity. Possibly we should not talk about ourselves, but if we do not, nobody else will. I feel, however, that I must take this opportunity to congratulate the Canadian Car and Foundry company of Fort William. Sometimes we gain the impression that a big corporation has not a heart, but I believe that cannot be said about the one of which I am now speaking. The company in question had a factory in Fort William which had been idle for a long time, and on which taxes amounting to about $25,000 were levied each year. I received word that the plant would open its doors, provided the city would for a certain period of time permit a reduction in taxation. It was stated that if the taxation was not reduced, the plant would be demolished.
What happened? Fort William adopted the wise procedure and permitted the reduction of taxation in 1937. That was at a time when there were rumblings of war, of course, but also at a time when money was very scarce. The company experienced the difficulty of not being able to obtain the right to make modem aeroplanes. But they went into business and built forty aeroplanes of
12S
The Address-Mr. Mclvor

the Grumman type, one which is now obsolete. I believe they still have some of those machines. They experienced a difficulty, not through any fault of the dominion government, but because those who controlled the rights to make the later models were pledged either to France or to England. Later, the plant obtained the right to build the Hurricane machine, and we are proud of the way in which the plant is turning out the work. At this time they are employing almost 3,000 men, and one could walk through their plant and not be noticed. We are proud that no notice is taken, because we realize that the men are intent on their work and are not interested in what is taking place around them.
The city of Fort William in Canada is cooperating with a city bearing a similar name in Scotland. I am not Scotch, but because of my name some people think I am. I have one drop of Scotch in me, and one drop is enough. Fort William in Canada is cooperating with Fort William in Scotland for the purchase of an aeroplane of the Spitfire type. The Canadian city is acting in a most unselfish way by permitting the city in Scotland to choose the plane to be presented to the government in England. Of course I should prefer to see it presented to the dominion government, but I realize we are all one family, and if it goes to England it will be just as useful. I make these observations in the hope that they may serve as a cue for some other towns or cities in Canada the names of which have their origin in the old land.
This year I have deeply appreciated the work of the opposition groups. I hope they will tear into the government and attempt to show what has been done. I say that because when they lay open the deeds of this government, it always looks better after than it did before. We realize, of course, that hon, members in the opposition groups are capable men.
This afternoon in listening to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) I felt a sense of pride, and my mind was carried back to the days when we played on the same football team and he was in shape to score on the opponent's goal. I must say he found the goal to-day, so far as I was concerned, because I was delighted with the description he gave of the work his department is doing. Anyone who wishes to assume the office of minister of agriculture in Canada will have to go some, if he intends to excel the efforts of the present minister. His picture of London is firsthand information which comes to us from a man of intelligence, a picture which told

a clear story, and we were deeply impressed. We in Canada are apt to feel that we are not at war. We have better times than ever. But we should get at our job in such a way as to say to old England, we are with you and will be with you until the last.
I appreciate the tribute which was paid to the late Mr. Chamberlain by the Prime Minister and the other leaders on this side of the house. It is said that Mr. Chamberlain failed because he practised Christianity. But he did not fail. It is true that he held out one cheek and then held out the other, but we must not forget the words of the great leader who said that there comes a time when you cannot cast your pearls before swine. Another thing we appreciate is the cooperation on the part of our Prime Minister with England and the United States in providing common bases for our ships and aeroplanes.
Hon. members will probably expect me to deal more with the real side of life than with the economic and military, than with the machine guns, aeroplanes and ships. We all heard the broadcast by our king when he asked for a national day of prayer. I am sure that the men and women of Canada were sincere in their petition that the cause of the allies be victorious. We were fighting a cause which was not narrow nationalism, but for the good of the whole world. After that day of prayer had passed, we had the fall of Dunkirk and the miraculous evacuation of our soldiers from France. Why was it that Hitler was blinded and did not see his opportunity to attack England, which no doubt he could have done more easily at that time than at any time afterwards? Then I think of Roumania. What aeroplanes or shells could have caused . the recent devastation in Roumania? To me it is nothing short of an act of providence, and we should give thanks.
I appreciated the words of the Prime Minister when he said:
What is necessary then to win the present conflict? It is to put on the whole armour of God.
I think also of the words of an outstanding statement from the same Old Book which said that we should train the boy in the way he should go and then when he is older he will not depart from that way. I think we all were proud of our Prime Minister when he said in his closing remarks:
In equal measure, however, we must strive throughout the struggle itself, and more than ever when the evil dragon of nazism is slain, to see that never again, in our own or in any other land, shall the gods of material power, of worldly possessions and of special privilege

The Address-Mr. Brunelle
be permitted to exercise their sway. Never again must we allow any man or any group of men to subjugate by fear and to crush by the power of might the spirit and the lives of honest and humble men.
If we put forth our best efforts, I know we will win this war and then there will be peace and good-will among men.


