[Stage Direction]
Third report of standing committee on standing orders.-Mr. Golding.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, this being the 1st of July, and the seventy-fifth anniversary of confederation, I should like to give expression to some of the thoughts I believe will be in the minds of hon. members of this house. With the permission of the house I should like to make a brief statement.

The Canadian Confederation
This day, the seventy-fifth anniversary of Canadian confederation, falls at a time when Canada is employing the nation's energy and resources against an enemy who would destroy our very existence as a free people. At such a time, when the citizens of Canada are engaged upon one all-absorbing task, elaborate ceremonies would be out of place even in celebrating so splendid an achievement as confederation represents. We may, however, rightly pause on this anniversary, gratefully to reflect on the vision and the wisdom which enabled the fathers of confederation to bring our nation into being.
We are freely and fully associated with the other free peoples of the world in a death struggle, with an enemy seeking to remove from the earth the heritage of freedom on which our institutions are founded. A few days ago, for the first time since confederation, Canadian soil was attacked.
The fathers of confederation built this nation on a foundation of human freedom, of self-government, of religious liberty, of racial equality, and of deep and abiding attachment to a common homeland. These are the sources of the harmony and mutual understanding among our people which, in turn, is the essence of our national strength, alike in war and peace.
Our enemies seek, everywhere, to replace freedom by slavery, self-government by tyranny, religious liberty and racial equality by the pagan conception of the master race; they seek to make of the homelands of all free peoples, colonies of slaves in which the sanctity of home and family will be sacrificed to the lust and greed of the conqueror.
To meet this threat to Christian civilization, to national existence, to homes and families, Canada is mobilizing all her resources of skill and strength, of brains and energy, of farm and forest, of mine and factory, of wealth and manpower. Our fighting forces, with those of our allies, are on many shores and many seas, and in the skies over many countries, battling to make sure that victory is won before war comes to Canadian soil. Along the coasts of Canada, our soldiers stand on watchful guard. Our coastal waters are ceaselessly patrolled by vessels of the Canadian navy and planes of the Canadian air force. In all the centres of industry, men and women are labouring to make huge stores of weapons and munitions. From fields and mines and forests workers are extracting the essential supplies of war.
It is particularly fitting that the celebration of our seventy-fifth national anniversary should coincide with army week in Canada. Our national pride has deepened with the
knowledge of Canada's army guarding the heart of the empire, protecting the world's greatest citadel of freedom, and prepared for action in any place, at any time. We have all been profoundly stirred by the exploits of Canadian airmen in every theatre of war; Ceylon, Cologne, Essen, Emden, now Bremen, are a witness to their magnificent daring, and to their important role. We know how great and how vital has been the work of our navy. We have been told that Canadian machines and munitions, Canadian food and Canadian money were essential to keep Britain fighting in the dark days of 1940 and 1941. But our Canadian army, because it has seen little fighting, has not thus far received its fair share of credit. This week, throughout all Canada, the Canadian people are being given a special opportunity to restore the balance by showing their appreciation of the Canadians in battle dress.
May I pause to recall the record. The first contingent of the Canadian army landed in Britain on December 17, 1939. But for the collapse of France, the first division would have come to grips with the enemy in the summer of 1940. All through that dark summer they stood waiting for the expected invasion. They were joined during that time by the second division, and at Christmas of 1940 the Canadian corps was formed. In 1941, a third infantry division, an armoured division, an army tank brigade, and thousands upon thousands of specialized troops and reinforcements were added to their numbers.
This year more units and reinforcements have crossed the sea, and others will follow. The Canadian corps in Britain has become a highly trained, hard-hitting, mobile Canadian army. Mr. Churchill has told us what the Canadian army has meant to him and to the people of Britain. Let me repeat what he said last September:
There they stand, and there they have stood through the whole of the critical period of the last fifteen months at the very point where they would be the first to be hurled into a counter-stroke against an invader. No greater service can be rendered to this country, no more important military duty can be performed by any troops in all the allies.
There has been no glamour; there have been no great headlines. We in Canada, have not realized, as fully as the people of Britain, how greatly our army has contributed and continues to contribute to the security of the bridge-head which separates the tyrant of Europe from the western hemisphere, and which bridge-head is also our own surest defence.
I doubt, too, if we have given the credit which is their due to the men in battle dress
The Canadian Confederation

who have stood in ceaseless vigil at the lonely outposts of our own country. When the balance sheet of war is struck, we shall do well never to forget the long dreary months of dull, but vital routine which the army has performed with little notice, and no complaint, on our coasts, and in vulnerable areas in Canada, in Newfoundland and Labrador, and on the islands of the Atlantic.
The Canadian army is not an instrument built only to resist attack. It was planned, it has been organized, and is trained as a highly mechanized and armoured striking force. The day is coming-it may be close at hand- when it will have an honoured place in the van of attack. No Canadian doubts that when that day comes, our army will do its full part-and a glorious part-in helping to defeat and to destroy the military might of an enemy whose design and ambition is to conquer the whole free world. Canada's army is strong; it is united by a common purpose. It' is the duty of all Canadian citizens to be no less strong, no less united by a common purpose. On this seventy-fifth anniversary of confederation the need is greater than ever before in our history, to let nothing divide us as a people, to compose our differences, and to throw all our energies into the task of saving our country, and helping to save the freedom of the world. If we would be worthy of our past, and the sacrifices of the past; if we would be worthy of the many brave sons of Canada who, in the present war, have given their all, and of the half million young Canadians who have offered, if need be, to die for their country, it is our supreme duty, while striving for victory, to preserve for those who may survive the frightful vicissitudes of war, and for future generations, a free and a united Canada.


Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that
we all join in the expressions of noble sentiments which have just fallen from the lips of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). I desire to associate myself and the party I represent in this house, with what he has said. In less critical times, the seventy-fifth anniversary of the founding of this dominion would probably be celebrated with a fitting degree of pomp and ceremony; but in the midst of the gigantic struggle in which we are engaged, we do the greatest honour to our nation if we pause from our labours long" enough only to rededicate ourselves to the herculean task of preserving those ideals and principles which the fathers of our nation sought to establish upon enduring foundations on the northern half of this continent.

We do well to pause, on the occasion of the commemoration of the seventy-fifth anniversary of confederation, and recall with pride and gratitude the example and accomplishment of those great men who founded the Canadian nation. The genius and vision of Sir John A. Macdonald, the patience and tolerance of Sir Georges Etienne Cartier, and the helpful cooperation of Brown, Tupper, Tilley, and the other fathers, resulted, as Sir John forecast it would, in the development of "a friendly nation, a powerful people to stand by Britain in north America in peace or in war." At this juncture of our history, the inspiring words spoken by Sir John in 1861 are as pertinent and important as when he uttered them more than eighty years ago. His message, like all eternal truth, retains its significance for each succeeding generation. In stressing the importance of the preservation of union between Upper and Lower Canada, Sir John used these words:
If I had any influence over the minds of the people of Canada, any power over their intellect, I would leave them this legacy: "Whatever you do, adhere to the union-we are a great country, and shall become one of the greatest in the universe if we preserve it; we shall sink into insignificance and adversity if we suffer it to be broken." God and nature have made the two Canadas one

let no factious men be allowed to put them asunder.
In this, democracy's hour of trial, it is, as I see it, the duty of each and every Canadian to keep before him those inspiring words. If democracy is to survive, the freedom and liberties for which the fathers of confederation laboured long and well must be preserved. The preservation of those liberties depends and will be determined by the vigour and the strength of the united effort of each of the allied nations.
It is fitting that when we are celebrating the seventy-fifth anniversary of confederation we should also have the opportunity, through army week, of paying tribute to those upon whom rests, with the navy and the air force, the responsibility for the preservation of our nation. On this hill, this afternoon, in front of these buildings, is being demonstrated the gallantry, the determination, the enthusiasm, the will to victory, of Canada's youth. The hearts of those of us who must serve in more mundane fashion go out to these men. So far, the task of the Canadian army has been one rather of preparation and training than of action, but there is no doubt when the great offensive comes, without which victory cannot be achieved, the Canadian army will not only live up to the high traditions of the past but create a new and glorious record for our future history. The Canadian army will prove, as General McNaughton has said: "A dagger

The Canadian Confederation
pointed at the heart of Berlin." We all hope that the time is not far distant when that dagger may be plunged at its objective.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I was unaware of the fact that any recognition was to be given in the house this afternoon to the seventy-fifth anniversary of the Canadian Confederation, but I think it is quite proper that it should be done. A little less than one hour ago I was joining, through the magic of radio, in a service being held in Westminster Abbey. The Archbishop of Canterbury preached the sermon; the High Commissioner for Canada read a brief scriptural lesson, and representatives of many nations took part in the service. I listened to the tribute paid to this country by the archbishop, and to his expression of deep conviction that the British commonwealth of nations as it is to-day may be the forerunner of a development in the future of a free association of all nations all equal; none subservient ' to the other. As he said this afternoon, the British empire is no longer an empire in the old sense, but a new form of association, typifying something far greater and far better than any ancient empire ever was.
This afternoon we are paying a tribute not only to those who founded this dominion but also to the young men who are standing guard along our coasts and across the seas. In my opinion the greatest tribute we can pay, both to our forefathers and to those who to-day are bearing the brunt of battle, is to determine in this chamber, first, what shall be done now to make our contribution to a great cause the most effective that we can make, and, second, how best we may lay now the foundations in this country to the end that the men who are serving across the seas may return to a land in which they may live in security and in peace; in which they may build for themselves and for coming generations something better than we or they have ever known. If on this occasion I might leave one thought with the house, and particularly with the government, it would be this: Let the government come before this house without any further delay and tell us exactly what the situation is, and thus share with the members of the House of Commons, representing the people of Canada, the entire responsibility for all that we may have to do to ensure our maximum contribution to the cause of world freedom and universal peace.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, the members of the group that I have the honour of leading, and the great body of
people whom we represent in this chamber, will be happy to join with those who have expressed the noble and lofty sentiments to which we have just- listened. We love Canada, we love the British empire, the British commonwealth of nations, or association of nations, or whatever people choose to call it-that great body of British peoples and associated peoples who at this critical time are fighting for their existence as a unit and the right to continue to endeavour to lead the world.
I was thinking while the others were speaking how greatly disappointed the fathers of confederation must feel as they look down upon Canada from their high places and reflect upon how much unhappiness there is and has been in our country during the last twenty years. I was thinking that the finest resolution we could make here now, all of us together, would be that to the extent to which we are called upon so to do, we should consecrate our lives to the high task of making this nation what the fathers of confederation intended it should be-a great union of majestic states called provinces, each of which, while daughter in her mother's house, is mistress in her own; a union of states in which all enjoy equal opportunities. There is no reason why there should not be in Canada the greatest happiness. There is no reason why this nation should not in every sense become one of the greatest nations in the world. It is our task now to dedicate ourselves to the accomplishment of that worthy end, so that the people of all Canada Shall have justice, prosperity, peace and joy, and shall be foremost in the making of that brighter and better world to the threshold of which the great Creator has manifestly led us. This, sir, would be my sentiment on this occasion.


Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Richelieu-Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, as the rules of this house have already been broken on this seventy-fifth anniversary of confederation, I would ask your indulgence and that of hon. members while I express a few thoughts, in the French language.
(Translation) Mr. Speaker, as a representative from the province of Quebec, I think it only appropriate to add my humble tribute to those you have already heard celebrating the seventy-fifth anniversary of the founding of our Canadian confederation. I do so with all my strength of heart and mind because I am one of those who have believed in our Canadian confederation, in the opportuneness of its establishment and in the benefits to be derived therefrom by our citizens of all races and creeds. I rejoice with those who had the advantage of speaking earlier this afternoon in the remarkable success already achieved with regard to the development of our Canadian nation.

