SUSPENSION OF SPECIAL ORDER, TO PROCEED ON MONDAY WITH CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS RESPECTING WAR EFFORT

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Finance (Mr. Usley) has a resolution or two which he would like to introduce on Monday next. The resolutions have to do with Canada's war effort, and I should therefore like now to move:
That on Monday next consideration of the special order relative to the debate on the address to His Excellency be suspended until the house has proceeded with and completed procedure in respect of certain resolutions to be introduced by the Minister of Finance.
This resolution, if accepted, will enable the minister to introduce his resolutions on Monday and, if favourably received by the house, to have them disposed of before the debate on the address is concluded.


Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition) :: 
William Lyon Mackenzie King: All that can be said at the moment about the resolutions is that they relate to trade and taxation. I fully expected that hon. gentlemen opposite and other members of the house might wish after the resolutions were introduced, to have an opportunity of carefully considering them before beginning to discuss them, in which event I had in mind asking the house to agree during an interval to continue with the debate on the address.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That
might be just as satisfactory.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I believe matters would work out satisfactorily in that way. I understand that it is the intention of the Minister of Finance to have the resolutions referred to the committee of ways and means. As the house is aware, the committee of ways and means and the committee of supply have not yet been set up. Standing order 57 provides that the first proceeding after the address has been agreed to is to appoint the two committees of the whole house, the one of supply and the other of ways and means. The standing order reads:
The house shall appoint the committees of supply, and ways and means, at the commencement of every session, so soon as an address has been agreed to, in answer to His Excellency's speech.
If the resolutions are to be referred to the committee of ways and means, before the debate on the address is concluded it will be necessary to suspend that rule.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

['Someone says, "Cut out\nthe middleman." I do not entirely agree with that. But I do say, "Cut out the exorbitant profit being paid to somebody." Let us consider the price of pork, or the price of almost any other product the farmer has for sale in the fall of the year. Let us compare the price he receives with the one the middleman receives in the spring, and we soon realize who makes the profit. When the farmer offers a product for sale, the price is low; when that same product is offered for sale by the middleman, the price is high. Certainly our government could do much on behalf of our agriculturists in that regard.\nWhat has arisen from this neglect of the farmer? The last offer of bonds showed that the farmer was incapable of buying them. He\nhad no money to buy them. He cannot hire help, for two reasons, namely, that he cannot pay the salary, and could not secure the men even if he could afford the salary. He is incapable of producing a quality product because he cannot afford to pay for the necessary finishing feeds.\nI do not wish to delay the house longer, but it is my firm conviction that one of the best ways of sponsoring our war effort is that of building up the foundation industry of our country, that of assisting the agriculturist first, last and always. Our government could well afford to offer some leadership and show some activity in that regard, rather than spend the whole of its time on the letting of contracts to big industrial concerns.\nOn motion of Mr. Golding the debate was adjourned.\nOn motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 5.58 p.m.\nMonday, December 2, 1940.']
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hon. members will have observed that I had placed on yesterday's votes and proceedings notice to suspend standing order 57 in regard to the establishment of a committee of supply and a committee of ways and means. I would therefore, with the consent of the house, move:
That this house will, at its next sitting, resolve itself into a committee to consider o<
War Materials-Saskatchewan

a supply to be granted to his majesty, and that standing order 57 in relation thereto be suspended.
I shall introduce later a similar motion with respect to a committee of ways and means. Both committees will then be established.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
["Hon. members will have observed that I had placed on yesterday's votes and proceedings notice to suspend standing order 57 in regard to the establishment of a committee of supply and a committee of ways and means. I would therefore, with the consent of the house, move:\nThat this house will, at its next sitting, resolve itself into a committee to consider o<\nWar Materials-Saskatchewan", 'a supply to be granted to his majesty, and that standing order 57 in relation thereto be suspended.\nI shall introduce later a similar motion with respect to a committee of ways and means. Both committees will then be established.']
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
I beg leave to propose a similar motion with respect to a committee of ways and means:
That this house will, at its next sitting, resolve itself into a committee to consider the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to his majesty, and that standing order 57 in relation thereto be suspended.
, Motion agreed to.



Mr. W. H. GOLDING (Huron-Perth):: With the unanimous consent of the house, I move:
That the first report of the standing committee on standing orders, presented yesterday, be now concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: t should like to direct a question to the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe). The Regina Leader-Post of November 27 carried a news item to the effect that the government intended to establish in the near future a large war industry in the province of Saskatchewan, and indicated that a decision had been made in that regard. Is the minister prepared to advise the house whether the report is in accordance with the facts, and if so, whether a decision has been arrived at as to where this industry is to be located, and when the work will begin?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: I have no knowledge of the subject matter of my hon. friend's question. In saying that, I should also say that it is quite possible that some of our officers are examining as to a location in that province, although I have no information that they are. But any statement that anything definite has been determined is premature, because if a definite proposal had been arrived at I would certainly have heard of it.


ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE
[Stage Direction]
CLOSING OF RECRUITING OFFICE AT FORT WILLIAM [DOT]-CHANGE IN RECRUITING POLICY
On the orders of the day:
Mr. DANIEL McIVOR (Fort William):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power). I have before me an editorial which appeared in the Times-Journal, of Fort William, stating that the recruiting office for the air force has been closed at the head of the lakes and the official removed to Winnipeg. As this office serves two large and live cities, many towns and villages and a large district around, I should like to know if it is not possible to have this office kept open. I am not suggesting that the Winnipeg officials be moved to the head of the lakes. But may I ask why this office was closed, and how will the district be now served?


Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of National Defence for Air):: My hon. friend was good enough to give me notice of this question. What is involved is simply a change in recruiting policy, whereby, instead of asking prospective recruits to come into our offices, we will go out to get them.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a change.


Charles Gavan Power: We propose now that in certain districts our officers shall travel through the towns and villages in the area adjacent to the former recruiting offices and see the people anxious to join rather than have us wait for them to make application for the Royal Canadian Air Force. Amongst the centres which are being closed are Fort William, Niagara Falls and Kingston. Later, as the policy develops, possibly more will be closed.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Thank you.


COMMANDER CHARLES BEARD
[Stage Direction]
QUESTION OF RETIREMENT OF FORMER OFFICER in charge of the Prince Robert
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale):: May I ask the Minister of Natifinal Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald) a question? A good deal of controversy has arisen in the press and elsewhere regarding the " beaching " of Commander Charles Beard, who was in charge of the Canadian ship Prince Robert when it captured a German freighter off the coast of Mexico. If there is some reason for such action and an investigation has been held, is the minister prepared to tell the house and the country the result of that investigation?

Commander Charles Beard
Hon. ANGUS L. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence for Naval Services): Mr. Speaker, I am glad that my hon. friend has asked the question; he gave me notice of it just a few minutes before the house assembled.
I understand that there has been some discussion in the papers on the Pacific coast and- more recently-in papers in other parts of Canada as to the causes of Commander Beard's retirement on sick leave. I will endeavour to give my hon. friend the story as best I have been able to assemble it in the short time since I received notice of his question.
In the first place, Commander Beard was retired from the Royal Canadian Navy in April, 1939, some months before the outbreak of war. He was retired as being in category E, and the medical examination at that time disclosed that, while his general physical condition was good, he was suffering from slight cardiac hypertrophy and elevation of blood pressure, wThich was 200-104, and some rigidity of the lumbar spine. The rigidity of the spine was due, I believe, to an accident which Commander Beard suffered while serving in the Mediterranean in 1920. While in charge of a bathing party, in diving from the deck of a ship he was injured, and that injury still persists. So, in April, 1939, we have him retired on the report of a medical officer who at that time classified him as category E.
In May, 1939, a board was held at Esqui-malt to determine whether his injury was due to active service, and that board, after looking at the medical history, offered its opinion that the injury was due to active service. In the same month there was some discussion as to whether Commander Beard would be eligible for pension. That went on for some time. I should like to quote now what Captain Pace, of the Royal Canadian Army Medical Corps, testified as to Beard's condition in May, 1939. He said there was: first, hypertrophic changes in the vertebral column, more particularly in the cervical region of the fourth and fifth lumbar vertebrae, and second, arteriosclerosis.
Then there was some discussion as to whether the injuries were due to war services. Captain Pace said that such injuries to the lumbar vertebrae might have been caused by diving; that the arteriosclerosis was trophic change, due probably to his years, and that the strain of his duties as a naval officer would probably tend to advance the arteriosclerotic condition. That is the evidence of Captain Pace of the Royal Canadian Army Medical Corps in May, 1939.
In November, 1939, Commander Beard, war having broken out, was taken back into1 the naval service and placed on duty with; convoy ships proceeding to England. Later he was placed in charge of the Prince Robert and took that ship to sea on her first voyage after reconditioning into a merchant cruiser. From then on, the story runs somewhat like this. The medical officer on the ship >
expressed the opinion, from his observations-of the commander, that arteriosclerotic changes had taken place, that they were serious, and that the commander was suffering from a moderate degree of hypertension! He recommended that some steps be taken at once to establish Commander Beard's physical fitness for service. This is another medical naval officer.
Then another surgeon, Surgeon Commander Johnstone, senior naval medical officer on: the Pacific coast, looked into the matter,, agreed with the surgeon on the ship, and. said that he thought Commander Beard was unfit for further naval service owing to these ailments. That was early in October. Following that, a board was held, at Esquimalt barracks on October 23. Two officers sat there to determine whether Commander Beard had a disability, whether it was attributable or not attributable to service. That board came to the conclusion that Commander Beard's injury was attributable to service in the Royal Canadian Navy.
Finally I will quote the opinion of independent doctors at St. Joseph's hospital, Victoria, where Commander Beard went shortly after he was allowed to leave the ship on sick leave. Stuart Kenning, M.D., St. Joseph's hospital, says that Commander Beard showed the following symptoms: Bradycardia; left venticular preponderance, and evidence of myocardial changes as due to coronary changes, and possible coronary thrombosis.
I understand that the report is being circulated on the Pacific coast that the doctors at St. Joseph's -hospital have given Commander Beard a clean bill of health. My advice from our doctors here, taking the report of the doctor at St. Joseph's hospital, is that it is quite evident that Commander Beard is not a well man. That is the independent view of a doctor in the hospital at Victoria, who has been cited, on that coast and elsewhere, as having given Commander Beard a clean bill of health. Evidence is on file from several doctors, beginning as far back as April, 1939. The evidence was reviewed by other doctors, and its goes to show that Commander Beard, unfortunately, suffers from high blood pressure and other ailments resulting from that condition.
The Address-Mr. Gladstone