Mr. H. E. BRUNELLE (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I should first like to congratulate the hon. members who moved and seconded the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I particularly want to congratulate the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Claxton) upon the kind words he had for the people of my race and the tribute he paid to their loyalty. In a few moments I intend to refer to this particular subject. The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) said some nice things about the Irish and the loyalty of the people of Ireland. The other day the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) referred to the loyalty of our people. These references must be contagious, for I intend to say something about the loyalty of the people of my province.
I have listened with great interest to the criticism of hon. members who sit to my left. One who was not aware of what Canada is doing in the present war, one who was being informed only by the speeches of the opposition, could not avoid getting the impression that this country is almost indifferent to the present world situation, or was doing too little in comparison with what it should or could do. The millions of dollars being spent daily, the amazing military activities that we see about us, the men in uniform who are evident wherever we happen to look, the enormous *quantities of munitions produced at such a rate and of such a quality that people from other countries cannot avoid being surprised and express their admiration, all seem to be insufficient or unknown to some of our own people. Be that as it may, it is pleasant to know that facts speak louder than words.
The mass of our people are satisfied with our war effort. In this regard my opinion is different from that of the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) who spoke this evening. One reassuring aspect of our war effort is that peace and harmony are being maintained among our people at a time when enormous sacrifices in men and money are being made. Some people seem to think that any war *effort to help to settle the world's turmoil should be accompanied by turmoil and *trouble at home. Apparently Canada is doing more in the present war than she did from 1914 to 1918, and yet we are enjoying peace. There is general approval of this policy, *whereas in 1914 there was dissatisfaction to
an extent that threatened the destruction of our national unity. This is a fact which speaks louder than all the loud criticism of the opposition. In my opinion the first duty and responsibility of a government when legislating to meet a great emergency is to maintain harmony among the people. If we consider the composition of our population, the present government and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) deserve the highest praise for piloting the ship of state with so much success during these troubled days.
Let us all refrain from generalities. Let us know exactly what is being done in connection with our various activities. I do not profess to be able to describe the whole accomplishment of the government. In order to be accurate I judge of that accomplishment by a few of our war enterprises of which I know personally.
I refer in particular to the establishment of the elementary flying school in the city of Cap de la Madeleine which lies within my constituency. The contract for the building of the school was let late this summer. The land had to be acquired and levelled and made ready for a flying school. Ten large buildings had to be put up and made comfortable for accommodating instructors, pupils and officers. Yet within two months the whole work had been practically completed and the school has had about fifty pupils in training now for nearly one month. I do not hesitate to say that if the government is proceeding with the same celerity and efficiency in other spheres as it did in the case of the flying school at Cap de la Madeleine, it is doing all that it is humanly possible to do, and the *criticism and complaints and charges of inefficiency made by the opposition are unwarranted and unfair. Such charges are not conducive to a good understanding among the Canadian people who are ready and willing to make the greatest of sacrifices.
Preparations for home defence could not have been undertaken more promptly and more effectively in a country like Canada that was unprepared for war. At any rate our country was not supposed to be any better prepared for war than France, Belgium and Great Britain, and yet since the outbreak of war we have proceeded just as fast in our war effort as any of those countries. About 95 per cent of the development work on airports required to train our pilots under the British commonwealth air training plan has been completed in less than half the time it was scheduled to take. Labourers, engineers and contractors are working night and day.
Our military legislation, on the other hand, has been just as wise and effective as our

The Address-Mr. Brunelle

material preparations. To ask more, to ask, for instance, for same form of conscription such as we had in 1917, would be to ask for unnecessary and dangerous legislation of ill repute.
When the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson), who I am sorry is not in his seat, stated in a speech at Charlottetown that Canada was not doing her share and that conscription for overseas service alone would show the full measure of our effort, he was mistaken. Those were about his words. In fact, we need material more than men, and above all whatever we do must be compatible with the reasonable disposition of all classes of our people and must be of such a nature as to maintain peace and harmony within our own land. We all want to win this war in order that we may have peace in the world, but I think we must maintain harmony at home first.
And now, sir, I must reluctantly speak of loyalty myself. We are all loyal and anxious to win this war. The leader of the opposition, with his loyalist descent, is as good as but no better than the rest of us. I hope that is not showing him any disrespect. But I think it is time that we should cease to question a person's loyalty, that we should cease to suspect or qualify the loyalty of any portion of our population. We should take it for granted that we are all loyal to the crown, as in fact we all are.
Furthermore, when the leader of the opposition stated at Charlottetown that " the people of Quebec, if properly guided, are just as loyal to the British crown as any other section of our people," he expressed an insult to myself, to my people and to my province. There is no " if " about our loyalty. Under all circumstances, Mr. Speaker, we were, we are and we shall be loyal, and our loyalty is no more subject to a condition than the loyalty of the leader of the opposition or of those who think as he does. Our school children in Quebec sing " God save the King " without any compulsion. They sing it with sincerity, ardour and enthusiasm. When one has done his duty, he should be satisfied and not worry about what others will do, about whether they will do their duty as well as he does his. Those who publicly proclaim their loyalty, sincerity and other virtues, are not in these troublous days much different from those who, as reported in the Holy Book, thanked the Lord that they were better than the rest of the world.
The Prime Minister and his government have shown vision and wisdom in their legislation. Our conscription law, for instance, for home defence, has the hearty approval of all. Every detail of that law is suitable and most

acceptable. Our young men are examined by their own family doctor, and that gives them confidence. There are no exemptions, and that adds to their confidence because the rich as well as the poor, the influential as well as the unknown, must all comply equally with the law.
In conclusion, sir, may I say that the electors of my constituency for some time before and during the last great war were represented in this house by a most brilliant nationalist, and they heard from him declamations and declarations as to war legislation. My electors had the unique privilege of hearing both sides of the question expounded to them by that same man, and I say to this house that my electors who have had some experience of war legislation are not complaining to-day that this government is not going fast enough or is not going far enough in its war measures. They highly admire the sincerity, wisdom and pure patriotism of the Prime Minister of Canada.
On motion of Mr. Ralston the debate was adj ourned.
On motion of Mr. Crerar the house adjourned at 10 p.m.
Friday, November 15, 1940.