The Canadian Confederation
I am well content with the progress made and I sincerely hope that the results obtained to date will not be endangered by the differences of opinion and thought which [DOT] are liable to divide public opinion.
Let no one forget, Mr. Speaker that the Canadian confederation does not represent the union of the majority with a minority, but rather the union on an equal footing of the two main racial groups in Canada. At the time of confederation, the main problem was that of ensuring equal rights to all citizens, whatever their mentality or language.
Let us never forget this great truth: There is no minority, there is no majority in this country. There are only brothers joined together by a common agreement for the good of the entire community; not for the advantage of a certain class or group but for the greater good of all Canadian citizens.
There have occurred in the past, Mr. Speaker, just as there occur to-day, differences of opinion and thought on certain matters which may stir up public opinion. Human institutions can never command complete unanimity of opinion in every field. There are always different views held on every question. Despite all the good faith in the world, humanity must remain divided. Such division dates from the very beginning of time and will endure till the end. The human mind is not one; it divides itself into various points of view and there are no questions on which we may really achieve complete unanimity of thought and feeling. Such an achievement would be contrary to human nature. It would be superhuman.
It even appears necessary that these differences of opinion, these conflicts of thought should exist if only as a source of that light by which nations as well as individuals are guided.
I repeat that I share the views already expressed and I hope that now as in the future peace and harmony will continue to distinguish our mutual relations on this Canadian soil. If our opinions should differ on certain points, if we should1 not agree on the manner and means of reaching a certain goal, this does not mean that we have opposite aims. It does not mean that we from the province of Quebec do not share the same feelings, the same aspirations, the same desires, the same love of Canada that inspires those who belong to the majority.
On this anniversary day, I pray that there may come about a better understanding between all Canadian citizens and that silence be imposed on those who, in this house and 
country appear inclined to sow disunity and misunderstanding which might destroy the master work of our Canadian confederation.
Let us try to understand each other, to get along better together. Granted this understanding, there is no doubt that Canada can become a great nation, without any of her different racial groups being forced to abandon their ties with the past, their traditions, in a word all that has made them great in the past and which they hold dear.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. ISNOR:: 1.	What were the rates of pay in effect as at May 1, 1942, at the Canadian National hotels at Ottawa, Halifax, Charlottetown, Port Arthur, Winnipeg, Brandon, Saskatoon, Edmonton and Vancouver, of the following trades, (a) carpenters, (b) plumbers, (c) pipefitters, (d) electricians, (e) painters, (f) engineers, (g) assistant engineers?
2.	Have any rates been increased since the 1st May, 1942? If so, state which, and by what amounts?


Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	The management of Canadian National Railways state that it is not in the interest of the national lines to publicize the information called for, and suggest that the hon. member get in touch with Mr. R. Somerville, general manager of Canadian National chain of hotels, whose office is located in the Chateau Laurier at Ottawa, who will be very glad to confer with him and give him such information as may be possible, having regard to the interests of the railway and its hotel system.
2.	No.


RENTAL OF DERRICKS FROM DUFFERIN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	Does the Dufferin shipyards rent two derricks from the Dufferin Construction Company?
2.	If so, what is the rental charge?
3.	Are these derricks in first class condition?


Mr. MICHAUD:: 1 and 2. No. However, Toronto Shipbuilding Company Limited (formerly Dufferin Shipbuilding Company Limited) does rent from Dufferin Paving & Crushed Stone Limited (a subsidiary of Dufferin Construction Company Limited) the following crawler cranes at the following rentals:

Questions
No. of units	Crane No.	Rating	Make1	18	25 ton	Koehring1	10	20 ton	Dominion1	1	10 ton	Koehring1	11	7i ton	Koehring1	14	7\ ton	Erie
Monthly rental
Model	Type	First shift	Second shift601	Gasoline	$750 00	$375 00Diesel	935 00	470 00301	Gasoline	565 00	285 002-A	Gasoline	510 00	255 00Gasoline	510 00	255 00
The full first shift rental is payable each month; the second shift rental is paid at one twenty-sixth of the rental shown for each day the crane is operated on the second shift.
It is the intention to retain the above equipment only pending delivery of new cranes now on order, and in fact on June 5, 1942, notice of intention to release the "Erie" crane, crane No. 14, was given and this crane will be returned to its owners on July 3, 1942.
3.	All the above equipment is kept in good operating condition.


MILITARY SERVICE-MARRIED MEN SEPARATED FROM OR NOT SUPPORTING THEIR WIVES
Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: Are married men of military age, separated or not supporting their wives, subject to call on the draft?


Mr. THORSON:: Men married prior to July 15, 1940, are not subject to the proclamation now in force calling out men for military training under the national war services regulations.


*VICHY REPRESENTATION IN CANADA
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has the attention of the government been called to the statement, on June 9, by Pierre Laval, the head of the French government, that "he desires to see a German victory because of the red peril"?
2.	Will the government give consideration to the immediate closing of the office, here, of the envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary, of the French government of Vichy?
3.	Will time be afforded for the house to discuss the matter?
4.	What action, if any, will be taken, in view of these new developments?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will answer
this question orally.
1.	Has the attention of the government been called to the statement, on June 9, by Pierre Laval, the head of the French government, that "he desires to see a German victory because of the red peril"?
The statement to which my hon. friend has reference is, I think, one which was made on June 22, not on June 9 as he mentions in this question. The attention of the
government has not been drawn to the statement, but I, of course, have seen the statement to which my hon. friend has referred.
I might mention what I said a few days ago in this house, that the representation of Canada at Vichy is a representation to the people and country of France, not a representation to any particular government, and there is no evidence whatever that the statement which was made by Laval represents at all the sentiment of the French people. Unquestionably Laval, in speaking, has had in mind much more the effect of his utterances upon Germany than their effect upon his own country. However, apart from that, I gave reasons of a practical nature, when speaking in the house some days ago, why it was thought inadvisable to sever diplomatic relations between Canada and France, and I have nothing to add to that statement.
2.	Will the government give consideration to the immediate closing of the office, here, of the envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary, of the French government of Vichy?
I have just answered that question.
3.	Will time be afforded for the house to discuss the matter?
When the estimates of the Department of External Affairs are before the house there will, I think, be ample time to discuss this and any other matter with regard to external relations.
4.	What action, if any, will be taken, in view of these new developments?
At the present time I am unable to say what action the government may take in the future or to give any statement of policy with respect to our relations with France, but I assure the hon. member that the matter is one which is always receiving consideration.


Mr. CHURCH:: It is a fine appeasement policy-while refusing to give encouragement to General de Gaulle.


INCOME TAX IN CERTAIN BRACKETS, 1938-1942
Mr. JACKMAN:: What was the combined amount of income tax, including Ontario provincial, and national de-
Questions

fence taxation, in tabular form, to which incomes of $1,500, $2,000, $3,000, $5,000, $10,000, $15,000, $20,000, $30,000, $50,000 and $100,000, were subject in the following years, 1938, 1939, 1940, 1941, and 1942, assuming that the taxpayer was married with two dependents and that all incomes up to $30,000 are earned incomes, and that incomes of more than $30,000 include earned income of that amount and additional investment income to make up the total?


Mr. ILSLEY:: The information requested is contained in schedule below:
Income $ 1,500
2,000
3.000
5.000
10,000
15.000
20.000
30.000
50.000
100,000
Combined dominion and provincial income tax Married person-2 dependents
Earned income up to $30,000 and investment income thereafter
1938	1939	1940 $ 7 00	1941 $ 24 50	1942, including refundable portions $ 49 00>
&	91	12 00	42 00	214 80$ 10 08	74 90	182 00	668 40118	00	133 60	381 02	672 00	1,662 00660	21	748 45	1,833 48	2,572 00	4,546 001,578	62	1,790 35	3,930 80	4,996 00	7,713 002,945	00	3,346 56	6,258 70	7,602 00	11,063 006,499	37	7,383 64	11,265 32	13,183 00	18,230 0014,635	17	16,642 96	22,534 28	25,699 00	34,337 0039,524	41	44,973 28	54,569 48	59,811 00	78,771 00



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. LECLERC:: 1.	Has the government adopted a cheese Quota for England in 1942?
2.	What is the proportion of this quota supplied to date?
3.	When the full quota of cheese has been reached, does the government intend to encourage the production of butter by raising the ceiling price or by paying a bonus on butter fat?


MILITARY SERVICE-FARM LEAVE OR POSTPONEMENT
Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	At the present time when farm work requires all available labour, will leave be granted from military training to all those who are actually engaged in agriculture?
2.	Will postponements of military training be accorded to farmers, sons of farmers and farm labourers who have actually been called up?
3.	Have instructions of this nature already been given to those entitled to them?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Thomas Langton Church: For a return showing-1. How many airmen have been killed in Canada since the present war began.
2.	Whether an inquest was held in each ease by, (a) a military court, (b) by provincial coroners.
3.	A copy of the findings, showing the cause of the accident in each case.
4.	Whether a copy of the evidence and court finding was sent to the next of kin of each deceased.

5. The pay and other allowances of these airmen paid to next of kin, pending receipt of a pension, and the practice herein.


Mr. POWER:: I am prepared to agree to the passage of this order subject to certain restrictions.
With respect to question No. 1, the information will be supplied.
With respect to question No. 2, the publication of returns of inquests and courts of inquiry respecting flying accidents is not considered to be in the public interest, because this would tend to aggravate and cause unnecessary suffering to the relatives of victims of air accidents.
Question No. 3, therefore, cannot be complied with; nor can question No 4, which requests that a copy of the evidence and court finding be sent to the next of kin.
As to question No. 5, particulars will be given.


Thomas Langton Church: Civil inquests were held in similar cases in the last war.


Major James William Coldwell: Is careful inquiry made into any death by misadventure, say in an accident or a brawl or something of that sort? I am asking the question because of *word I have from Regina regarding a recent death there.


Charles Gavan Power: We have a special branch set up to go into all these questions of accidents. I submit to the house that it would not be in the public interest nor would it be in the best interests of the relatives of deceased airmen to publish the findings or give them to the next of kin.

Wheat Purchases


Mr. LOCKHART:: Are the families given some information, at least, even if of a confidential nature?


Charles Gavan Power: Whatever information we
can.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Is it the pleasure of the
house to adopt the motion, subject to the reservations indicated by the minister? Carried.



CANADIAN FORCES-MEN DISCHARGED OR STRUCK OFF STRENGTH

Mr. ROSS (Souris):: For a return showing the number of persons by military districts and/or provinces who have been discharged or struck off the strength of, (a) the navy, (b) the army, (c) the air force by reason of (1) medical unfitness, (2) desertion, (3) other causes, and, in the case of military districts Nos. 4 and 5, and/or the province of Quebec, showing the number in each category (i) of French-Canadian origin, (ii) of origin other than French Canadian.


Mr. RALSTON:: With regard to the
portion which asks for the number in each category of French-Canadian origin, and of origin other than French Canadian, as was indicated in the house before, so far as the army is concerned the attestation papers do not show racial origin. The only thing that can be done-and I must say it is a laborious process, but if the hon. member who is making this motion thinks it will serve any real public interest we will endeavour to have it done-is to go over every attestation paper and every card in order to examine the names of those who are there and ascertain as best we can from the name itself whether that person is likely to be of certain racial origin. It certainly is a very inaccurate method of doing it, but that is the only thing which can be done. Perhaps my hon. friend would let the motion stand for a day, so that he could consider that particular part of the question.