The opinion is all one way. It is regretted that things are as they are. Commander Beard took the ship out and, as has been pointed out, did a smart piece of work; but I am afraid, if I may venture my opinion as a layman, that the strain of commanding a ship in war time, to a man in Commander Beard's condition, is simply too much and that for his own sake he should not be put in that position, not to speak of course of the officers and men who have to serve under him.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I thank the minister for
his explanation. As a professional man I concur in the view he has expressed.


GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, November 28, 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.
Mr. R. W. GLADSTONE (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I have chosen the
supremacy of parliament as the theme of my remarks this afternoon. That is the issue that is fundamental in the great struggle in which we are engaged as a nation.
Regimentation is the antithesis of freedom. Situations are rampant in enemy countries, beside which the great disaster portrayed in Tennyson's "Charge of the Light Brigade" pales into insignificance.
'Forward, the Light Brigade!'
Was there a man dismay'd?
Not tho' the soldier knew Some one had blunder'd:
Their's not to make reply,
Their's not to reason why,
Their's but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death Rode the six hundred.
Regimentation in the armies of democracies has been reduced to the necessary discipline. More and more in modern warfare is individual initiative coming to be of paramount importance. True it is that formations must be maintained in air attacks, in tank offensives and in mechanical transport advances, but in the crucial moments pilots and operators must think and act on their own. So it is in democratic government. Party alignments represent certain definite views on such subjects as production and consumption, trade, finance, internal and external relations, and so on. Solidarity is maintained through harmonizing views and interests, by methods of 
give and take. At all times there is freedom to the individual member to vote according to his best judgment. That is the situation in this parliament of Canada. Canadians have not been and will not be regimented. That is why I have made bold to place on the order paper a resolution for discussion by parliament which reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to the matter of continuous participation by additional members of parliament in the responsibility of directing our war effort and of planning an after the war program for Canada.
My purpose to-day will be to lay the foundation for a discussion on the resolution which I am proposing.
I have secured from the Department of External Affairs a table of the personnel of his majesty's government formed by the Right Hon. Winston Churchill in May, 1940, with the changes of October 31, 1940. I believe this contains valuable information for hon. members, and with the permission of the house I desire to have it placed on Hansard.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would not wish in any way to restrict the latitude tr be given my hon. friend; I am only too desirous of his being afforded the widest latitude. I think however it is important for me to point out that my hon. friend is now debating a resolution which is on the order paper; according to his own words he is laying the foundation for continued debate with respect to that resolution. Speaking on the supremacy of parliament he probably knows that to preserve that supremacy no hon. member in a debate may discuss a resolution that is on the order paper except at the time the resolution itself is being discussed. My hon. friend's statement, if I understood him aright, was that his speech would be in relation to his resolution. If that be the case I am afraid it would be out of order. I mention this only in case subsequently some other hon. member may feel he has a right to take the same method of debating resolutions in the course of the debate on the address.
I should not like it to be thought or said that I had permitted to one of my own loyal supporters a course or proceeding which I was denying to others.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Of course the Prime Minister's point is well taken. I am sorry, as he is, to seem to restrict discussion in any way, but rules are rules, and I am afraid we are observing them too often in the breach. We ought to agree to observe the rules. It is the only orderly way to conduct the proceedings of parliament.

The Address-Mr. Gladstone


Robert William Gladstone: I desire to keep myself within the rules, and I think it will be found as my speech develops that I shall make some constructive suggestions, offer some criticism in places, and that as a whole my remarks will be of assistance in promoting the efficiency of. the administration of parliament.
In view of the objection taken I will pass over one item, which however I think would scarcely have been objectionable. May I be permitted to indicate the extent to which members of parliament participate in the administration in the British houses of parliament? They have a war cabinet of eight members. The ministers number twenty-eight, the parliamentary secretaries twenty-nine; that is, there is a total of sixty-five members of the British ministry. Canada has eighteen cabinet ministers. Ontario has fourteen cabinet ministers, of which two are without portfolio but with salaries. Quebec has fourteen cabinet ministers, of whom eight are ministers without portfolio but with salaries in addition to indemnity.
Let me discuss now the organization that is directing our war effort in Canada. I shall do so under two headings: (1) the cabinet, and (2) the non-cabinet.
Canada is fortunate to-day in having a strong cabinet. Each department of the government is presided over by an able administrator. I shall not have time to speak of the qualifications and work of each minister, but I should like to pay tribute to a few of our ministers who are occupying key positions.
First, the Prime Minister. It is a matter of the utmost satisfaction that we have as our national leader one who has in a large way the confidence of the people of Canada, the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King. He brings to the situation long experience, reliable judgment, and a discernment of trends-shall I say a psychic sense?-that enables him to do the right thing at the right time. Things do not happen by chance with the present Prime Minister; they are well planned, perhaps long planned, and invariably sound.
The Minister of Justice. Here again Canada has reason for great thanks for our fine Canadian Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) -justice administered by a just man. Difficult situations are dealt with in a broadminded spirit, leniently if possible but with the firmness that is imperative in time of war. The Minister of Justice is one of the coordinators of the two races, held in high esteem by Canadians of English ancestry. I am sure the Prime Minister will not mind, having regard to the limitations of his unmarried status, if I say that the Minister of Justice is the most loved man in Canadian public life.
What a triumvirate we have here in Ralston, Power and Macdonald-names that spell ability and reliability; Ralston, the soldier, the lawyer, the business man, the organizer, keen minded and kind hearted; Power, the man who will brush aside red tape and get things done. Here we have men who will face up to Hitler and Goering, with fista clenched, and smite them between the eyes. Then how can I do justice to the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe)? To me he seems to have been trained for years for the great emergency of to-day-a skilled engineer, an experienced executive, quiet working and genial. In the last war there was not a man his equal connected with munitions. I might go on and tell of the high qualities of other ministers, but time will not permit. If there be weakness to-day who will say it is to be found in lack of patriotism? If there be weakness to-day who will say that there exist selfish or dishonest purposes? If there be weakness it must be due to an organization which is inadequate to meet the colossal demands.
This brings me to a consideration of the non-cabinet organization. During recent months I have gone about the city from department to department, and I am sure any person who does this must be impressed with the tremendous organization that has been created in many governmental departments. According to reports that have been tabled there has been an increase of some five thousand in the number of persons employed by the government in Ottawa since the beginning of the war, so that now we have some 16,500 persons in the service of the government in this city. It does seem to me that the task of supervising an organization consisting of 16.500 people is a very great undertaking for a cabinet consisting of eighteen ministers. In some ways, and I believe many hon. members feel as I do, it seems like the tail wagging the dog. As I go along the streets I see hundreds of people going to and from work. Just how appointments to these positions have been made, private members do not know, but the feeling is that these are not political appointments, that if there has been anything in the way of pull in connection with the appointments it has been personal rather than political.
A question was placed on the order paper concerning the appointment of a gentleman who happened to be a defeated Liberal candidate. The hon. member who asked that question in all fairness might have asked at the same time with regard to the appointment of other defeated candidates. I believe there
The Address-Mr. Gladstone

are four defeated candidates in the service of the government to-day, two being former Liberals, one a Conservative and one a member of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party. This seems to be a fair distribution.
We have listened to exhaustive reports by various ministers concerning our achievements in this war. Many speeches have been made, some of praise and some of moderate criticism. Taking the debate as a whole it seems to have been exceedingly difficult to find any vulnerable point to attack on the government's record. One of the great achievements that will be mentioned when the history of this administration is written is the establishment of price control, the benefit of which is being realized more and more as the war progresses and which will be of great value in adjusting the situation at the conclusion of the war. The basis of letting contracts is such that it would seem impossible for large profits to be made. Tenders are awarded on a price basis, and, so far as one can ascertain, high prices are not being paid for war materials. The total results so far in connection with our war effort represent a distinct achievement, and indicate very efficient handling of such a colossal enterprise.
Suggestions have been made for strengthening the administration. I should like to advance three suggestions, and in doing so I hope I will not intrude too much upon the resolution to which reference has been made already.
First I would suggest the creation of a department under a head to be known by some such name as Promoter of Economies;
* second, the establishment of an inner council both in war and in peace; and, third, the creation of parliamentary secretaries.
During the years I have been in parliament my speeches have been few, and those speeches have been directed toward improve-ing the efficiency of government and lowering its cost. The first time I spoke I made reference to the form in which the estimates for the expenditure of money were presented to parliament. On that occasion I received a great deal of help in the surveys I made of the different departments, particularly from Mr. Watson Sellar, at that time comptroller of the treasury and now auditor general. I am glad to note that following the improvement of methods a few years ago of presenting the estimates to parliament, there comes this year a corresponding improvement in the presentation of the auditor general's report.
I suggest that a small expenditure of money,