James Arthur Ross: Will that be changed to "French-speaking" rather than "French-Canadian origin"?


James Layton Ralston: "French-speaking" would not help us. There is nothing in the attestation papers, so far as I know, to indicate whether the soldier is English-speaking or French-speaking. I think I am correct when I say that the name is the only general method in which one can get an indication, and that has been used with regard to the return brought down last week. I am indicating to the house that it does not give the information asked for. Perhaps the hon. gentleman does not regard it as of such importance, in the public interest, as to preclude his allowing it to stand for a day.


James Arthur Ross: We will let it stand for a day.


James Layton Ralston: Yes.


Georges Parent: Stands.



BRITISH PURCHASES IN CANADA-PRICES-FUTURE ANNOUNCEMENTS WITH RESPECT TO SALES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: I desire to direct two or three questions to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I informed him that I would ask these questions, and I think he is prepared to answer. On June 8 the minister read a cable he had sent through the high commissioner's office in London asking him to get permission from the British ministry of food to divulge the price of Canadian wheat. The public are anxious to get this information-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Ernest Edward Perley: -and there is no reason why it should not be given. My first question is this:	Is the minister prepared to say
whether he has received a reply to that cable?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Ernest Edward Perley: The minister has been given notice of the question and is prepared to answer.


Georges Parent: The question is in such form that in my opinion it should be placed on the order paper. The fact that a minister is prepared to reply to such questions on the orders of the day does not alter the fact that to put the question in this form and at this stage of the proceedings is against the niles of the house. The hon. gentleman should [DOT] put it on the order paper.


Ernest Edward Perley: I have another question to direct to the minister. It is pursuant to a question asked the other day. How many million bushels of Canadian wheat have already been paid for-


Georges Parent: Order.


Ernest Edward Perley: -by Great Britain under the one billion dollar gift fund?


Georges Parent: The same ruling applies to that question. It should be placed on the order paper.
Wheat Purchases


Ernest Edward Perley: A third question, is this: Will the Minister of Trade and Commerce give to the house a detailed and complete statement with respect to sales of wheat under the billion dollar agreement or under any other agreement that is pending and that has already been consummated?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Ernest Edward Perley: The minister is prepared to answer the question.


Georges Parent: If the minister is prepared to answer the question, he has some privileges in the house and he may do so if the mattter is of such public urgency as to warrant its being answered at the moment. In my opinion, however, in the form in which it is put, the question is one that should be placed on the order paper, because I do not think there is that degree of urgency about it.


Ernest Edward Perley: I should like to direct another question to the minister, which I think he will be ready to answer. If there are any important announcements to be made in the near future with respect to sales of Canadian wheat, will he have these announcements made here in the house rather than in the Winnipeg grain exchange or some other place?


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I shall overlook the last few words of the hon. member's question, and reply that just as soon as word comes from the British government that a decision has been arrived at with regard to the sale of wheat, a statement will be made in this house.



JUDGES ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Langton Church: Will the Attorney General read Bill No. 67 and give a reply as to what the policy of the government is? It is a public bill of the utmost importance, and requires consideration before prorogation.
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): I understand that the hon. gentleman is referring to order No. 13 under public bills and orders. If that is so, the order should be reached in due course, I assume, under the rules of the house.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I hope the minister is right, but I am afraid he is wrong. He had better

ask the boss. So far no disposition has been made of these bills under public bills and orders. I wish the minister would look into this matter. Perhaps he can use his undoubted influence to have this item reached before the end of the session.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The Attorney General has no control over the procedure of the House of Commons. When the item is reached it will be considered. In the meantime I do not think I can say more to the hon. member.



REDUCTION OF PRICE PAID BY PACKERS TO FARMERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. J. TUSTIN (Prince Edward-Lennox):: Yesterday I asked the Minister of Finance what authority the packers had to reduce the price of beef, and he said he would give the matter consideration and let me have a reply. In this morning's press there are large headlines which again call attention to the falling prices of beef. Is the minister in a position this afternoon to answer the question?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am not aware that the price of beef is falling.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He means cattle.


James Lorimer Ilsley: In his question yesterday the hon. gentleman used the word "beef"; he must have meant cattle. I had only a moment's conversation with the food administrator, and he points out that the prices of cattle are not subject to ceiling regulations. They have gone up and down regardless altogether of the regulations of the wartime prices and trade board. Therefore when the hon. gentleman asks on what authority the packers in Toronto and Winnipeg have reduced prices paid to farmers for beef, I must inform him that they are not subject to the authority of the board. At least there is no rule or regulation affecting the price of cattle. If there had been, the price of cattle would not have gone up to the marked extent that it did.


George James Tustin: But the price control board rules that there must be a reduction of one cent a pound on July 13.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is in the price of beef.

The Budget-Speaker's Ruling



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, June 30, consideration of the motion of Hon. J. L. Usley (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Blackmore.
Georges Parent: I have been considering
the amendment moved yesterday by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore). If any hon. member wishes to speak to the question I would be glad to hear him now.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: I submit that the amendment is out of order under Beauchesne's marginal rule 395; and also, because it refers to the total mobilization of resources, which is a principle already disposed 6f by this house during the present session.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have
not looked into this matter at all. There may be some ground for the last argument advanced. by the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie), but clearly on its face this amendment is in order. If in a previous debate this session part of this matter was dealt with, of course that is something else to consider. I would hope that Your Honour would not rule out this amendment on the ground that it is not a proper amendment to the motion to go into committee of ways and means.


Georges Parent: On the motion of the Minister of Finance that I do leave the chair for the house to resolve itself again into committee of rvays and means, Mr. Blackmore moves, seconded by Mr. Hansell, the following amendment:
That all the words after "that" in the said motion be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"This house views with alarm the obviously decisive drift into national or state socialism everywhere in evidence in this budget, as indicated by the shackling taxation structure it erects; the sweeping trend towards centralization, bureaucracy and oligarchic regimentation which it involves and the general deterioration of morale and incentive to productive effort which it aggravates;
Further this house regrets the government's apparent inability to see the vast improvement in Canada's effici< ncy that could be effected by a wisely scientific use of her credit and currency potentialities;
And deplores the government's persistent failure to employ Canada's credit and currency to supplement her pay-as-you-go policy, thereby to restrict the appalling growth of debt, and
to provide a means to gradually paying off Canada's indebtedness.
Therefore, this house respectfully urges the government to formulate and to introduce at the earliest possible moment such a modernized credit and currency policy as will, to the greatest degree rendered possible by our available facilities, curb inflation, control debt, mobilize Canada's resources for total war, ensure democracy and security to Canadians, in Avar, and then in peace."
Under standing order 48, and referring particularly to citation 395 of Beauchesne, at page 126, it is provided:
It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed. Every amendment proposed to be made either to a question or to a proposed amendment should be so framed that if agreed to by the house the question or amendment as amended would be intelligible and consistent with itself.
That is also borne out in May, at page 261. The amendment is framed in general terms and so phrased that it might be considered as a vote of no confidence. It expresses alarm at "the obviously decisive drift into national or state socialism" and suggests a wisely scientific use of Canada's credit and currency potentialities. But in the declaratory paragraph it urges the government:
.	.	. to formulate and to introduce at the
earliest possible moment such a modernized credit and currency policy as will, to the greatest degree rendered possible by our available facilities, curb inflation, control debt, mobilize Canada's resources for total war, ensure democracy and security to Canadians, in war, and then in peace.
If the house adopted the amendment the effect would be that the budget proposals now before the house would be postponed until the new credit and currency policy was framed. Divested of what might be called the preamble of the amendment, the conclusion expresses the negative of the motion before the house and would be determined by a vote on the motion. Beauchesne, citation No. 400, provides that an amendment that is merely an expanded negative cannot be proposed by the Chair.
There is another objection to the amendment, in that it proposes something which has been already before the house this session on two occasions, and the house has given its decision. The amendment urges in these words "mobilize Canada's resources for total war". In Votes and Proceedings of 18th February, 1942, pages 56 and 57, an amendment was moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, and in that amendment occurred these words:
And this house regrets that Your Excellency's advisers have not seen fit to recommend to parliament without delay additional measures

The Budget-Speaker's Ruling
designed to: (a) completely mobilize the wealth and material resources and, on a selective basis, the full man- and woman-power of the nation, to the end that the nation may wage total war in any theatre of war.
A subamendment to the amendment was moved by Mr. Coldwell, and part of that amendment was in these words:
... in the opinion of this house no total war effort adequate to meet the present needs of the war, domestic problems, and the preparation for post-war conditions is possible without total mobilization of wealth, industry and finance as well as human resources.


Mr. J. M. DECHENE (Athabaska):: In rising to continue the remarks I was unable to conclude last night, I do so after being deeply impressed by the nobility of the sentiment expressed in the house by leaders of all parties upon the occasion of the seventy-fifth anniversary of confederation.
For a few moments I should like to speak to this matter from another angle, and pay

my tribute, not to the fathers of confederation, because that has already been well done, but to the people of Canada. I think it fitting that such a tribute should come from a man occupying my position, belonging as I do to the common peoples of Canada. I am not a professional man, nor am I a schoolteacher or preacher. I am just an ordinary fellow, belonging to that large class in the community, that numerous class of people of whom a great statesman once said, "God must have loved the common people because he made so many of them." It is to those people I pay my tribute. I pay it to the fathers and the mothers of the land. I pay it to those mothers who, since the discovery of the country, have pioneered in their settlements, and who are continuing in their pioneering spirit in my part of the dominion. I pay it to those mothers who are writing the history of Canada with a golden pen dipped in blood. I pay it to the fathers of our country who have devoted their energy, time and ability, no matter what their occupations, to the welfare of the country. I pay my tribute to the veterans of the last war, to the boys in all the arms of the services in this war. I pay it also to the women engaged in services connected with the war, and to our farmers who are carrying on under conditions more difficult than ever before because they are finding that help is growing scarcer. Still they continue to do their share to see that all the food asked for by Great Britain and our allies may be furnished. I pay my tribute to the brains, the courage and the forbearance shown by the common people of this country. I, sir, a common man, a backbencher, beg of you the privilege of humbly bowing my head in tribute to the people who have made Canada, and who will continue to make it.
Last night at the adjournment I was directing my remarks in the budget debate to the tremendous resources of Alberta, and particularly as they relate to the possibilities of development of one of the resources this or any other country must have, if it wishes to be great and prosperous. I refer to oil and its by-products.
Complimenting the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) upon the masterly budget he presented to the house, I Would refer particularly to those budget provisions cutting down tariff restrictions on machinery necessary for the separation of oil from the bituminous sands found in the areas surrounding Fort McMurray and Waterways.
Aristide Briand, recognized as one of the most able men in France during the afterwar period, also one of France's greatest ministers of foreign affairs, is credited with