possibly of only $30,000 in a department in connection with the services of a man who could be known as Promoter of Economies, would save to this country at least a million dollars a year. Of course such a man would not be popular-perhaps no more popular than a certain small animal which on occasions intrudes at garden parties. Later however he would be recognized as the friend of efficient employees, and would help lift them out of ruts into better positions. What a useful buffer a person of this type in a position of the kind suggested would be for the government when it was endeavouring to turn down needless expenditures of money.
I should like to make some observations in connection with the formation of an inner council both in war time and in peace time. I am sure it is recognized that a large cabinet is unwieldy, and that it is a distinct advantage, in connection with many matters which may arise, to have consideration and action carried out, so far as possible, by a small group of men. It does seem to me that a prime minister in such an inner council could gather about him some of the best men of the administration. These men should be given the time to have their desks cleared so that they would be in a position to meet members and deputations, and even to go about the country making close contact with the people and learning about living conditions. With their freedom of action these men could function as acting ministers on occasions when ministers found it necessary to be absent.
I should like to make one or two observations respecting parliamentary secretaries. May I be permitted to say there is one weakness in connection with the present system, and that weakness I shall now discuss. When a minister shifts from one department to another it is the practice that his private secretary accompanies him. During his service in the department in which he first served, the private secretary would undoubtedly build up a knowledge of the department and of the people connected with it. In making a transfer to another department this entire experience and knowledge is lost. It would be a distinct advantage if the private secretary, or, in substitution therefor, a parliamentary secretary, could remain in the department in order that there might be an opportunity of his gaining a full knowledge of the affairs of that department, to the great benefit of any minister who might come from another department. In his duties both in and outside the house the assistance of a parliamentary secretary would on many occasions be of great value to a minister.

The Address-Mr. Hansell
It is inevitable that in huge organizations, such as that which has been built up in the Department of Munitions and Supply, persons not associated with parliament will at times endeavour to extend favours to friends. This is something it is difficult to guard against, but for which the government must take responsibility.
The hazard of overwork on the part of the ministers is another very important consideration. We can be grateful that that has not happened too frequently in Canada, but I am sure all will agree that every precaution should be taken to preserve the health of the splendid men we have in the administration, so that particularly during these strenuous days there may be no interruptions.
Some times we have heard complaints from hon. members respecting the difficulty about seeing ministers. This complaint, however, I do not regard as serious. I am sure that the ministers are desirous so far as possible of seeing hon. members, and that, despite the heavy load the ministers are carrying, they extend to hon. members every courtesy. Apropos of the difficulty of obtaining an interview, one person has said-and I give this knowdng it to be an exaggeration-"One has to ask the clerk to ask the minister's assistant private secretary to ask the private secretary to ask the minister for an interview."
I wish again to emphasize how very fortunate it is at this time that the direction of the country's affairs is in the hands of one so sound and so skilful in planning as is the Prime Minister of Canada. It seems to me the one great achievement which stands out above all others is the relationship brought about between Canada and the United States under the agreement consummated at Ogdens-burg. These better relations and this feeling of good neighbourliness have not arisen by chance. They have come about through deliberate policies looking to the cultivation of extended trade, and, in various ways, to promoting good feeling between the two countries. What a wonderful achievement it has been becomes more apparent from day to day as we witness the contribution which in one way or another is being made by the United States to the nations within the British commonwealth in order to help them in their great struggle against the totalitarian powers in Europe.
I have in my hand a booklet-the annual publication of the Colonel John McCrae Memorial Branch of the Canadian Legion. My home city of Guelph, in the county of Wellington, was the birthplace of Doctor John McCrae. On one page of this booklet I find
a picture of two soldiers of the present war who are looking at a plaque which bears the words:
Birthplace of Lieutenant-Colonel John McCrae, doctor, soldier, poet: 1872-1918.
On another page there is a picture of John McCrae and Bonneau, his dog, in Flanders. Let me try to give a picture of what I saw at the Remembrance day service on Sunday, November 10, at the Capitol theatre in Guelph.
As the curtain rises a lighted cross appears in the centre of the dark background bearing the words " Lest We Forget." To the left of the cross are the grass-covered mounds of two graves. By the side of one of them is one of our charming young girls, Miss Gray, a daughter of the immediate past president, Mr. Leslie W. Gray. Miss Gray is kneeling beside the grave, placing poppies on it. Two soldiers of the present war come in, representing the army and the air force. One of them speaks to the young lady in French, and she answers, " I am British. This is British soil. This soil is dedicated to Canada as a memorial to the Canadian soldiers who fought in the last great war. This is the grave of Colonel John McCrae."
Then two soldiers of the last great war- the fathers of the two soldiers of the present war-come in at the left, one bearing a lighted torch, which in the course of the ceremony he hands to his son, one of the soldiers of the present war. Then the young lady stands up and recites the famous poem written by Colonel John McCrae, "In Flanders' Fields":
In Flanders' fields the poppies blow Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place, and in the sky The larks still singing bravely fly,
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the dead. Short days ago We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow, Loved and were loved, and now we lie In Flanders' fields.
Fellow members of parliament, the torch is handed to us now to carry on as best we may in the great struggle in which the nation is engaged. May God in heaven give us strength to be equal to our great trust and responsibility.


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in this debate I cannot help expressing my disappointment at the apparent lack of enthusiasm which has characterized this debate since it began. Several members have commented to me in the corridors that interest in the debate seems to be lacking, that the debate is listless, a bit dull, devoid of enthusiasm. Perhaps I shall not add very much enthusiasm to it. I do
The Address

Mr. Hansell

not altogether blame hon. members. I rather think it is the result of a sort of hush-hush policy which seems to characterize the present administration, and which I think indicates the wisdom of the amendment moved by the opposition with regard to the government's efforts to soothe the Canadian people and create a false sense of security.
Members of parliament are not immune to being soothed. There was an occasion during the present debate when I counted the number of members present. I found that there were only sixteen Liberal members in the chamber, with one cabinet minister. I recognize of course that the cabinet ministers are exceptionally busy men and that because of that we have excused them from constant attendance in the chamber. Nevertheless there were only sixteen Liberals present, and twenty-one opposition members, and at the particular time when I counted them the leader of every opposition group was present.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Who was speaking at the time?


Ernest George Hansell: I will tell the hon.
Minister of Justice who was speaking at the time, but before mentioning him I suggest that he is one of the ablest speakers we have in the house to-day. It was the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas). I am not saying that there have not been powerful speeches made in this debate; I know there have been. But I am saying that there is a danger of this house drifting into what the Hon. Leslie Hore-Belisha described recently in speaking of the British house as a " decline in parliamentary vitality."
Moving from the House of Commons to the realm of the Canadian people, I think I can say that the hush-hush policy is having its effect upon the public too. We live in what is supposed to be a democratic country, where we boast of our democratic rights, our liberties and our freedom. I am not belittling these things. I am glad indeed to be a freeborn citizen of a democratic empire. But speaking of political democracy may I say that it appears to me at least that the rights of a democratic people end with the ballot box. Oh yes, we urge our people to go to the polls and vote. We even spend a lot of money in getting cars to transport the voters from their homes to the polls, and sometimes on the way there we tell them how to vote.


Mr. BRADETTE:: Speak for yourself.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: He is speaking generally for the Liberal party.


Ernest George Hansell: After they have put their ballots in the ballot boxes, the impression gained throughout the country is that they must say no more.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Page Alberta.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: The Liberals in Alberta.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The Social Crediters in Alberta.


John Horne Blackmore: They have not got the money.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The Liberals are not
in power in Alberta.


Charles Edward Johnston: But they certainly are in Canada.


Ernest George Hansell: Let me say here that we of this group most sincerely believe that every fifth columnist, every person who makes utterances designed to cause disaffection to his majesty, every person who influences men against enlistment, should be punished. But I add that in a democracy men should be free, absolutely free, to criticize a government in truth and soberness when they feel such criticism is needful. Yesterday the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth) referred to the necessity for courage in this house, in this government and in our war effort. I agree with him, and I add, we should have courage to speak freely and boldly in criticism of the government, their policy and their action.


Charles Edward Johnston: Especially their lack of action.