The Budget-Mr. Dechene
saying that many of the conferences following the war had proven futile because of the oil question. The question as to the ownership of the oil resources of the world, whether they were in Persia or in Iraq, in the East Indies or in any other part of the world, was the main cause for the failure of many of the peace and economic conferences. He pointed out that it was recognized by the great powers that no nation could be great in war or peace unless it had oil properties, without which the operation of mechanical contrivances was impossible, whether those contrivances were for use in farm or factory, or by tradesmen in their lines of occupation. After this war it is reasonable to expect that the world will be more mechanized than ever.
It has been proved, not from my own words or from any processes of imagination, but from the reports of practical men in the business, one of whom is an engineer and an expert in the Department of Mines and Resources, that we have at Fort McMurray and at Waterways, at a point 350 miles north of Edmonton, the largest oil reserve not only in America but in the whole world.
I have before me certain pages from a report by Doctor S. C. Ells of the Department of Mines and Resources, but to save time I shall quote only the last declaration in the splendid article appearing under his name in the Canadian Geographical Journal of June, 1942. This, may I point out, is not an old publication.
It would thus appear that ownership of oil in place, controlled production, and consequent economies as regards storage, are factors which should prove favourable to commercial development of bituminous sands. The writer visualizes a time when McMurray may become one of the leading oil producing centres of the North American continent.
Justification for the development of important production from Alberta bituminous sand has been considered:-(a) as a war emergency measure, and (b) as a development to meet normal peace-time requirements.
Many preconceived ideas and plans have yielded to changing and unexpected circumstances during the past thirty months. Whether important development of Alberta bituminous sand should be regarded as a war emergency measure will depend on circumstances which may develop during coming months, but -which cannot be foreseen.
At this point may I also pay tribute to two young men who were engineers and experts in the research council in Alberta. These young gentlemen, K. A. Clark and S. M. Blair, are known to me personally. For many years they have given invaluable services both to Alberta and to Canada, in cooperation with the Department of Mines and Resources in Ottawa, by making a study of the bituminous sands, and by helping to
evolve a machine which would make possible the separation of the sand from the oil, at a price at which the oil might be sold on a competitive market.
Having established that we have there a reserve estimated by Doctor S. C. Ells at 150 billion barrels, while the whole world reserve is estimated at from 35 to 39 billion barrels; having submitted to the house that Mr. C. S. Bowey of the United States bureau of mines estimates that 250 billion barrels of oil are available in the tar sands of Fort McMurray and Waterways; having also mentioned the fact that far from being inaccessible, as was stated in a report made to the Department of Munitions and Supply, this field is only 350 miles by railway from Edmonton, which railway is jointly owned by the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway and therefore an application to reduce rates, if they are thought to be too high, could be made to the board of transport commissioners; having stated that by air it is only 245 or 247 miles from Edmonton to Fort McMurray and this is the recognized method of transportation in the north country, I submit to the house that this matter is well worth the interest of lion, members. Attention should be given to the development, not after the war but now, of the tremendous resources there are in Alberta.
Here in Ottawa, the capital city, many members of the house and many business men and other people cannot go beyond the city limits because they are limited in the amount of gasoline they can purchase. This limitation applies to all lines of activity, and yet we have this tremendous supply of gasoline, greater than anywhere else in the world. I do not think we are doing the right thing by this country if we do not take immediate measures to develop these tar sands. It may interest the house to know that I stand on firm ground in agitating this matter. I have been bringing it up for twenty years. I first brought it up in the Alberta legislature, and any one who is interested may look in the old files of the Edmonton Bulletin and the Edmonton Journal. They will see that year after year, in 1922, 1923 and 1924, I brought up the question of these oil resources, as well as those in the Turner valley.
It will be remembered that in 1914 the Discovery well was brought in, in the Turner valley. This well produced a small amount of oil, but a tremendous oil boom resulted. Then war broke out, and most of the companies went to the wall. Drilling was stopped, and it began again only after the war. Gasoline sold for thirty-seven cents a gallon in the city of Edmonton, and the farmers throughout

The Budget-Mr. Dechene

Alberta could not afford to pay that price. Prices dropped after 1921. One year I moved in the Alberta house that the Alberta government should pay a bonus of $100,000 to the company or individual that first succeeded in bringing in a well which would produce 1,000 barrels a day.
We should develop these great resources, the tar sands, the oil wells and the other resources of Alberta and the Northwest Territories. I heard the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Coldwell) say that it was absurd to mine gold in Canada, to take it out of a hole, ship it to the United States and put it into another hole there, but he forgets that the mining of gold brings a great deal of money into the country and employs a great deal of labour. He is talking all the time about giving employment to labour; yet he rises in his place in this house and talks about the mining of gold which provides considerable employment. He forgets that we are not giving this gold to the United States. When it goes across the line it brings us a good price. If we could deliver from $200 to $250 million of gold a year, it would go a long way toward equalizing the rate of exchange between the United States and Canada.
I have something a little more difficult to say. A few days ago I was reading one of the best United States magazines, a magazine considered worth-while reading. This magazine contained an article by a gentleman who is recognized as being a world authority. He is a most reputable writer and has a complete knowledge of world conditions. This man has been in Asia, Singapore, Oceania and all over the world since war broke out. He was in the far east when the treacherous attack was made on Pearl Harbour by Japan. He describes some of the islands in the Pacific now held by the Japanese, and he gives details of some of the minerals which could be obtained from these islands and of which there is a great need to-day in Canada and the United States. These minerals have never been developed because the companies owning them belonged to cartels. Other resources were worked, but not these. I imagine this was done in order to keep up the price. He names the places, and he gives the estimated amounts of the minerals available. This information was given to the companies and to him by the engineers. To-day there is no access possible to these islands. The Japanese are in possession, and they will be able to develop these minerals themselves. I am wondering if there is not a possibility that a cartel exists in this country in connection with gasoline in order to stop or retard the development of the bituminous oil sands of Fort McMurray.


Major James William Coldwell: What about the
Standard Oil of New Jersey, the Imperial Oil in this country?


Joseph Miville Dechene: I am not a communist
or a socialist; I am just a Liberal, a common man. I am one of those who has absolutely nothing bad to say about the man who makes a success. I admire such a man. I think 99 per cent of those men who amass fortunes do so because they use their brains, muscles, and everything else to the limit. They are generally thrifty and work harder than anyone else. They devote all their time to their business and make many sacrifices in order to achieve success.
Mr. COLDWELL; The Standard Oil is not a common man.


Joseph Miville Dechene: I believe the people of
this country are going to watch developments closely in view of the fact that we have this oil; they are going to see that the development of these resources in western Canada, so needful to all, is not retarded by the action of some company interested in working other fields or in buying their supplies of crude oil from the United States and South America.
Yesterday the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) made an address which I admired very much. He made a wonderful contribution to this debate, and he must have given considerable care and attention to the details of the budget resolutions. But then he ruined it all by refusing, at the request of some hon. members on this side of the house, to include in the names of those who had met in Washington the name of the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King). I am an old-timer in this country, and for a long, time my ancestors made their living here. I love Canada. The United States has grown to a population of 130,000,000 people, while we have remained at only 11,500,000. For many years we have been losing our best blood to that country. Two or three millions of Anglo-Saxons and of French origin, born in Canada, make their homes in that great republic, and it benefits by their brains and brawn.
But because of that narrowness of which we witnessed an example yesterday we have not been able in this country to forget our political differences when it comes to the point of recognizing a man's ability and his services to Canada, and in that way we fail to create in the minds of our young people a pride in what is Canadian. When you look at the picture of one of the most illustrious sons that Canada has produced you cannot help but reflect that Sir Wilfrid Laurier really died of a broken heart. The hon. member from

The Budget-Mr. Ross (Souris)
Saskatchewan has perhaps never heard of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Apparently he has not or we would not have heard his sneers. Such an attitude as his makes' it very difficult in this country to create in our young people the pride in their country that the young people of the United States have in theirs. Sir Wilfrid Laurier died broken-hearted because on two occasions he met with the same narrowness, the same opposition from an organization of men who for political purposes refused to recognize his talents and his services to this country.
On this first of July, Canada's seventyffifth anniversary, and in this budget debate I think it is only right for me to say that even if we should dispose of the whole of our wheat after the war at $1.50 a bushel or more; if the price of cattle and hogs should remain as it is now, and if, in addition, we exported all our surplus of gold and other minerals, we should still fail to attain prosperity in this country- unless we achieved the unity of all the different elements that constitute this dominion.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Speaker, this being July the 1st, Dominion day, and the seventy-fifth anniversary of confederation, and very appropriate sentiments having been expressed in honour of this occasion by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Hanson) and the leaders of other groups, and thousands and thousands of our citizens being congregated on the grounds of parliament hill, one is led to wonder what has become of the spirit of the fathers of confederation. The prolonged parliamentary debate on conscription and the plebiscite, lasting for almost six months, is in my opinion an insult to the founders of this great nation. If we were to observe the true spirit of Dominion day I think we should stop wrangling over the duties of citizenship at this time. We have a truly great heritage, but it imposes also a great responsibility, and if by deed and action we would manifest our sense of responsibility, then before this nation reaches the century mark Canada could easily become a world power far greater than anything of which the fathers of confederation ever dreamed.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) has said that there is something wrong with this parliament, and I agree with him-after practically six months of debate, chiefly over the nonsensical plebiscite and conscription. Twenty-five years ago to-day, approximately 20 per cent of the membership of this House of Commons were overseas with Canada's expeditionary force, many of them serving in no man's land, putting in longer and more 44561-243J
uncomfortable and more arduous hours than we have ever served in this house. Yet when the hon. member for Regina (Mr. McNiven) suggested that we should speed up the work of this house he was roundly spanked by his leader, the Prime Minister. Just this morning I attended three different committee meetings. I have probably as much work to do in this house as the average member, and I feel that our procedure could be speeded up by the government of the day.
I should like to compliment the Minister of Finance upon his presentation of the budget. While agreeing with its general principles, there are some parts of the budget with which I entirely disagree. I would also congratulate the leader of the official opposition upon the splendid speech he made, in which he pointed out a number of glaring inequalities in the budget. Certainly so revolutionary a budget, brought down in the middle of the year, upsets any systematic planning by the people of this nation with respect to their livelihood, and it is distinctly unfair to the family man on a two thousand dollar income. The increase in taxation and compulsory savings for such a man is over 250 per cent, and for the family man in the three thousand dollar bracket the increase is over 300 per cent. While the compulsory saving feature is certainly a step in the right direction, the new tax will create a great many hardships for people on small or average salaries, especially with the budget being brought down so late in the calendar year.
I am opposed to the tax on candy. I think it is unjust. I have heard many stories of taking candy from a youngster, and I think it is going too far to tax candy, especially in view of the fact that, as was pointed out yesterday, it is a food, and with such other articles as sugar, chocolate and cocoa, forms part of the emergency rations of our armed forces.
In my opinion the budget should also make some allowance for old debts, say a deduction of at least 10 per cent. A farmer may have two or three crop failures, and then a good crop. How is he going to take care of his past obligations if he is compelled to pay this increased taxation? Some system should be worked out to cover the farmer's operations over a period of two or three years, because the tax is most unfair and almost unworkable under the present set-up so far as the farmers of Canada are concerned.
I should also like to make a few observations with respect to inequalities and the lack of

The Budget-Mr. Ross (Souris)
parity for agricultural products. In this connection I should like to quote what the Minister of Finance said on June 23, at page 3572 of Hansard, in presenting his budget. He said:
In the calendar year 1941, with relatively poor crops in many localities cash income from the sale of farm products was only 17 per cent below the income of 1928, the year of the biggest crops in our history. Good crops in 1942-43, with assured prices, will bring cash farm income close to the best records of Canadian agriculture. Excluding wheat, which has been in surplus supply since the beginning of the war and has required special measures, the prices of farm products on the average are now about 2 per cent above the level of 1926 and ju'ices of animal products on the average are relatively still higher. Farmers are assured of these prices on a wide range of this season's crops, and will receive, by government action, higher prices than those on last year's crops for wheat, flax, soy beans, sugar beets and apples; (4) price and income control are essential weapons in combating inflation. They must be used, however, in close coordination with direct control of supplies and productive equipment, with direction and management of manpower, with consumer rationing, where necessary, and with fiscal policy. No one of these instruments is itself powerful and persuasive enough to do the whole job of directing our resources to the end desired.
I wish also to refer hon. members to what the minister, said on June 4, at page 3081 of Hansard:
Just consider the position-and if members of this committee do not remember anything else I say, I want them to remember these simple figures. During the first twenty-six months of the last war, known as world war No. 1, price levels rose 15 per cent. During the first twenty-six months of this war, world war No. 2, price levels or the cost of living in the Dominion of Canada rose by 15 per cent. During the next seven months of the first v-ar price levels rose by 13 per cent.
Mr. McLarty: Additional.
Mr. Ilsley: Thirteen points over and above the' first fifteen points, making a 28 per cent increase in the total period of twenty-six plus seven months. But during the next seven months of this war the price level has risen less than 1 per cent. I want to say that in the last war-
Mr. Boss (Souris): At whose expense?
Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury):	The expense
of the producer, of course.
An hon.1 Member:	The farmer.
I think these two arguments should be compared at this particular time. Also, in his remarks on the introduction of the budget, I think the minister should have taken into consideration the increase in the population of this country. He quoted the year 1928. The last population figures prior to 1928 were 8,787,000. The figures for 1941 were 11,420,000. That is quite an increase, and should have a bearing on the amount of money available to agriculture. Considerably over one-third

of the population is dependent upon agriculture for a livelihood. Therefore that 17 per cent hardly gives a true picture of the present difficulties of agriculture in the dominion.
It has been said several times before that the base used for industry and organized labour in setting up this price ceiling scheme is the period 1926-29. Figures found in the publication of the economics branch of October 29, 1941, show that during the period 1926-29 the average prices of certain essential agricultural products were: wheat, 11-417; oats, 60-3 cents; barley 71-6 cents; rye, 97-1 cents; butchers' steers (Toronto), 9-04 cents; bacon hogs, 11-01 cents; creamery butter (Montreal), 38-2 cents; eggs (Montreal), 48-2 cents. The only article in that list which is over parity at the present time is cattle.


Mr. GARDINER:: I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend, but the price of hogs, as read out there, is above parity.


James Arthur Ross: No. I believe if the
minister figures it out he will find that it is slightly under parity to-day, although it is very close to parity. You have to figure out per kill on a hog-grading basis. I think it is still slightly under.
The United States government have announced that they will allow $1.14 on wheat on farms in 1942, or 16 cents above the 1941 price. That is a guaranteed price to the producer on the farm of $1.14, or approximately 40 cents above the price guaranteed to our producers at this time. While they are guaranteed 90 cents, I do not think it will amount to much over 74 cents to the producers on their farms.
Butter fat from the same cow is set, under the price ceiling, at 35 cents a pound at the creamery for butter, and 50 cents a pound at the cheese factory for cheese. In this connection I should like to refer to an article which appeared in my local paper under date September 4, 1941. It states:
For the sixteenth consecutive year, the grand championship in the Canadian butter competition at the Canadian National Exhibition, Toronto, has been w-on by butter manufactured in Manitoba, but the winning of this prize in 1941, is of particular interest to southwestern Manitoba for the reason that the top entry in the exhibition v-as that of Cy. McCallum of the Melita creamery and the high honour attained this year reflects most creditably, not only to Mr. McCallum and his fellow members of the Melita creamery staff, but to cream producers in the area served by this plant.
Iu that respect I do not think I have to point out to the Minister of Agriculture that those producers are being discriminated against, because they cannot deliver their cream or butter fat to cheese factories, which

The Budget-Mr. Ross (Souris)
are not available in that part of Canada. As has been pointed out before, it is impossible to have these factories constructed owing to the present priority system in this country.
May I now refer for a few moments to the cattle situation? A question was asked yesterday and to-day, on the orders of the day, by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Tustin) of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), and the minister apparently endeavoured to differentiate between beef and cattle. I feel sure he realized that beef comes from beef cattle. But I have been amazed, in following this cattle situation for the past month, that we have not had a statement from the Minister of Agriculture on this matter, in view of what has occurred in the past few weeks.


George James Tustin: It was promised wreeks ago.


James Arthur Ross: Yes, questions were asked weeks ago, and an answer promised which has not yet been given.
With reference to the questions asked yesterday, I would refer to the following statements in an article in a Toronto paper of June 30, under the title:
Big Cattle Run Here, but Two-thirds Unsold. Market Staggers under $1 Price Drop-Army to Pay Civilian Price-How About Supply?
I do not intend to read all this. The first paragraph will give some idea of the condition that exists to-day.
All across Canada yesterday prices of cattle declined from 60 cents to $1 per cwt. on all live-stock markets. In Toronto, where the beef shortage has been most acute, the market opened with a very large run of 4,450 cattle, but as bids declined sharply to a greater extent than previously shown in one day's operations, trading slackened and 2,700 head were unsold at the close.
On July 1 opens another quarter when Canadian cattle can be shipped to the United States at a customs duty of only 1J cents per pound, as compared with the regular 3 cents a pound. In the first two quarters of 1942, these quarterly quotas of 55,000 cattle were filled very rapidly, but now, with the existence of Wartime Food Corporation Ltd. to have first chance of buying before cattle can be shipped-
And so on. Elsewhere the article says:
Recently Ottawa reduced maximum prices of wholesale beef by 3J cents a pound, to be applied 1 cent a pound July 13, 1 cent a pound Aug. 3 and 1 cent Aug. 24 and J cent on Sept. 14. The wartime prices and trade board has desired to change the index from time to time during the year because cattle on grass during the spring, summer and fall months gain weight at less than at any other period, whereas in winter they have to be fed at considerably increased cost.
That is an account of yesterday's market. To-day. in the same paper, is another article entitled:
Cattle Prices Falling in Swiftest Drop Known. All Watching Market to See how Farmer Will React to Lower Rates-Ottawa Begins Buying.
This article says:
With receipts of 790 cattle reported by the dominion marketing service at the Toronto live stock market yesterday, a considerable trade developed in spite of a further decline in prices to points which showed levels lower by $1 to $1.50 for the week. There were about 1,200 head unsold at the close and to-day is a holiday. Wartime Food Corporation entered into buying for the first time of cattle ticketed for export when the United States quota for the third quarter of the year begins to-day. On Monday Toronto prices had been out of line with United States prices for most cattle but the further drop in price yesterday brought more of them into line. A complicating situation is that over-all ceilings are causing as much confusion in the United States as here and that Washington also pays a few cents more per pound for the armed services. That is abandoned m Canada.
Then it goes on to say:
Market Watches the Farmer.
Most of the old hands found themselves unable to gauge what will be likely on the market in the weeks and months ahead. The week's decline is the largest some of them remember for twenty-five years.


George James Tustin: And the farmers are watching the government.


James Arthur Ross: The farmers are watching the government for some lead.
Following that, we had a return brought down in this house, on April 29 last, which gave the following information:
Total number of cattle on farms in Canada:
Head
June 1, 1932	 8,529,700
June 1, 1937	 8,840.5^
June 1, 1941	 8,797,000
The amount of beef in store in Canada:
Pounds
April	1,	1932	
9,088,000April	1,	1937	
15,694,000April	1,	1942	
21,894.nnoExports	of	cattle to United States:
Head
1932	 12,865
1937	   306,958
1941	 250,573
The total dressed weight of beefs and calves slaughtered in the slaughtering and meat-packing industries in Canada was as follows:
Pounds
1932 beefs	 338,545,602
1937 beefs	 457,544,311
1940 beefs	 454,110,866

The Budget-Mr. Ross (Souris)
The figures for calves are as follows:
Pounds
1932	 42,918,685
1937	 86,532,559
1940	 80,999,915
In answer to a question as to what recommendation Mr. Donald Gordon of the wartime prices and trade board had made to the government for dealing with the control of Canada's beef cattle export, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) said that the question was not in order at that time. I think the impression prevailing among the producers of the country to-day is that the packers are to some extent in control of the cattle industry and of the marketing of the farmers' produce at this particular time. It is true enough that when the Minister of Finance said that beef did not mean cattle, he meant that beef came under the price control board, whereas cattle are sold by the producer and did not come under the board.


James Lorimer Ilsley: What I meant was that there is no ceiling on live cattle prices. If the hon. gentleman wants one put on-


James Arthur Ross: No, I am pointing out that the statement was made this afternoon for the purposes of the record, but there might as well be a ceiling in the face of what is happening to-day.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No. Take the events of the last two or three months.


James Arthur Ross: Would the minister care to explain this matter right now for the benefit of those engaged in the cattle business? -because it is confusing to the producers. I am willing to lose two or three minutes of my time now if the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Agriculture will explain the matter.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Go on with your speech.


James Arthur Ross: I said I was prepared to lose a few minutes in order to get an explanation for the benefit of the producers of the country. I am satisfied that money is still in control and ' is considered more important in some places than the essentials of life. One sometimes wonders what a difference it would make to the farm people, in the balance of Canada's economy, if Mr. Donald Gordon had spent half his life on the farm and the other half, as he has the greater part of it, in the bankihg business. Tennyson once said, "I am a part of all that I have met," and I think that applies equally to the chief price controller to-day. I still think that money is in control in this country. If there is any doubt about that, hon. members have only to refer to a reply made by the Minister

of Finance on June 5, at page 3114 of Hansard, to a question put by the member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). The minister was asked why interest was left out of the priceceiling structure. His answer was:
The reason is that the risk varies so greatly that we did not think we could put a price ceiling on it. Money is worth 6 per cent when it is lent on one class of risk and only 3 per cent when it is lent on another. You cannot do that unless you made it 10 per cent, 24 per cent or something like that. You could have a ceiling such as that, but it would completely prevent lending in many places where lending should take place.
I wonder if there is much greater risk anywhere in this land than in farming-and yet the farmers' commodities must be put under the price control board. In my opinion prices under this price control machinery are not based on equity, and I do not think the minister or anyone else will claim that they are. Here let me quote from paragraphs '4, 5 and 6 of the famous Atlantic charter:
They will endeavour, with due respect for their existing obligations, to further the enjoyment by all states, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity;
They desire to bring about the fullest collaboration between all nations in the economic field with the object of securing, for all, improved labour standards, economic advancement and social security;
After the final destruction of the nazi tyranny, they hope to see established a peace -which will afford to all nations the means of dwelling in safety within their own boundaries, and which will afford assurance that all the men in all the lands may live out their lives in freedom from fear and want.
I believe the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has suggested in this house that unless some of the principles of the Atlantic charter are put into operation before this war is finished, there will be little hope for the country after the war. I would point that out to the Minister of Finance at this time, because he is responsible for this price-ceiling set-up. I think he should bring about some basis of equity. I intend to discuss some points of this budget when we are in the committee stage because they more directly affect the great agricultural population of Canada.
There is another matter that gives me a great deal of concern, which I had thought of discussing under the budget. It is a matter of considerable importance. On June 8 the Prime Minister promised to set aside a day for the discussion of the Hong Kong report. In my opinion that inquiry should not have been made in secret. I know there are those who have their doubts as to whether we should refer to the report. It hao been mentioned on

The Budget-Mr. Reid
the floor of the house. To clear that up I would read a short article from the Montreal Gazette of June 8:
During the last great war, two royal commissions were appointed by His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom to look into various military operations. Lord Cromer headed a commission investigating the Dardanelles campaign. In the 'second volume of his autobiography, "Memories and Reflections", the then Prime Minister Asquith thus described the way the Cromer report was received:
"The first report (of the Cromer commission) did not survive four hours' debate in the House of Commons, in the course of which it was riddled by the criticisms of (Winston) Churchill and myself."
Lord Cromer was one of the most distinguished jurists of his day in Great Britain. Yet the report he submitted on the much-disputed Dardanelles expedition was subjected in parliament not only to debate, but to such vigorous and successful criticism that the report was subsequently redrafted.
That in my opinion was the correct procedure. I submit that this is the proper place in which to discuss the report. I am satisfied if the evidence is produced, whether or not dereliction or error is found on the part of the war committee of the cabinet, of which the Prime Minister is chairman, or of the then acting minister of defence, the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power), or of members of the permanent joint defence board of the United States and Canada, and certain high ranking officers-I am satisfied that all officers of the expeditionary force and of military district No. 10 will be entirely exonerated. At a time like this, in face of the peril that now exists to the democracies, prosecution of loyal citizens under the defence of Canada regulations, such as has recently been instituted against that gallant and great soldier, Colonel George Drew, who has such an excellent record, are unjustified and are not in the interests of an all-out war effort.