Ernest George Hansell: Anything which would
stifle such criticism, either within this house or outside it, is the very converse of democracy. It seems to me that the government have gone too far in the administration of the defence of Canada regulations. I am not criticizing the regulations themselves but I am raising my voice against a policy which tends to instil fear into a free people. I believe there is a fear which characterizes people in Canada to-day, the fear lest, in talking about politics, talking concerning what the government is doing or not doing, they may turn around and find themselves face to face with a row of brass buttons. I have sensed that in talking to people. This sense of fear is characteristic of a dictatorship; it is the very antithesis of democracy. I think I can go so far as to say it gives the lie to the principle of a land of free men.
I suggest in all seriousness that the government is wrong psychologically in permitting such a condition of fear to permeate our democracy. It may be that through fear,

7'he Address-Mr. Hansell
criticism can be stopped; it may be that people may thus be induced to cease talking. But you cannot stop people from thinking. I repeat that the administration is making in this matter a huge psychological mistake. As Mr. J. B. Priestley has said, in writing of the people's readiness for the enlargement of democratic principles:
They are ready to break Herr Hitler, but they are also ready to break any imitation Hitlers nearer home.
Our administration here appears to have gone too far along this line, and much farther than they have gone in England, where they are in the midst of the struggle. The criticism of the government there is comparatively free. My mother and father are living to-day in an English city which has been bombed a good many times. Naturally I am interested in how goes the battle over there, and occasionally I buy a British newspaper. I must say that I am astonished to discover how free the press of Great Britain is to criticize the government's actions and policies. Mark you, I do not say that they criticize the effort which is put forward to carry on the war, but they are free in their political discussions to take issue with government action and policy. I have here a number of clippings from a British paper. I am not going to read them all, but here is one.
Disaster, if it comes, will be from weak handling of our affairs.
In another place the following comment appears concerning Mr. Churchill's cabinet changes:
Mr. Churchill's cabinet changes remind me of a bunch of seedy stage-hands dragging off the scenery from "Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves," and then dumping it in the sunlight outside the stage door. They wait for a few moments, turn it upside down, shove it back on the stage, and then announce that everything is ready for a grand new performance of " Where the Rainbow Ends."


Richard Burpee Hanson: Who said that?


Ernest George Hansell: That is a clipping from the Daily Mirror of October 4.


Richard Burpee Hanson: New York?


Ernest George Hansell: No, no. This is an English newspaper. I am talking about what is happening in England. Here is another cutting; it is headed, "No-Brains Trust." I do not know whether I need read it all. But in the middle of it, speaking also of Mr. Churchill, this statement appears:
He has imagination. But he has an odd taste for the retention of failures and fumblers.
Others may regret that Mr. Churchill did not make a far more complete reconstruction when he took over from the old No-Brains Trust.


Mr. REID:: Does the hon. member think that it is exactly fair, in discussing the defence of Canada regulations, to compare the people of this country, who are of various nationalities, with the people of the old country?


Ernest George Hansell: I will not deny that there is some force in the question of my hon. friend. I recognize .that we have in Canada a variety of nationalities, but I believe that persons who come from other countries and are naturalized citizens should be free to criticize the government of the country of their adoption.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: They certainly have
that right and they use it now.


Ernest George Hansell: My point is that they
do not feel free now to do so.


Ernest Lapointe: Does
the hon. member know that things much worse have been written and said about the government and about myself without anyone interfering? Why say that these things cannot be said? This is light literature compared to what I have read about myself.


Ernest George Hansell: I am not saying that they cannot be said. I am criticizing what I believe to be a psychological blunder on the part of the present administration. I make no bones about this since the discussion has arisen. I might refer to the hon. member for North Battleford (Mrs. Nielsen), who sits beside me. We all know that the very speeches she delivered in the House of Commons were published-I was not going to mention this. What happened? They were collected by the police. A policeman goes to a door and knocks. A woman comes to the door and she says to herself, "What's this? I have never had a policeman call at my door before." She goes in fear and trembling. The policeman may say, "Have you any pamphlets like this?" If she says yes, he will say, "Let me have them." What is the psychological result? That is what I am asking and that is why I am raising my voice to-day.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: No answer
to that, you notice.


Ernest George Hansell: I could go further with
these clippings but I have not very much time.
Now I come to a matter which I wish to bring to the attention of the house, and I do not want to be misunderstood. All hon. members, I believe, have received copies of a very clever pamphlet. I am not criticizing it. It is got out by the bureau of information and is known as "The Two Ways of Life."
The Address-Mr. Hansell

I am using it as a basis for further remarks along this line. I compliment the government upon it. Whoever was behind it is really a genius. It is well got up, it is attractive mechanically, and it is printed in several languages, but it is very clever politically. I am going to analyse it a little, referring to one or two things as I go along.
On one page of this pamphlet we see pictures of the dictatorship regime, and on the corresponding page we see pictures of the democratic regime as seen here in Canada. On page 6 I find this caption, "Parliament Destroyed," with pictures showing the burning of the Reichstag. That is all right; that is true. On page 7 I find a picture, "Parliament Preserved." The parliament buildings are seen, with the interior of this chamber, and there are some sentences indicating that the Canadian parliament is the symbol and machinery of political freedom. I have no criticism to make about that. Now we come to page 8. Here are some pictures taken in the dictator countries, and the title is. "The Public Gagged."
That is quite right and I think that these pictures will emphasize it. On page 9, coming to Canada, there is the caption, "Free Speech." One sentence reads: "Free speech is essential to democracy." That is correct. On the same page there is another sentence: "Citizens express opinions freely." I will not say that is one hundred per cent correct. When we come to page 10 we find that religion in the dictatorship countries is despised. There are some very good pictures and I think they are true. If there is one thing that is nauseating to the people of Canada and of other democratic countries it is the fact that in the dictatorship countries religion is despised. On page 11 the caption with reference to Canada is, "Religion is Exalted." There is one sentence which reads:
Under the democratic way of life citizens are free to worship according to their beliefs.
That is not altogether true.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will the hon. member repeat that?


Ernest George Hansell: The caption says that religion is exalted. There is the interior of a church and there is also a picture of a woman saying grace at the table, with some little children in the attitude of prayer. That is all right; I am not criticizing it. The sentence is that under the democratic way of life citizens are free to worship according to their beliefs.


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The hon. member says that is not true. He ought to enlarge that statement.


Ernest George Hansell: I will explain. I am referring to the defence of Canada regulations, and in speaking along this line I wish it to be known that I have no brief whatsoever for the sect known as the International Bible Students, commonly known as Russellites. I do not believe their literature.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Are you in favour of them?


Ernest George Hansell: No, I am not. I am telling my hon. friend that I do not believe in them; I do not belong to them. At home I have a shelf-but I had better not say this or a policeman may call at my door.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No chance.


Ernest George Hansell: In my library at home there is a shelf with books on it which I call my spurious shelf and on it I have some books published by the International Bible Students. That is how much I think they are right. But I am discussing the fact that there is a religious sect that cannot worship as they like.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They can worship but they cannot prosyletize.


Charles Edward Johnston: They
have not the same freedom that others have.


Ernest George Hansell: Their organization has been declared illegal.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: And rightly so.


Ernest George Hansell: Under section 39 there are a number of provisions that would indicate that if these people are seen congregated they are liable to prosecution. I am simply saying that in my opinion the defence of Canada regulations in that regard have gone a little too far. I quite believe that if one of these Russellites got up on a platform and declared that men should not fight for their liberties, if he tore down the flag and all that sort of thing, he should be brought to time and convicted accordingly. But I do not see why we should not, under the defence of Canada regulations, permit absolute freedom of worship as one's conscience dictates.
We have some sects that have been referred to before, and I have a very great respect for some of these people. I refer to the Doukhobors. I have a number of them in my constituency. I am not going to say that they are subversive at all, but they do not believe in participating in our war effort. Yet they are allowed to worship as they desire, and they are not declared illegal. I am not

The Address-Mr. Hansell
saying they should be, but I think there is an unfairness there. Section 39C of the defence of Canada regulations reads:
(2)	Every person who after the publication of this regulation in the Canada Gazette continues to be or becomes an officer or member of an illegal organization, or professes to be such, or who advocates or defends the acts, principles or policies of such illegal organization shall be guilty of an offence against this regulation.
(3)	In any prosecution under this regulation, if it be proved that the person charged has
(a)	attended meetings of an illegal organization; or
(b)	spoken publicly in advocacy of an illegal organization; or
(e) distributed literature of an illegal organization by circulation through the post office mails of Canada, or otherwise; it shall be presumed, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that he is a member of such illegal organization.
Now that is dangerous. I am not suggesting for a moment that any administration would go as far as "planting" a member. But where there is freedom of speech in democracy, political freedom, no member in his utterances and criticism of government action and policy should run the risk of being influenced by fear that he may be even "planted". It is not impossible ,to do a thing like that. I happen to be connected with a small college. I hold rather an important position on the board of directors. Suppose the question arose of my mailing to students a copy of something that the International Bible Students publish, in order that those students may study what this sect teaches. Well, I am not going to do that. Why? Because I fear doing it.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Why?


Ernest George Hansell: I may not be right in this, but I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that a member who becomes a political menace to the existing administration could be "framed", and is in danger at least of all the possible force and all the possible intrigue being levelled against him in order to destroy him.


Mr. WOOD:: Is that an exhibition of your courage?


Ernest George Hansell: I am letting that question go unanswered. If the hon. member had been through as many dirty, rotten political campaigns as we members in this group have been through, he would not question anyone's courage.