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: In rising to take part in the debate on the budget may I at once pay my deep tribute of admiration to our brilliant Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), whose great ability was manifested when he submitted, with such pleasing forcefulness and such clarity, the greatest financial statement ever.brought down in parliament since confederation. I am also reminded, as I feel sure we all are, after listening to the inspiring words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) and other leaders, that this is the seventy-fifth anniversary of the founding of Canada. As one of Scottish birth, I am not unmindful of the great privilege and honour bestowed upon me
in my having been elected member of parliament for New Westminster. I join with the Prime Minister and others who have spoken in paying my tribute of devotion to this our great dominion. I am Canadian to the core, and in this troubled day I say with heart and soul:	God bless and protect Canada.
With regard to the budget, Mr. Speaker, so far not one murmur of complaint has been heard from the Canadian people, and it is my belief that the people are truly prepared to sacrifice anything for victory, so that we shall not lose this war. They want an all-out war effort, in the fullest sense of the word, and with that desire I am in hearty accord. It is my opinion that the people of Canada are somewhat impatient with parliament. They sense a waste of time in the many speeches made here, very often duplicating other previous speeches. They feel that this is not right in time of crisis, and I believe they are watching parliament with great concern and that they resent party being placed before the welfare of the nation. The other day we listened to three very good speeches, one from the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Hanson), one from the leader of the Social Credit group (Mr. Blackmore) and one from the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party (Mr. Coldwell). I would particularly commend the speech of the leader of the opposition, which I thought was a remarkable contribution to the debate. I would say to the hon. gentleman, however, that I do not believe he needs to apologize for taking up the time of this house on any occasion. After all, he has a duty to perform as leader of the opposition, and he knows full well that democracy is safer with a live, active opposition. Speaking for myself, I know that many times I have been critical of certain matters affecting our people, often in connection with matters on which the government did not believe I should speak. But I have dealt with those matters in the full realization that the 77,000 people of the constituency of New Westminster, whom I have the honour to represent, have no other voice in parliament but that of their elected representative. I feel that I have a dutsr to perform, and therefore I may have to do some criticizing in my remarks this afternoon.
At the outset I should like to join in what was said by the leader of the opposition with regard to Canada's ever-increasing liquor bill. It is appalling to realize that last year we spent on liquor and wines some $20 per capita. Our wine and liquor bill increased last year by $50,000,000, reaching the stupendous figure of something like $234,000,000. It may be true that it is not the direct duty of the
The Budget-Mr. Reid

Minister of Finance to interfere with an industry of that kind, but we all agree that this is not an essential industry so far as the welfare of our people is concerned. I would say to the minister and to the government that if this increased taxation does not bring about a substantial curtailment in this business, more courageous action will have to be taken than a mere increase in the taxes imposed. I understand that so far as malt is concerned, the increase, which looks very large on paper, will amount only to something like one cent a bottle. However, we can discuss this matter in greater detail when we are in committee.
With regard to compulsory loans, this is a new departure in our budget. I think there are some splendid features in it, but I am just wondering what effect compulsory loans are going to have when the minister, as he will have to do later on, asks the Canadian people for $1,755,000,000 by way of voluntary loans. I trust this new system will not interfere with the success of the voluntary loans, but I rather gathered that the minister sensed the difficulties which might arise, because by way of encouragement he paid certain tributes to the committee which is in charge of this work.
I believe the merging of the national defence tax with the income tax is a step in the right direction. This multiplicity of taxes was rather confusing. I wonder if the minister had in mind, in taking this step, that when the war is over a demand might be made for the abolition of the national defence tax, because then people might say there was no need for a defence tax. By this step, however, it will be possible for the government of the day to continue the income tax and with it the national defence tax, if it so desires, until we are safely through the post-war period.
I listened with a great deal of interest to what the minister had to say with regard to trade between Canada and the United States. It was right and fitting, I thought, that he should pay some tribute to what the United States are doing and to the relationship now existing between that country and Canada. Then he went on to say, at page 3574 of Hansard:
In effect, the agreement may be thought of as eliminating the dollar sign in our war-time transactions with the United States by providing a convenient technique for an exchange of raw materials and other components of war goods for the finished war supplies we are equipped to produce.
As I listened to those words I could not help wondering why steps have not been taken to bring our Canadian dollar to par with the United States dollar. I wondered the 
more when I read an address made over a United States radio network last May, on a programme called "America's Town Meeting of the Air", at which Canada was represented by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Claxton) and Mrs. Phyllis Turner, both of whom I believe were very well received and both of whom did very well. On that programme Doctor Kindleberger, who is the research economist for the board of governors of the fedteral reserve system, had something to say with regard to the Canadian dollar. I trust that the minister will take note of this, so that when we are in committee he may give us some explanation of why the Canadian dollar is not at par with the United States dollar. Doctor Kindle-berger was asked this question:
I would like to ask Doctor Kindleberger why should Canadian money be worth less in United States exchange than it was formerly?
This was his answer:
Canada came into the war faced with the problem of having to import a great many things from the United States; faced with the problem of having to cut down on non-essentials. It also wanted to increase its exports to the United States. To that end it changed the value of its money (in terms of United States money) as a Canadian act, not as a United States act. The United States did not partake in that decision at all.
To me that is a rather startling statement, and I think some explanation is due us when we get into the committee stage. Both Canada and the United States are full partners in this life and death struggle. That being so, why should our Canadian dollar be at a discount of 10 per cent? Last year we bought from the United States something like $1,100,000,000 worth of goods and exported to the United States goods to the value of about $600,000,000. In effect this meant that the Canadian people paid $50,000,000 more for the goods we bought from the United States than I believe we should have been called upon to pay. If we are partners in this war, our money should be at par with the money of the United States.
Certain statements have been made here with regard to the farmers. In also advocating their cause this afternoon I offer no apology to anyone; but before going seriously into the matter I should like first to quote what the minister had to say in this regard, at page 3572:
.	.	. the prices of farm products on the
average are now about 2 per cent above the level of 1926 and prices of animal products on the average are relatively still higher.
I do not know where the minister got his figures, but I do know that they do not agree

The Budget-Mr. Reid
at all with the figures given by the bureau of statistics which I obtained the other day. Taking 1926 as a base of 100, farm products in 1930 reached a height of 82-3 per cent, while wages in Canada were at 105-8. Wages were away above the 1926 level, but farm products were about 18 per cent below. Then, in 1941 farm products had dropped further, to 71-2, while wages had still increased and had reached 109-7.
It is true in connection with certain lines of agricultural products that prices have gone up. To-day farm products on the average, however, are worth 80, and speaking of the month of May, 1942, we find they are worth 80-2, while industrial wages have gone up further to 120-9.
Concluding his speech, the minister said this:
The war will not be won by disputing as to whether labour or agriculture or employer or employee should get a larger share of a swollen national income.
I say to him that the farmers are not fighting with labour for a larger portion of the swollen national income. They are asking that they, as a class, be not called upon to make a greater sacrifice than any other civilian class. And before I have finished I think I will show that they are doing just that.
Comparing 1942 with 1941, it may be shown that in some lines of agriculture increased prices are being paid. But a comparison of 1942 with 1941 does not tell the story. That is just making a statement which proves nothing. In my opinion, agriculture has been further affected since coming under the operations of the wartime prices and trade board. When I mention the wartime prices and trade board I hope the government does not consider that board sacrosanct. Anything I have to say about it is not made in the sense of casting any reflection upon the chairman of the board, who, I think, was the proper person for the job. He is very able, and is doing, I believe, a great work, a work which has been successful along many lines. But let me point this out: We had better be careful of the great powers we are conferring upon the board. We had better be diligent. Although I am not a prophet, I will prophesy that many of the powers they are taking and many of those they have at the present time they will not give up without a struggle.
Not long ago one of the newspapers stated that some members of parliament were kicking because they had lost some patronage. I will tell the house this, that most members of parliament to whom I have spoken do have a sense of frustration because they feel that,
either knowingly or unknowingly, the government has set them aside and has handed certain powers over to boards. The people we represent should be in a position to approach their elected representatives when they want some redress from those who are handling the boards. The only place they can come is to their member, but when the member makes any approach to these officials he finds just how little he means to these men who are running boards. I feel sure every member of parliament knows I am speaking the truth. This is the condition which has brought about the sense of frustration among members of parliament who, like myself, feel that they have been just set aside, and that the people in their constituencies are not being represented as they should be.
With respect to agriculture, we sometimes refer in other matters to what is done in the United States and Great Britain, and we point out that we should follow their example. Why, then, did we not follow the example of the United States in connection with agriculture? The Economic Annalist of April, 1942, states this in pointing out what the United States have done to protect and encourage agriculture:
The United States Emergency Price Control Act, 1942, approved by the president on January 30, 1942, provides for government regulation of commodity prices, rents and marketing margins.
Farm prices-[DOT]
Such as the prices which are being set up by our wartime prices and trade board.
-are to be set by the office of price administration.
There is this proviso, however, this safeguard:
Farm prices are to be set by the office of
price administration, with the approval of the secretary of agriculture.
I maintain if the wartime prices and trade board is to go ahead setting the prices of farm products, then matters in connection with agriculture are bound to get worse. The Department of Agriculture has been, so to speak, divorced from agriculture-I was almost going to say that it had been placed in cold storage for the time being. But each one of us knows what happens when we go to the Minister of Agriculture, after an appeal is made to us by our farmers. Let me say right here and now that it is a good job for the farmers of Canada that the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is in charge of that department, because I do not know where oui farmers would have been had they been left under the wartime prices and trade board. As every lion, member knows-and it



The Budget-Mr. Reid
is an open secret, or at least common knowledge-the Minister of Agriculture has had a terrible fight with the wartime prices and trade board to obtain anything for the farmer.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And still has.


Thomas Reid: But it is not right. The wartime prices and trade board was set up to keep the ceiling prices down. It has no concern with what it costs the farmer to produce. Yes; it has stated just that, on numerous occasions when farmer organizations have gone to it and pointed out that farm labour is scarce, that prices of feed have gone up and that other commodity prices have increased. On those occasions the farmers have been told in plain terms, "We are not interested in what it costs you to produce. Our job and duty is to keep prices down." I say now: Is it any wonder that the farmers of this country are feeling as they do at the present time?
It was predicted by the Minister of Agriculture when the wartime prices and trade board took over, that there would be a butter shortage if they did not raise the maximum price on butter, a price which had been set at 35 cents, and was far too low. There is a butter shortage now. We are almost 10,000,000 pounds shy. What did the wartime prices and trade board say when that was brought to their attention?-"If there is no butter, you can eat more bread."