Charles Edward Johnston: And some of them got put in gaol for six months with hard labour. Political sculduggerv.


Ernest George Hansell: Let me go on further with this little pamphlet. I repeat, I am not criticizing the pamphlet itself. On page 12 we find some pictures with the title "Political Murder". That is right; we know that in dictatorship countries they think nothing of getting rid of political opponents by standing them against the wall and shooting them. On page 13 when it depicts political liberty in Canada it says:
House of Commons at Ottawa-showing government seats (left) and opposition seats (right).
Now, that is a good picture. I notice that the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) is speaking-and by the way he is reading his speech.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: He is not the only
guilty one.


Ernest George Hansell: They did not get all the chamber in the picture; they have cut off this end of the chamber. The only member of these groups shown is the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis). That is neither here nor there; but here is a clever touch-I do not think I have seen anything more clever. At the top right-hand corner of this little picture there is represented a clipping from a newspaper. It may be a fictitious one but it is very clever. It says:
Opposition wins another seat.
Toronto, February 15.-A recount of the votes cast in the February 1st election gave the opposition one more seat in the new legislative assembly.


John Ritchie MacNicol: They had better take
some more pictures.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Justice Campbell supervised the recount, which resulted in a majority of eleven votes for . . .
And there it is cut off.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the idea?


Ernest George Hansell: The idea is this: Of course we have to admit, say the government, that it is possible to elect an opposition member, but the one who is elected is elected by a very slim majority. We are still in harness. They may beat us occasionally, but not by very much.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Wait and see.


Ernest George Hansell: It says on the same page:
Critics of the government serve an important function in the Canadian parliamentary system.
I believe that is so, but here I am going to make a little comment. On several occasions in this house during this present session
The Address-Mr. Hansell

hon. members have risen and urged upon the government that it give free transportation to soldiers for Christmas leave. Every time any hon. member has urged that action, whether he be a Liberal member or an opposition member, the Liberal side has applauded the suggestion. Yesterday the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Power), making his announcement for the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), positively stated; "It is no use, gentlemen; our policy is that no free transportation will be granted." That was final. Now, what happens? The hon. member for Weyburn yesterday afternoon urged once again that free transportation be granted. Did I hear applause from all those seats then?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, from here.


Ernest George Hansell: Do not misjudge-yes;
the opposition did. but not one Liberal member applauded. Why?


Charles Edward Johnston: They were whipped into line.


Mr. McNEVIN:: You are mistaken, sir. I applauded.


An hon. MEMBER:: There is one who will never make the Senate.


Ernest George Hansell: I compliment my hon. friend upon his courage. But there was a very marked difference between the applause then and that of earlier times when this matter was brought up.


Ernest Lapointe: Did my hon. friend say there were only sixteen Liberal members present at the time?


Ernest George Hansell: That is true; sixteen were here, and one applauded.
On page 16 of this little pamphlet we find, speaking of dictator countries, the caption, " Slave Labour in Dictatorship Countries." I think that is generally true. On page 17 we find a Canadian picture with the caption "Free Labour," and one sentence reads:
Recognition of the freedom and dignity of labour is essential to the democratic way of life.
That is true, but another sentence reads:
" Canadian factory workers are free men." That is only partly true. Apparently this is a picture of a number of workers leaving a factory. They are laughing and joking; two or three of the men have their hats in the air, while 'others are waving. It looks as though they were going to a picnic instead of going home from work. That does not matter; it is a good picture, and once more I say it is very clever. But I could substitute another picture for it, a picture I happen

to have. My picture shows two or three hundred men trying to get a ride on a freight train.


An hon. MEMBER:: Are they soldiers?


Ernest George Hansell: No, they are not soldiers; this picture was taken a few years ago. These men were looking for work but could not find it; no doubt some of them are still looking for it.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am only half way through my speech but I see my time is rapidly becoming exhausted; I have been interrupted a number of times.
Another dictator picture appears in this pamphlet on page 20, under the heading "Electoral Slavery". It shows a man in one of the dictatorship countries marking his ballot while another man in uniform stands watching to see how he votes. On page 21 we see another clever Canadian picture, showing three men going to vote. The one dropping his ballot in the box looks as though he might be a clerk in a store. The man behind him looks as though he might be a shoemaker; he is wearing an apron. The third man is dressed in a coat a little too large for him and his bowler hat is coming down over his ears a bit. Well, they are the general type of our working people. Then there is a ballot, presumably a facsimile of an actual ballot. I do not criticize this picture very much, but the first name on the ballot is that of Pierre Blanchette, and the X is marked opposite his name. I think perhaps he was a fairly good Liberal. Next is the name of Mr. Arthur Hamon, a farmer. He did not get the vote. Next is Joseph O'Neil, Eastview, gentleman. He did not get the vote. The fourth name is that of John Thomas Smith, merchant. He did not get the vote either. Mr. Pierre Blanchette, who got the vote, is said to be a barrister; and these men, representing the rank and file of our people, are casting their ballots. You can see the psychology of all this; whether or not it was intended I do not know.


Mrs. NIELSEN:: And not a woman's name on the list?


Ernest George Hansell: No.


Ernest Lapointe: If I am not mistaken that is an exact facsimile of the ballot contained in the election law; at any rate these are the same names.


Ernest George Hansell: It may be; I do not say it is not. I have been interrupted a good many times, Mr. Speaker, and I want to remind hon. members that I am not criticizing this; I am pointing out the clever psychology underlying the whole thing. I do not say this is not a good pamphlet.

The Address

Mr. Warren


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I am sorry to have to inform the hon. gentleman that his time has expired.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Ernest Lapointe: Five
minutes more.


Georges Parent: If it is the pleasure of the house.


Ernest George Hansell: The next part of my speech, Mr. Speaker, deals with an entirely different matter. I regret very much that I have not time to complete it.


Charles Edward Johnston: Go ahead.


Ernest George Hansell: No; it would take more than five minutes. Therefore I thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will save what I have to say for another occasion.


Ernest Lapointe: It was a good speech, anyway.


Mr. R. M. WARREN (Renfrew North):: Mr. Speaker, I am just a little concerned now, after seeing how the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) had just got nicely started on his speech by the time his forty minutes expired, as to whether or not I have prepared too much material. I propose to dispense with the preliminaries with regard to the mover and the seconder of the address. I need only say that I endorse the fine things that were said in reference to those two hon. gentlemen and the speeches they made.
I have been greatly impressed with many of the addresses which have been made during the course of this debate, particularly those by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the various members of his cabinet. The addresses to which we have listened contained much valuable information and told a story of achievement and progress in our war effort of which we as Canadians should be proud and for which we have no reason whatever to be ashamed.
I should like to refer particularly to one member of the cabinet; that is, the hon. member for Kingston City (Mr. Macdonald). I have already informed the hon. member that we in eastern Ontario, and particularly we in the constituency of Renfrew North, regard him as rather a special cabinet minister as far as we are concerned. He takes the place of the late Hon. Mr. Rogers, who was taken from us in such a tragic manner and in whom, during his term of office, we of Renfrew North always had a splendid friend, supporter and helper whenever we needed the benefit of his wisdom and advice in carrying on the affairs of our constituency. The hon. member for Kingston City made a most remarkable -contribution to this debate. His
splendid appearance, his musical voice and his wonderful command of the English language made his address a pleasure indeed to hear.
For just a moment I should like -to refer to some of the statements made by the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) concerning conditions at the military camp at Petawawa. The hon,. member complained of the climate and of the distance of the camp from any large centre of population. I should like to say to the hon. member that in my opinion the soldiers at Petawawa will not suffer any more during the winter months than they would suffer at times in such districts as Kingston or even Toronto. I know when there is an east wind blowing off the open water toward the -city of Toronto, one may suffer a good deal more from cold than he would if he were in the drier climate of a district such as Petawawa.
Then, the desirability of having the camps nearer larger centres is a point which could be argued. I believe some officers in the army would not agree that it is always advantageous to -have a camp located outside a large centre of population. At the camp in question we have something which, I am sure, will be appreciated during the winter months, namely, an abundant supply of wood of all kinds to be used as fuel, and which can be supplied for only the cost of cutting and hauling. While that wood may be cut under the supervision of forestry officials, so as to prevent its being slashed down indiscriminately, -there will be a good supply of fuel and at the same time the best timber will be left standing. Where there is a hundred square miles of bush there can be no doubt as to there being an abundant supply of cheap fuel for many years to come.
Splendid contributions have been -made to the debate by hon. members from all parts of the house. I would refer particularly to a portion of the speech made yesterday by the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth). At page 490 of Hansard he is reported to have said:
There is no one who would -at any time question the courage of the men in our army, our air force, and our navy. The fact that they are in the service is sufficient evidence of their courage. But we must have courage in other places in this country. We must have courage in this house. We must have courage in this government-courage to do the things which are necessary to the war effort, courage to pass such laws as are necessary to give the greatest help we can to the mother country in this hour of extreme peril. I feel that sometimes we are inclined to softpedal some of our responsibilities because of some political effect that action might have on portions of our population. That thing must not be. Here in this house, and particularly with the ministers, there must be courage to face these issues as we have never faced issues before.
The Address-Mr. Warren

I compliment the hon. member for Waterloo South upon that statement; but I believe I would go farther and say that private members in the house ought to keep in mind that we, too, require courage in facing any issue which may come before us in these years of war and peril.
I have been impressed with this fact; In the early days of the session the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) made it clear that it would not be practicable to give free transportation to soldiers. Yet, as was stated by the hon. member for Macleod, from all quarters of this chamber we have heard plea after plea asking for free transportation for the soldiers. Sometimes, when I have listened to those pleas, I have wondered whether they have been made because those who make them know that it is the popular attitude to take. I wonder whether sometimes it is a display of lack of courage, and an indication that we would rather travel the easy path and support the popular proposal. I am sure all hon. members would like to be able to help each soldier in Canada to obtain free transportation to his home for the Christmas holidays. We know that the wives, children, fathers and mothers of those men would be delighted if that free transportation could be given by the government. But when we know that from the government's point of view it is impracticable-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Why?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Why is it?


An hon. MEMBER:: Have we not the railways and the coaches?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We do not know it, as the hon. member suggests we do.


Ralph Melville Warren: Why keep asking members of the government to do that? Why do we do it? It would appear that those of us who approve free transportation desire to be regarded as good fellows, while the ministers who know that it is impracticable are bad fellows.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: But it is not impracticable; it is quite feasible.


Ralph Melville Warren: That is the hon. member's view. ^ If, however, he were to ask the military organizations throughout Canada whether or not it is practicable, I believe they would tell him something about the matter.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am sure they would not.


Ralph Melville Warren: For example, some of those boys would have to be transported all the way from Vancouver to Prince Edward Island.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about it?
[Mr. Warren.l


Mr. QUELCH:: All the more reason why they cannot pay their own fares.


Ralph Melville Warren: Boys who used to work for me on the farm are now in Iceland; then there are boys in Newfoundland and hundreds of them in England; what are they getting? How will they feel, if they are ignored when favours such as these are handed out? Hon. members of the opposition might urge that the expense would not be very great, that it would cost only about half a million dollars. Let me point out that half a million dollars is a great deal of money, and will buy a large quantity of war materials.
Reference has been made by an hon. member to a growing discontent among the soldiers. I am not sure who said it, but I know it was said. In my opinion that is something which might be expected. Any soldier who joins an army when a war is in progress is bound to become discontented if, after months of training and drilling, he does not see action. He wants to get into action, because he knows there is action somewhere. His ambition is to get into it.
I recall that in the early days of the first great war I visited my brother at Valcartier camp. He was one of the 30,000 Canadian soldiers then in training, and one could not have found anywhere a more discontented lot of men. Why were they discontented? Simply because they were afraid the war would be over before they got into it. Our boys have been training and drilling, month after month. And perhaps, if we are to prepare for an offensive in 1942, as we have been told, their training may extend into years. That training is monotonous. They become tired of it, and they want to get into action. Undoubtedly there will be some discontent. But when I hear of that condition I am always reminded of an observation made to me within the last year or two by one of my cousins. He went to England as a lieutenant at the time of the last war, returned as a major, and eventually became a colonel. I believe he reverted to the rank of brigade major and is now again in England. When speaking to a young man who wanted a transfer from one city to another in the air force, he said, "When you join the army you must make up your mind that you are in the army."
There is one consolation for the soldier in a training camp, namely, that every day he is becoming a little more fit for the great test that is to come-and it is bound to come. This war cannot be won until we take the offensive, and if we cannot have that offensive until 1942 there is no question

The Address-Mr. Warren
in my mind that at that time these young men will be just as keen, willing and able as the Canadian army was from 1914 to 1918.
To come to another matter, it does not take very much courage to be constantly telling the farmers of Canada that prices for their products are lower than they ought to be. It is the easiest thing in the world to tell the farmer that he is only half paid for his dairy products, his cheese and his bacon, but it is not quite so easy to tell the farmer why prices are as low as they are.	Every member of this house knows
perfectly well that we have only one market for our surplus bacon and our surplus cheese, and no export market for butter. And who is setting the price? The imputation might be that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is responsible.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Hear, hear.


Ralph Melville Warren: My hon. friend says,
"hear, hear." Yet the Minister of Agriculture was accused a few days ago by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce) of bargaining with the British government in reference to bacon and cheese prices. My belief is that the farmers of Canada could have no better representative than the Minister of Agriculture to send to England to bargain with the hard-headed British food control board with regard to selling our products. We must keep in mind that we are not selling in competitive markets. We have only one market. We are the sellers. We are not the buyers. And if we take the attitude suggested by the hon. member for Parkdale that we ought to be giving our products to the British government and the British people rather than selling them, why did my hon. friend say "hear, hear" when I suggested that it was implied that the Minister of Agriculture was responsible for the low prices now prevailing?


Mr. FAIR:: Why do the manufacturers
not give their products to the British government? Answer that one.


Ralph Melville Warren: I shall have something
to say in a moment with regard to industry.
The hon. member for Victoria, Ont. (Mr. McNevin) in his address dealt, I think, adequately, with the prices of dairy products. I quote his words:
This brings me to a further question, namely, that of hog prices, and the bacon agreement between the Canadian government and the food board in Great Britain. I am prepared to say that I believe this lower price offers but a small opportunity for any profit for the hog producer. However, if that is the top price
the British food board is prepared to pay- and we have great sympathy for Great Britain and her financial position-then to my mind the matter is settled so far as that part of it is concerned.
Hon. members know that the matter is settled. Every member of the house knows the matter is settled. Then why endeavour to create discontent among the producers of Canada by constantly telling them what you and I and everybody else know, that prices are not what they ought to be. There is nothing we can do about the matter. The price is settled for one year so far as cheese and bacon are concerned.


Mr. WRIGHT:: The government is subsidizing cheese. Could they not subsidize the production of bacon as well?


Ralph Melville Warren: During the last few years the government has subsidized the western provinces to such an extent-


Percy Ellis Wright: I am not speaking of the
western provinces. Cheese is made entirely in the east.


Ralph Melville Warren: It is not a subsidy but
a premium that is paid on high grade cheese.


Percy Ellis Wright: Then why not on bacon?


Ralph Melville Warren: The hon. member for Victoria, Ont., gave as his view that winter butter ought not to be less than 35 cents, while milk delivered at a cheese factory at present prices will work out to 28-8 cents a pound for butter fat, and that bacon hogs will work out at about 8 cents per pound live weight on our markets here. All of us know that the farmer cannot make a profit at that price if he is going to pay his taxes and maintain himself as a good farmer. But the price is settled, and if it is settled what can we do about it? The granting of a subsidy as suggested by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) is another matter, and I am not going into that.
So far as eastern Ontario farmers are concerned I think, generally speaking, there is no great spirit of discontent among them regarding prices because they feel that they are working in a world cause, and they will be satisfied if they can be assured that there is equality of sacrifice among all classes of people.


Robert Fair: Better read your newspapers.


Percy Ellis Wright: That was not the opinion expressed at the convention of the United Farmers of Ontario.


Ralph Melville Warren: I might have something to say about that if I had seen it.
The Minister of Agriculture has been criticized for something he said over the radio recently regarding industry. I think that his
The Address-Mr. Warren

is the sort of courage which we may need in this country, that of a man who will say what he believes should be said. And if one particular industry wants to defy the government, I say hats off to the minister for telling the management of that industry that if it is not capable of conducting that factory, it may be necessary to do as they do in England, place someone else in charge who can run it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If the hon. member will permit me a question, do I understand him to say that any industrialist in Canada has defied the government? The minister never said anything of the sort. All he said was that one industiy had objected to the regulations.


Ralph Melville Warren: Not very much difference.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, yes. Defying the government and objecting are quite different.


Ralph Melville Warren: I was going on to say, Mr. Speaker, that it does not take very much courage to cater to the spirit of discontent. I have listened to the addresses made in this house by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) and the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), and I felt that there was a tone and tendency in those addresses of catering to or raising up a spirit of discontent. The hon. member for Cape Breton South went so far afield in his remarks that he went all the way up to Kirkland Lake in northern Ontario to criticize a body of public-spirited citizens who had volunteered their services in the cause of law and order in that town.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Whose law and whose order?


Ralph Melville Warren: Well, the law and order of Canada.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: In the country of
northern Ontario, if the hon. member wants to know.


Ralph Melville Warren: He goes even farther than that; he makes a trip to Oshawa; and certainly his remarks would have no tendency to quiet any spirit of discontent which there might be, or, as the hon. member for Vancouver East contends, the spirit of discontent which is growing. No matter what part of the house we occupy, a good deal of importance is attached to the attitude which any hon. member may take, and I think we shall be very ill-advised to try to create or foster a spirit of discontent. As an illustration of the importance which is placed on the words of a member of parliament, I might point out that a day or two ago the

leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) complained that some persons were driving a little too fast past the House of Commons, and as a result an extra police officer is parading up and down all day in the storm to see that no one goes by at too fast a rate. I use that merely as an illustration of the importance of guarding our lips during these years of war and crisis.
It is my firm belief that there is very little discontent in the ranks of labour anywhere in this dominion, and if we can keep free of professional agitators we are not going to have much trouble. We have not forgotten the actions of the professional agitators here in Ontario. We have not forgotten the crowd that sat down in the Vancouver post office for a week or two, or that after that same gang were put in camps, where they were fed and taken care of, they were so ill-behaved that the camps had to be broken up, and the professional leader of that particular gang drifted to Ottawa and tried to raise riots in this city.