James Lorimer Ilsley: Who said that?


Thomas Reid: I think I can find the name of the man in the wartime prices and trade board who said that.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I wish you would.


Thomas Reid: I will, and I will hand it to the minister. I have a little more to tell the minister.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is good to hear these things once in a while.


Thomas Reid: I will tell the minister more. I will give him more in connection with another matter.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Give me the name and the date, and I will check it up.


Thomas Reid: I will send the name and the date to the minister.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I want something authentic.


Thomas Reid: Any statement I make I am prepared to prove, and when I make that statement the minister should accept it. I am not rising here to voice a lot of rumours with respect to reports which have come to me.

I had pointed out that there is a butter shortage. Then, the price of new potatoes was set at five cents in Ontario. With what result? New potatoes are being allowed to stay in the ground, and we are importing potatoes from the United States because our farmers cannot pick potatoes and sell them for five cents a pound.
Then, we have a sugar refinery closed in Ontario. Oh, yes, we are told that labour is scarce. But why is labour scarce? We all know that labour is scarce on the farm, simply because the farmer cannot afford to pay wages, when he must meet the competition from shipyards and munitions factories.
Then, the British Columbia asparagus growers have lost $3,000 because of the low price set down by the wartime prices and trade board. The strawberry growers were told, "Strawberries are not essential."


Mr. MacNIOOL:: But they are pretty nice to eat.


Thomas Reid: Yes, and good for you too. I have pointed out that the board is not concerned with farmers' costs, or with the fact that they are getting worse each day. Price control can be made to operate, and I quite realize that great distress would follow now if it does not operate. But agriculture must be thoroughly understood by the wartime prices and trade board.
Food is a munition of war. I am not sure but that there may be a scarcity of many kinds of food in this country if conditions are allowed to continue. With butter selling at thirty-five cents farmers are selling their cows to citizens from the United States who are coming across to buy them. The fact of the matter is that herds are being depleted because of the low prices set by the wartime prices and trade board. I repeat, they are not interested in the farmers' costs.
I am going to make another complaint about the wartime prices and trade board. While I am at it, I might just as well say what my people believe; I might just as well utter the thoughts that are in my mind as a member. I have no complaint to make about the chairman of that board. I think he is a splendid man and the right man in the right job, but I wonder just how the people of this country are looking at the appointments that are being made to that and other boards. If they are, they will be asking us members, "Why in the name of heaven are there so many bankers and industrialists obtaining positions when agriculturists and labour have been ignored and are not considered at all in these appointments?"

The Budget-Mr. Reid
There is a movement in progress toward a new era, toward the implementing of the Atlantic charter. What is taking place in some countries to-day? Certain persons in some countries are viewing with alarm the onward march of the common people for a better life. I wonder how many hon. members know the details of the committee that was set up in Great Britain, called the 1922 Committee, and is still functioning. I have not the time to read all of one report made, but one paragraph is of interest. This committee is really the power behind the throne in Great Britain, and lately its chief function has been to safeguard the rights of private enterprise and big business against the advance of socialism. It is described as the mouthpiece of vested interests and an extension to parliament of the activities of the Federation of British Industries.


Mr. MARTIN:: Is that a parliamentary
committee?


Thomas Reid: It is a voluntary parliamentary committee, acting without any authority from parliament itself. It is an arrangement among a certain group of members of parliament whose .powers, shall I say, come from the vested interests. The hon. member will know what I mean when I say that. I am not saying that there is a similar committee set up here, but I warn the members of this house that they have a duty to prevent any such movement here, even though they are on the government side. After they are elected they do not represent Liberals, Conservatives, Cooperative Commonwealth Federation or Social Credit; they represent all the people. That is what I am endeavouring to do this afternoon in saying what I have said.
Past history has shown that social legislation has made more headway during periods of war than at any other time. We are doing well now to give some thought to the postwar period. The Atlantic charter has been mentioned often since that historic meeting of Prime Minister Churchill and President Roosevelt, and it is to be hoped that the provisions outlined in that charter are not merely idle or empty words. When we speak about some new world order after the war, I suggest that we put into effect now some of the provisions of the Atlantic charter, particularly in connection with two worthy classes of our citizens.
One class I have in mind is made up of the great number of soldiers' widows in this country who have been knocking on the door of parliament for many years and whose plight is known to every member of the house. How about trying out some of the provisions of the
44561-244J
Atlantic charter on these worthy people? Then how about trying it out on our old age pensioners? Is nothing further to be done for them? True it is that we have on our statute books an Old Age Pensions Act which provides the small allowance of $20 a month for those who have reached the age of seventy years. This amount will hardly keep body and soul together. I wonder how many hon. members realize that the allotted span of life on this earth as laid down by God is seventy years? In psalm 90, verse 10, you will read:
The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away.
With the full knowledge of that before us, how can we call the granting of a pension at seventy years of age an old age pension? I am going to designate it from now on as a death-bed allowance. The great sums being provided by the Canadian people show that we can do anything, and refutes the statements which have been made by former ministers of finance who had always the one stock answer, "Where will the money come from?" when representations were made advocating further social legislation on behalf of our people. I remember one minister of finance holding up his hands in holy horror- I can visualize now the challenging look in his eyes

as he said, "Where can I get $100,000,000 to put these things into effect?" Yet we are budgeting to-day for "close to $4,000,000,000, a sum which staggers the imagination, a sum the magnitude of which few members of parliament can fully grasp.
Since my time is short, the last subject which I have to bring before the house has to do with the protecting of the Pacific coast. The people out there, and the people throughout Canada, are greatly perturbed over events these days. They are more perturbed because there is a feeling among the people that they are not being told the truth of the war situation. I am one of those who believe that our people can take the truth, but once they realize that they are being fooled it will be too bad for those in authority. I think it is fair to. say that since this war started the average citizen has been further ahead with his views than many of the high military authorities. On so manj' occasions they have been wrong.
The Japanese have landed on the Aleutian islands. To back up my statement that the people have not been told the truth, I should like to quote from an article which appeared in the United States press and which was copied by the Ottawa Citizen. I shall read only one paragraph of this article, which
The Budget-Mr. Reid

first appeared in the New York Times. Dealing with the fact that the Japanese had landed in the outer Aleutians, they say:
First we were assured that the enemy had landed in no "inhabited" area. Then it was suggested the islands were too rocky and forbidding to be of much value to the enemy. Later it was admitted enemy ships had entered Kiska harbour and that troop barracks had been erected on the shore. Now we are informed there cannot be more than a few hundred Japanese soldiers there.
I wonder how many people of this country and how many members of parliament are really aware of the significance of the toe-hold which the Japanese have obtained on the Aleutian islands? Even some of our own people do not seem to realize the significance of it. Lieutenant-General Kenneth Stuart, chief of the general staff, who has just taken over the Pacific command, referred to the landing of the Japanese on the Aleutian islands as being "only a little invasion". He suggested that we should pay no attention to it. I suggest that it is more than a little invasion and has more significance than he realizes or most people perhaps realize. I think the Vancouver Sun set this out veiy well in an editorial, which reads in part:
The Japanese are not yet into Alaska. They have not taken Dutch Harbour. But how can any sensible person believe that the Japanese will pause, for our convenience, in the outer Aleutians? Of course they must attempt, at all costs, to neutralize the bases of Alaska, which will be used against them as soon as Russia is at war with Japan. And the fact th.at Japan is moving so early in the north indicates clearly that the Japanese are getting ready for an early attaeK on Russia.
I should not be at all surprised if the Japanese moved forward and made a desperate attempt to attack Alaska. How many hon. members realize that Germany and Japan have put an encircling movement into effect and are attempting to divide the allies one from the other? We all wish to help Russia, but I say that if Alaska is taken by the Japanese, the one great outlet for munitions into Russia from this country will be blocked off.
Where the Japanese have a toe-hold is only 580 miles from Kamchatka in Russia, and that is only 600 miles from Japan. The Japanese are not going to sit back vvhen they have a foothold on the Aleutian islands, and if they should attack Alaska it will be a serious thing for Canada as well as the United States. We sometimes talk of an invasion. An invasion may or may not take place, but the object of the Japanese in taking Alaska and the Aleutian islands would be to stop aid going to Russia from outside countries before war between Japan and Russia takes place.
(Mr. Reid.]
I have one word to say regarding the Alaska highway. For ten years this country has been surveying routes from Canada into Alaska. We had the routes laid out, the estimates made and the plans worked out. We knew the best and easiest route to get in there, and I believe this country made a mistake when it allowed the United States to go ahead and build a road over a very nebulous route into Alaska. We are just as much interested in Alaska as they are, and we should have taken a firm stand, instead of showing a colonial mind, and said: "Here, Mr. United States, we have gone into this thing, and here is the proper route you should take." Some people are already beginning to doubt whether the United States will be able to complete the road they have started and whether they will not have to come back and build over one of the routes we have surveyed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Did the
hon. member never hear of the word "appeasement"?


Thomas Reid: I have, many times.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is
another illustration of it.


James Angus MacKinnon: Nonsense.


James Lorimer Ilsley: As near nonsense as anything could be.


Thomas Reid: I have just one more word to
say regarding the Japanese in British Columbia. Only a few days ago a Japanese submarine fired shells into Estevan. Some have said that the Japanese must have been poor marksmen because they did not hit anything. But does anyone know what their real object was? No one can tell. They may have been looking for supplies that could have been cached there earlier. In British Columbia in January of this year, and even before, the Japanese were buying gasoline, not by the gallon but by the drum, and buying stumping and blasting powder in great quantities. We from British Columbia raised our voices many times and asked the government to move the Japanese out of the province, but this was delayed. The latest information I have is that there are as many Japanese seen around the city of Vancouver now as ever there were. Those who come from British Columbia know that the situation is serious, but we have had a terrible fight to make the authorities here believe it. It has been flung in our teeth: "Do not listen to those men from British Columbia because they have not the milk of human kindness in them." Well, Mr. Speaker, I hope we are wrong; our pwn people come first. We who