Charles Edward Johnston: And some of them are fighting for you to-day. Do not forget that.


Ralph Melville Warren: I doubt if those leaders are. We have not forgotten that that sort of thing is possible in this or in any other country. I might add that in my reference to professional agitators I have no thought at all of, and make no allusion to, the riding of Renfrew North. We did have one agitator there. He ran as the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation candidate and he got 709 votes out of 11,515 polled, so we got rid of him and we have had no other professional agitators. So far as I know, there is no discontent among the labouring element in my riding.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Does the hon. member infer that all Cooperative Commonwealth Federation candidates are agitators?


Ralph Melville Warren: Some question was asked respecting labour. I have a statement here which I wish to quote, because the public may not have noticed it in the long address which was given by the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe). In any event, it is worth repeating in Hansard:
We have enjoyed splendid cooperation from industry and labour. Margins of profit have been maintained at levels much lower than in peace time. I feel confident that there will be no new millionaires emerging from this war. In my efforts to prevent undue profits on the part of industry, I have the enthusiastic cooperation of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) and the Minister of National Revenue

The Address-Mr. Warren
(Mr. Gibson). Organized labour has cooperated in extending working hours and in bringing incipient labour disputes to arbitration.
I might interject at this point that we have received extraordinary cooperation from organized labour. Almost every week union leaders have written in and have asked if certain actions on their part would be beneficial. If we are in a position to write back to the effect that such actions would be beneficial to the war effort, I believe there has been no instance in which such action has not been taken by the organization affected.
There has been as little profiteering on the part of labour as on the part of capital. There seems to be a general appreciation that an increase in wages and the cost of living, and consequent increased cost of production, will in the long run be harmful, and that a balance between wages and the cost of living can best be maintained by seeking stability in both.
Yesterday the Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty), in his address, made just as glowing a reference to the conduct of labour.
Another matter to which I wish to refer is the quiet campaign which has been undertaken to undermine the confidence of the people in the Minister of Munitions and Supply and the Minister of Agriculture. That effort has not been confined to this house; we find it displayed in the Financial Post. It will be recalled that the Financial Post is the periodical which started the campaign against the contract for Bren guns. In this it was backed up by Maclean's magazine, and supported later by the leader for the Conservative party in Ontario. They are at it again, quietly of course to begin with. The present object is to get rid of the Hon. Mr. Gardiner as Minister of Agriculture. The acting leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group (Mr. Coldwell) has gone so far as to embody the proposal in an amendment to the speech from the throne. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) is equally anxious that the present Minister of Agriculture should be removed from that particular office. From the point of view of the political future of the parties which those two hon. gentlemen represent, I would be inclined to think they would be particularly pleased if they had the opportunity of attending the funeral of the present Minister of Agriculture.


Mr. PERLEY:: I object to the inference. I am opposed to his holding three or four of the portfolios, but I have no objection to the Minister of Agriculture.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And the hon. member for Qu'Appelle is not expecting to go to his funeral right away.


Mr.   Fournier. Hull@Acting Speaker: Order.


Ralph Melville Warren: Last year a campaign was started which was intended to undermine the confidence of the people in the ability of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to conduct the affairs of Canada. It went on for some time, but after three or four speeches had been made by Liberal members of the house, that idea was given up. In that connection the only reference which I have seen recently was a suggestion in some periodical that he should be replaced by the hon. member for North Battleford (Mrs. Nielsen).
That reminds me that I had a visit from two ministers of the church within the last month or so, and in conversation with them I learned that one of these gentlemen was the son of a farmer and had been brought up in the riding of North Battleford. I was all ears, because I had listened to so many speeches delivered by the hon. member for North Battleford that I had a mental picture of that constituency as being a desert, dreary land covered with shacks, without any attractive homes or farms or groves of trees-a place where not a single soul could make a living. I was pleased indeed to learn from this young gentleman, a minister of the church, that even during all those terrible bad years his father had never asked for or received any government assistance. When I learned this, I breathed a prayer of thanksgiving, "Thank God, there is at least one farmer in that desert land who has been able to make a living from the soil".


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Does the hon. member question the accuracy of the reports given by the hon. member for North Battleford in this house? He is questioning the veracity of the hon. member.


Mr. TUCKER:: Has she joined your party or have you joined hers?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The hon. gentleman
is casting a reflection on the hon. member.


Ralph Melville Warren: I was discussing the campaign to undermine the confidence of the people in two very useful members of the government. I knew something of the hours of toil, during the early months of the war, of different members of the cabinet. Many of them, I know, were never in their offices in the morning later than nine o'clock and never left them earlier than one or two or half past two the next morning. That tremendous amount of labour which they put into their work in order to get our war machine started is something that ought to be borne in mind. As I have looked at them from time to time I have wondered whether they were likely to break down.
The Address-Mr. Warren

There is now an agitation to replace these men with others who do not know the workings of the machine which has been brought to such a state of perfection. When the suggestion is made that the Minister of Agriculture should be removed from that portfolio, I say to this house that I doubt whether many men would be found in Canada who would recommend such a thing. We believe that there is not a man in the country who understands better than the Minister of Agriculture the various angles of the marketing of farm products, and one of the reasons why he knows the subject so thoroughly is that he always wants to find out everything for himself. I recall a remark I once heard the Hon. Mr. Dunning make with reference to the Minister of Agriculture. Some one asked Mr. Dunning why he had sent Jimmy Gardiner to a certain place and he replied, "You don't send Jimmy; he just gets up and goes". He has travelled east and west, acquainting himself with all the problems of the farmer. I have been in his office time and again when different aspects of the various problems in connection with the marketing of farm products would present themselves and one would not find any angle that he was not familiar with.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Fournier, Hull):: I must remind the hon. gentleman
that his time has expired.


Ralph Melville Warren: Would the house allow
me to make one further remark?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Another
gentleman wishes to make a speech and he will not have thirty minutes.


Mr. G. R. BOUCHER (Carleton):: In
rising to speak for the first time in this house, I should like to pay a tribute to my late esteemed predecessor who represented the constituency of Carleton. The late Doctor Hyndman was well known to me for the past twenty years as a country doctor and family physician who had the esteem and love of all who knew him. Very early in life, in the year 1935, he entered the House of Commons, and took upon himself the task of looking after the interests of his people with conscientious vigour and sincerity. It is a pity that Providence should have removed from our midst at such an early age one who had the sincerity and the intentions of Doctor Hyndman.
Speaking in the house at this time, I am quite conscious of the responsibility placed upon members in this critical day. As I listened to the hon. member for Renfrew North (Mr. Warren) condemning those who attempted to get something for the returned
fMr. Warren. 1
soldiers, those who attempted to portray to the government the condition of the farmers of Canada, and as I heard him say that it does not take much courage to cater to the spirit of discontent, I must at once repudiate any suggestion that there is any spirit of discontent among our farmers, any spirit that is not admirable. In my opinion, the farmer, more than anyone else, is shouldering the responsibility of our war effort with a valour and loyalty which merit the praise and admiration of this house.
Coming from the constituency which I represent, let me assure the house that the people there are deeply conscious of the difficult days through which we are passing. I believe they have tightened their belts and are prepared to draw them still tighter in order to do everything possible for an aggressive, energetic and whole-hearted war effort. Since coming here, I have observed in the house almost total unanimity in the desire to come to the help of the motherland, and a realization that our first line of defence is the English channel and that we in Canada must do everything possible to further the war effort.
I am, however, rather amazed at the anxiety of the average member of this house, members of all groups, all parties, even of the government party, in their criticism of the cabinet and council for not passing out responsibility, for not harnessing the power of this house and the people of this country in a more courageous and whole-hearted war effort. I believe that to-day the government have made a fair start on our war effort.
They have set up a tremendous organization: I do not know exactly whether it is the case, as the hon. member for Renfrew North just mentioned, that they have brought down the Gardiner machine to do so or not. But I believe, from listening to the debates in this house so far, there is a strong feeling that the government have not gone far enough in the leadership that the times and the occasion demand. There is in this house more power that could be harnessed by the government taking into their confidence the private members. A much greater war effort and quicker results could be produced if the people of Canada were taken more into the confidence of the government and asked to take a greater part in all their endeavours.
Just recently in my own constituency, as in all the constituencies in Canada, the people were called upon to volunteer their services in connection with the national registration. The spontaneity of their offer of assistance was a marvel to the country. Their willingness to cooperate with the government was a tribute to the spirit of the Canadian people.

The Address-Mr. Boucher
The same thing would be done with regard to financing, the sale of bonds or any other endeavour that the government should see fit to ask the people to undertake. The government should have more faith in the loyalty and readiness to serve of the people of Canada.
Instead of that, the criticism is that there are too many so-called dollar-a-year men, too many men paid high salaries, too many commissions, too many experts coming to the rescue of the hard-pressed government. There is too big a concentration of our war endeavours in the big industrial concerns. I have listened to member after member voicing the sentiment, with which I entirely agree, that there is too much concentration of war endeavour in the big industries on a long-term schedule. I should like to add my viewpoint that there are a great many small industries, garages as someone said, small factories now existing, which could easily be harnessed to our war effort and could produce those things we want with real expedition and without any long-term schedule. If necessary why should not both be tried? 1 fully appreciate the fact that we have been in the war for only a year and three months. But as a member of this house it is my responsibility to urge the government to harness every bit of manpower and machine power and use every bit of property we have for the prosecution of this war.
In my own riding, for example, composed largely of farmers, tradesmen and low-salaried civil servants the only work to be seen on behalf of the war, other than the very small use of the Connaught rifle ranges, is the voluntary service rendered by our people themselves. The wonderful enlistment for army, navy and air force, of our people, the great service of our women's institutes; Red Cross societies; religious, social, fraternal and even political organizations, in making articles required for soldiers under the auspices of the Red Cross give ample evidence of war consciousness. I pay a tribute to the work they have done so far in that regard. Other than that I can see no speeding up of war effort in my constituency, located as it is within sight of these buildings-yes, reaching right into the city of Ottawa to a great degree.
Might I draw to the attention of the government and particularly the Minister of National Defence the fact that located in the constituency of Carleton is the Connaught rifle range, a dominion property composed of some 2,700 acres which cost the government within the last twenty years over $850,000. equipped with buildings, targets, hutments and everything that could be used for military training. According to an answer I have
received from the government recently only 952 men were on that range within the last year. They did not tell me how many days they were on it, but from my own knowledge I know it was very few. This asset of the dominion government is good enough to hold a meeting of the Dominion Rifle Association on every year, to have marksmen from all over the country come and practise marksmanship. It is a splendid place for the trainees or even the active service force to take their military training. The government would be well advised to take this into consideration and use this rifle range more than they say they are going to when they say "the same as in 1940", namely 952 men.
This rifle range is of particular interest to my constituency because 2,700 acres of land have been taken out of taxation, producing no revenue for provincial or municipal purposes, and what do we get in return? If that rifle range were used for the purpose for which it was intended to be used, some of our local producers might find a market for their products.
While dealing with that, I would say that the government could go further and buy foodstuffs from the farmers rather than from the big financial concerns. I would like them to take that into consideration. The small arms schools there could be used extensively.
I almost hesitate, in view of what has already been said, to speak on behalf of the soldiers. But if there is one man in this country to whom we in this house should give every consideration it is the soldier who is fighting our battles. The matter of transportation, be it for Christmas or for his last furlough, is the least thing we can do in recognition of the service he is rendering to us. There are so many who have volunteered their services to the government who have been taken away and quartered in different sections of the country far from home and who have not an opportunity to return home on account of their pay of $1.30 a day while their brothers and friends are earning much higher wages outside the army.
Another matter I should like to draw to the attention of the government is the situation of those who left their employment -or some who have not had employment- and offered their services to the country. I refer both to those who were not able to measure up to the requirements for enlistment, who want to serve their country but cannot, as well as to those who have enlisted and those 15,000 who have been discharged for lack of physical fitness. The government has a big responsibility to these two classes of our citizens. I believe a special endeavour
The Address-Mr. Boucher

should be made to see that they are reestablished in civil life, if not in military life, in positions which will enable them to maintain and look after their dependents. Surely they have earned our thanks to that extent. In many instances the dependents of these men are in difficult circumstances, on account of the absence from home of sons and brothers. I have had several applications made to me personally to see if something could not be done on behalf of poor widowed mothers whose only sons were fighting for our country, but who were not given compensation because before enlistment their sons either were too young to work and support them or had not been able to obtain employment which would enable them to do so. These cases merit the attention of the government.
I was alarmed to read of the recent catastrophe in the county of Kamouraska, in which three of the six airmen who jumped from a plane were lost. I have learned also that aeroplanes, Harvards from Winnipeg and Lysanders from Toronto, are being operated without radio equipment. May I ask if this is deemed wise, or whether every aeroplane sent into the air should not possess proper radio equipment with which to follow the beam, ascertain its location and receive assistance in landing. I understand it is a practice of the air force that if an aeroplane gets into difficulties and the men have to jump, flares first should be *hrown out in order that the nature of the terrain below may be ascertained ; then the aeroplane circles round and those who must jump are given some guidance. What precautions were taken in this instance. I should like to know also what training was given the airmen, before they ascended, with regard to emergencies of this kind. Were they instructed as to what they should do if they had to jump? With what equipment were they furnished? The government owes it to the people of Canada to make public this information, because some inquiries have reached me as to these very points.
This afternoon I should like particularly to deal with that portion of the amendment concerning agriculture. The other day the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) said that in his opinion the farmer was the forgotten man. I do not quite subscribe to that view, but I believe the farmer is called upon to do more for our war effort than any other man in Canada. To-day the farmer is carrying on in an era of increased living costs, higher taxation and higher labour costs. He must even submit to daylight saving, although he does not like it.

I should like to direct attention to a publication with which the government must be familiar. It is printed under the authority of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon), I understand through the agricultural economics branch, and contains information which, I believe, has been overlooked by many of us. It sets out the index figure of the cost of living to the farmer in Canada and the index figure of the wholesale prices of the commodities he sells. It tells a sad story, which, if looked into, would convince the hon. member for Renfrew North that the farmer, instead of being discontented, is long suffering, and that we should take up the cudgels on his behalf.
The article to which I refer gives us this information from 1913 up to the present time. I do not intend to give the figures from year to year, but I am going to give enough of them to portray in a general way how badly agriculture needs some assistance from the government. As the normal year 1926 is taken. The cost of living in that year is set at 100, and the wholesale price of Canadian farm produce is given at the same figure. In 1930 we find that farm living costs dropped to an average of 94-3, but that the wholesale price of farm products dropped to 82-3.


Thomas Bruce McNevin: Give us the figures for 1932 or 1933, please.


George Russell Boucher: I should like particularly to compare 1930 and 1935, but the figures for 1932 were 81 for the average cost of living and 48 for the prices of farm products. In 1935 the index figure for living costs was
81-	5, -while the average price of farm products was 63-5. Let us come to 1939 and take both the spring and the fall. In the spring of 1939 the average cost of farm living was
82-	2, while the wholesale price of farm products was 65-5. In the fall the cost of living was 81-9, while the wholesale price of farm products was 58-4. In the spring of 1940 the average cost of farm living was 87-2, while the wholesale price of farm products was 72-1. This fall the cost of farm living is 89-2, while the wholesale price of farm products is 62-7.
If we analyse these figures we find that since 1926 we have had a decrease in the cost of farm living of 10-8 per cent, but a drop in the wholesale price of farm products of 37-3 per cent. Since the spring of this year the cost of living to the farmer has risen by 2 per cent, but at the same time the wholesale price of his products has fallen by 9-4 per cent. I should like to refer these figures to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). This is a government publication, issued by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in collaboration

The War-Mr. Mackenzie King
with the Department of Agriculture, and I think these figures speak louder than any words of mine.
This is not the case in connection with our industrialists or in connection with labour. If we go to a restaurant and buy a meal, we find that prices have increased from 30 to 50 per cent. If we inquire into the price paid for any of the farm products entering into that meal, we find that there has been a decline. But someone may ask: What did the Minister of Agriculture, acting as Minister of Trade and Commerce, do as far as the British market was concerned? He went to England. He did that upon which we would all like to congratulate him. He secured a market in England for our bacon, our cheese and various quantities of our farm products at prices not as big as we would like, but big enough to satisfy us, under the circumstances. The people of Canada, and particularly the farmers, do not want our government to exact the last dollar from the motherland, even for farm products.
The very day the minister announced the prices, upon his return, prices of our produce fell to a point described by a local newspaper as the lowest level reached in a number of years. What are we going to do about this? The government has pegged the price of wheat; it has pegged the price of cheese, but it has paid no consideration to the spread between the price the producer gets and what the consumer pays. As a result of that decrease in price levels, the present spread in price is much greater than it was before the agreement was negotiated. The government would be well advised not to get a better price from England, but to see that the price we do get from England is conveyed properly to the producer in Canada.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Cut out
the middleman.


George Russell Boucher: Someone says, "Cut out
the middleman." I do not entirely agree with that. But I do say, "Cut out the exorbitant profit being paid to somebody." Let us consider the price of pork, or the price of almost any other product the farmer has for sale in the fall of the year. Let us compare the price he receives with the one the middleman receives in the spring, and we soon realize who makes the profit. When the farmer offers a product for sale, the price is low; when that same product is offered for sale by the middleman, the price is high. Certainly our government could do much on behalf of our agriculturists in that regard.
What has arisen from this neglect of the farmer? The last offer of bonds showed that the farmer was incapable of buying them. He
had no money to buy them. He cannot hire help, for two reasons, namely, that he cannot pay the salary, and could not secure the men even if he could afford the salary. He is incapable of producing a quality product because he cannot afford to pay for the necessary finishing feeds.
I do not wish to delay the house longer, but it is my firm conviction that one of the best ways of sponsoring our war effort is that of building up the foundation industry of our country, that of assisting the agriculturist first, last and always. Our government could well afford to offer some leadership and show some activity in that regard, rather than spend the whole of its time on the letting of contracts to big industrial concerns.
On motion of Mr. Golding the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 5.58 p.m.
Monday, December 2, 1940.