The Budget-Mr. Gershaw
have lived among the Japanese know something of their methods, and I would not be surprised if they had cached gasoline and blasting powder in different areas along the coast. The Japanese it was stated landed men surreptitiously at night in the Charlotte islands before the war; when the war started three hundred Japanese disappeared and the authorities could not get hold of them at all. I have no doubt that some of them were those who came in surreptitiously. I would ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent), if it comes under his department, or the Department of National Defence, to watch the bays and coves of the coast of British Columbia, and, if possible, do a little searching there to find out whether there are any caches which the Japanese have made of supplies for submarines and other vessels to pick up when needed.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, it is realized that the war situation is serious, but do not let us forget that Hitler's plans are not going well. His attack on Russia was a mistake, and we can thank God for that mistake. Second, he never dreamed that the United States and Canada could turn out aeroplanes and tanks and ships and munitions and food in such huge quantities as we are doing. Canada's record in that respect is one of which we can justly be proud.
It is not often, Mr. Speaker, that I quote poetry in the house, not that I have not been in a position to do so, but on this seventy-fifth anniversary of our dominion I may be pardoned if I quote four stanzas from a poem called "Canada's Call-1942," by John of "The Lilacs," Prince Edward Island.
The pipes are sounding far across the water,
Across the lakes and dells comes their refrain;
The pibroch strains are calling from the distance-
0 bonny lad, guard well thy great domain.
Guard well thy freedom! flower of Canada's greatness,
Far o'er the ocean waves thy help is needed still;
"Lest We Forget," these words live in our memory
From out the past-from Flanders' field and hill.
Ours is no empty boast, nor words vainglorious
Of flattering tongue, or craven servile race;
Upon the undying page in deeds immortal;
There Canada's sons have won a glorious peace.
No pen however great could write the glory,
Of Canada's heroes who braved war's awful hell;
"Their names shall live forever;" through the
ages,
Where history's chronicle of valorous stories tell.
My final word is this. We the members of this house have a duty to perform during these trying days. I trust that when the history of this crisis is written those who read the pages of Canada's great deeds will find a sentence something like this dealing with our parliament; During those days none was for the party but all were for the state.
Mr. F. W. GERSHAW (Medicine Hat); Mr. Speaker, in rising to make a brief contribution to this debate I should like first of all to say to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) that the writing of the budget and the manner in which he delivered it are accomplishments that will stand out brilliantly in the political life of Canada for many years to come. I have noticed that the British people have commented favourably on this budget, and I believe that the people of Canada have accepted it, not with joy and shouting, but with the seriously firm conviction that it is fair, that it is just and that it is necessary in order to meet the very difficult circumstances with which we are faced. It is an outward indication that the economic life of Canada has changed from a peace-time to a war-time basis. But to me, Mr. Speaker, it means something -more, because I believe it means the end of that phase of capitalism which has allowed poverty and want to exist side by side with great wealth and waste. As 1 go into the homes of the people of the country I find that there is one problem which faces them all, and that is the problem of making a bare living. I find that during the thirties there was demoralizing unemployment, when many of our young people were denied the chance to work and make a decent living. I believe that the sentiment of the people of Canada and the sentiment of the soldiers who will return to Canada will be never to permit such conditions to recur within our countiy.
Speaking before, earlier this session, I advocated the giving of larger pensions for the aged and for the blind. I have also advocated that this very high taxation be kept up after the war so that the plans which the various reconstruction committees are making can be carried out. I believe that those plans can so adjust things that no one who has gone overseas will lose for having done so and that no one who has stayed at home will gain for having stayed at home.
I believe that on this Dominion day we might well not only give lip-service in honour of our fighting forces but also convince them that when they return there will be positions for them, that there will be preference for them
The Budget-Mr. Gershaw

in the positions they had before, including the civil service, and that they will be reestablished as they should be.
I believe that during and after this war we should all be on the same level in respect of whatever sacrifices are necessary. I see in this budget a levelling-up process which, I believe, will have a great effect; that level should be the one which will give the maximum health to the people of this country.
There was a day when certain people in Spain knew that they had four columns coming against them, and then they had the traitors in their midst, making a fifth column. We in Canada are faced with more than that. We are faced with what might be called the sixth column. I refer to the devitalizing effects of ill-health and undernourishment. Never since the beginning of time has the morale of an army been high when the civil population was not well fed. No army was ever at its best; no army had the necessaiy sustaining energy unless it also was well fed. So we must see to it that the boys who have gone from these shores shall be the best-clothed, the best-equipped and the best-fed army that our resources will provide, because-
Vain mightiest fleets of iron framed;
Vain, those all-shattering guns;
Unless proud England keep, untamed,
The strong heart of her sons.
Health and life are the most precious possessions of any mortal. Before this war is over, many of our bravest and best young men will lie beneath wooden crosses; many, too, will lie in foreign lands without crosses, or in the depths of the ocean. Others will return broken in spirit and in body. We cannot prevent those violent deaths and injuries. But we can prevent deaths on the highway. We can do much to prolong the span of life. Just to illustrate, I should like to mention some things which have been done.
Research up to the present has discovered means of combating previously rapidly fatal diseases as diabetes, goitre and pernicious anaemia. Sulfanilamide has been discovered, and, with its allied drugs, has been a real elixir of life, because it has done so much to inhibit and destroy the effects of the invading germs which are always present. Drug addiction in this country is almost unknown, owing to the vigorous action of the Department of Pensions and National Health. Workmen's compensation boards in the different provinces not only pay compensation but have a department studying the cause of accidents and trying to prevent those accidents from happening, and putting in measures for the protection of the workmen. Yet we find that, with all those precautions, there are still some things which
(Mr. Gershaw.]
have not until recently been given much attention, and for a few moments I wish to speak on the deficiency particularly as it applies to diets.
Anyone who is working hard needs a substantial diet. A cigarette and a cup of coffee are poor nourishment to support the body. On the other hand, a full stomach is not by any means an assurance that there is not partial starvation and deficiency. There are many men who have been in good health while they were in humble circumstances, but when they started to indulge in the rich diets and the worry and the stress and the strain and probably the night life of the affluent, their health has been broken.
During the days of Washington the average age of life extended to only thirty-eight years. During the days of the first Roosevelt it was forty-nine years. To-day a male child can look forward to living sixty-one years, and a female child to sixty-four years. That great improvement has been brought about chiefly by better care of infants, better protection against contagious diseases, including tuberculosis and typhoid. There are still many-too many'-sudden deaths coming in the most active period of life. Many of these deaths have definite causes; the causes can be learned and precautions taken in time. Sometimes dietary excesses have a good deal to do with it-eating the wrong foods, drinking the wrong fluids, and a body-softening and nerve-debilitating method of life. From a study of 200,000 insurance reports it has been found that, for every hundred men who die at the age of forty-five at normal weight, one hundred and thirty-nine die at that age who are overweight, because every cubic inch of flesh and every extra pound impose a great strain on the vital organs. That, together with the high-tension lives which we live, has been the cause of many sudden deaths. This budget seems to provide very good reasons for people to improve in that respect, because the high taxes and the restrictions which this budget has brought forth will tend to cause people to walk more and ride less and live & much simpler life.
In Great Britain, rationing has brought about an improvement in the health of the people. During the last war people waited in long queues to get their food. The result was that the strong and the rich got too much, and the poor and humble were often told, "There is nothing more to-day." In this war, ration cards are given to the people, so that everyone gets his share. In Great Britain to-day and every day about a million meals are served, mostly to the children, and the government pays for 90 per cent of them. Coal miners,

The Budget-Mr. Gershaw
who are subject to cold and damp, are given extra supplies of Canadian bacon because of its heat-producing qualities, and those who work strenuously for long hours in the docks receive extra supplies of cheese because of its calcium content. Fruit juices, milk and the fish liver oils are supplied chiefly to children and to expectant mothers. The cargo space which is available to take food to the people of Britain is limited, and they must put essential foods in that space and deliver them where they are most needed. This has resulted in an improvement in the health of the people.
I come now to the second class. Deficiency affects those who have too much to eat and to drink, too little exercise and too little sleep; but it has a much more varied, serious and complicated effect upon that other class of people who have too little to eat, too much to do, and too much anxiety and worry. Poor food, poor clothing, poor housing conditions are companions of ill-health and dejection. Why? Because these unhappy conditions lower the resistance which each of us has to germs which are ever ready to attack us, to invade our systems and destroy our lives. These things result from our economic activities failing to keep up with the light and knowledge gained by medical research and medical experience. Our hearts go out to the old person, to the aged man or woman who has not ordinary comforts, but perhaps much more are we touched by the pale, drawn face and lean body of the. undernourished child. We know that these physical deficiencies can be evaluated and that the necessary proteins or minerals can be supplied in the proper quantities and qualities.
For instance, there is vitamin B. We are all interested in vitamin B because it is the youthpreserving vitamin. Deficiency of it in childhood causes decrease of growth, and in adult life fatigue, neuritis, nervous depression and so on. This substance is found in a number of foods but particularly in the whole grain cereals and in milk, liver, and such products as eggs in particular.
Take vitamin C. A deficiency of this causes poor bones and teeth, and scurvy in advanced cases. This vitamin in found abundantly in tomatoes, oranges, unpeeled potatoes.
One more vitamin comes to mind, vitamin A. A deficiency of this causes a decrease of growth in childhood and aching eyes, eye weaknesses and diseases of the eye. This vitamin is found abundantly in green vegetables, spinach, carrots, apricots and, of course, particularly in butter and in fish liver oils.
The absence of a small quantity of these important essentials does not cause total dis-ablity or complete sickness, but it does tend in
that direction. It causes partial disability. It retards the person in the strenuous struggle for life. As Doctor Thomson put it, it takes us to the nutritional twilight. We do not enjoy the bright midday sunshine of an adequate diet, but yet we are not altogether consigned to the night of definitely diagnosable disease or starvation. Doctor James recently visited some places in the east end of London. He went to Bethnal Green to a school there and found that the government was providing one meal of protective foods for the children in that school every day. He found that the children of thirteen years of age weighed eight pounds more and were one and three-quarters inches taller than their predecessors in 1938. Not only that, but that particular part of London had been hit by enemy action and they have often had to go into shelters. Then in a boys' school the diet was considered to be adequate, and yet it was found that a large , number of boys, when compared with an equal number of other boys, showed that in the first class, where one pint of milk a day had been given to each boy, at the end of a certain period of time each of these boys had gained 6-98 pounds in weight and was 2-63 inches taller, whereas the average of the other boys had gained only 3-85 pounds and 1-84 inches in height. Their school work and their sports activities showed the difference.
In Canada surveys have been made. In four Canadian cities expert dietitians went into the homes of people who were making about $1,000 a year and weighed and measured the food which was taken by each member of the family at each meal, and a surprising deficiency was discovered. It was found that the total amount of heat units was 15 per cent below normal; that iron was deficient as was also calcium. The vitamins were very deficient, and some were receiving only half what they should have been getting. These people were taking too much food made from white flour, from which valuable constituents had been extracted; there was probably too much sugar in their foods, and they were woefully deficient in whole grain cereals, fresh vegetables, dairy products, and possibly tomatoes or citrus fruits. Most of these products are not very expensive. It was worked out then that the average family of five could have an adequate diet if they had $7.50 for food each week. This means that they would have to have an income of about $100 a month. I am glad that the Minister of Finance has said that no married man receiving $1,200 will pay income tax, nor will income tax leave him less than that amount. But one-quarter of the people of Canada have not sufficient income to provide
The Budget-Mr. Gershaw

that adequate diet, and perhaps another quarter have not the special knowledge of how to prepare the diet. I am sure that if the rural homes were checked up, it would be found that many of them have not sufficient money to provide a really adequate diet.
Most of' these foods can be provided by Canadian farms, and the future market for farm products is not predictable. It has been said, however, that if every person in the western hemisphere, including the British empire, could, with public aid and education, receive an adequate diet, all the farm products of the farming communities would be used, so that what we should do is to get the farmers to produce food which will provide an adequate diet and fully pay them for it. Great strides have been made in the army along the lines of providing a balanced diet. The people of Canada are becoming nutritionally conscious. Difficulties are met with -economic difficulties, difficulties of indifference, of education and so on-but the solving of these problems is not beyond the ability of the Canadian people, and their solution would accomplish something that would be permanent and enduring. That would be a great step toward victory, by doing away with the danger of a sixth column; and the reward would be the disappearance of despair and the bringing of sunshine to many Canadian homes.
On motion of Mr. Fraser (Peterborough West) the debate -was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Crerar the house adjourned at 5.52 p.m.
Thursday, July 2, 1942