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

Hon. R. B. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, in the Montreal Standard of May 29 there appeared under an Ottawa dateline a news item which indicated among other things that fifty members of this House of Commons were derelict in their duty in leaving this house on Friday last, and in fact we were indicted as having played hookey. On behalf of all my colleagues who made that journey, as well as on my own behalf, I desire to repudiate the implications of this article. May I be permitted to say, sir, that those of us who journeyed to Buffalo last week, where we inspected the great plants of the Curtiss-Wright corporation and other companies, went not as schoolboys escaping from school. We went on an educational tour to see and to learn at first hand of the splendid progress being made in aeroplane production by our great and friendly neighbour, to learn of the great contribution being made to the cause of the united nations, both by industrial giants and by the working men and women of the United States; and over and above all that we went as ambassadors of good-will from Canada to the United States. It -was my privilege, along with my friend the hon. Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gibson) and my friend the hon. member for Vancouver Burrard (Mr. McGeer), to pay tribute and give full expression to that attitude of heart and mind on the part of the people of Canada to the people of the United States. I am firmly of the opinion that it would be of great advantage to the common cause if there were more of these journeys with the same intention. Finally, instead of chastising the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Ross), by whose kind invitation we were enabled to make that journey, I think we should commend him and on behalf of my colleagues who are so much indebted to him for his kindness, I here and now offer him our generous and sincere thanks and commendation.
72537-208J



DOCTOR EDUARD BENES


[Stage Direction]
On the order for motions:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members of this house and such members of the senate as were in the city to-day had the privilege of listening to a memorable address at noon by His Excellency Doctor Eduard Benes, President of the Czechoslovak republic. It will, I am sure, be desired by hon. members generally that the address delivered by Doctor Benes should be given a permanent place in the records of this parliament. I would therefore move, seconded by Mr. Crerar:
That the speech of His Excellency Eduard Benes, President of the Czechoslovak Republic, delivered this day before the members of the Senate and the House of Commons, be printed as an appendix to the Official Report of the Debates of the House of Commons, and form part of the permanent records of this house.


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: May I ask the Prime Minister if under this motion his introduction of His Excellency as well as the speeches given by the Speaker of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Commons are also to be recorded? I am in favour of that. I do not understand French and was unable to grasp the speech of the Speaker of the Senate, but judging from the applause I think it should be recorded. May I at this time express my personal thanks to you, Your Honour, for your inspiring message this morning. I am sure that if the Prime Minister -would include in his motion all that was said this morning, it would be acceptable to this house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I might say that in the motion as I presented it I did not include the "et ceteras", either before or after, but I do thank my hon. friend for his suggestion, and if the house approves it, I shall regard its approval as a compliment, as I am sure also, will Their Honours the Speakers.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Was a verbatim record made of what was said?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Falconbridge Nickel Company


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member for
Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) has drawn the attention of hon. members of this house to the following statement made at the annual general meeting on April 21 of the Falconbridge Nickel Mines Limited by the president of the company:
Incidentally, you will be glad to learn-as I was-that through indirect channels it is reported that your Norway refinery is safe so far, and is being maintained. It is in operation by your Norwegian staff, under German control, on the same Norwegian nickel-copper ore production that we formerly handled on toll basis.
I regret to have to confirm that the statement to which attention has been drawn was in fact made by the president of Falconbridge Nickel Mines Limited, and is printed in the report of the annual meeting of the company. It is a deplorable statement, from which the inference could be drawn-I am sure unfairly -that the property interests of the company were being put above the prosecution of the war. We know that the German government is very short of nickel, and it cannot be doubted that it would be to the advantage of the united nations if the Falconbridge refinery in Norway were to be rendered wholly inoperative.
On behalf of the government, I should like to repeat the regret that such a thoughtless and ill-considered statement should have been made by the responsible head of an important Canadian mining company, which in its own operations in Canada is making a very useful contribution to the united war effort.


Major James William Coldwell: I would ask the Prime Minister what the government propose to do about it, because this statement is much more subversive than some statements for which men have been incarcerated, or interned. I should like to know what the government proposes to do, not what it says.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, I may say that the statement which I have just made will, I believe, be more effective in its results than any other measure which the government could possibly take.



MAN-POWER MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT UNDER STANDING ORDER 31

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, I ask for leave to move

for the adjournment of the house to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, that the government should take immediate steps to provide a solution of the agricultural man-power shortage.
Mr. SPEAKER:: I received a copy of this motion before I came to the house. The hon. member for Temiscouata moves, seconded by the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Dupuis):
That, whereas agriculture is an essential industry and whereas seeding operations are an essential part of such an industry;
Whereas, according to the telegraphic crop report published June 1, 1943, 3 p.m., by authority of the Hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, "spring seeding operations have been delayed in almost all sections of Canada but particularly in the five eastern provinces and British Columbia. In the maritimes the weather has been cool and backward with planting operations considerably delayed. Much seeding is still to be done. ... In Prince Edward Island the season is backward. ... In Nova Scotia not more than 10 to 20 per cent of the land is at present seeded. ... In New Brunswick spring seeding operations are delayed, with probably 75 per cent now completed. ... In Quebec farm work has been delayed by the backward spring and only a small percentage of spring seeding has been completed. The late, wet spring has hampered seeding operations in all sections of Ontario except the northern areas. . . . Spring has been exceptionally late in most areas of Quebec with heavy rains delaying seeding operations. Much of the heavy low lying lands are still unworkable. ... In some districts no seeding has been attempted. . . . The late, wet spring has hampered seeding operations in all sections of Ontario except the northern district. In some sections no seeding has been attempted. . . .
Whereas the delays in seeding operations is partly due to weather conditions, it is mainly due to the shortage of experienced and physically fit agricultural man-power;
Whereas several experienced and physically fit farmers are actually in training camps of the army and of the Royal Canadian Air Force, and a number of others have been called for their military training;
Whereas, numerous applications made by farmers, farmers' sons and farm helps for leave have been turned down in too large a number by their commanding officers, and numerous requests for the postponement of the military training of the farmers, the farmers' sons and farm helps have been turned down in too large a number by the mobilization boards;
Whereas, unless those men are returned at once to the land for the seeding and other agricultural operations, the army and the civilian population as well are exposed to suffer from famine next fall, and it will be impossible for this country to supply our army overseas and our allied nations with necessary food;

Man-Power-Mr. Pouliot
This house shall be adjourned to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, the government should take immediate steps to provide for a solution of the agricultural manpower shortage.
The form of the motion is rather unusual; it is not the common practice to present an argument on a request for the adjournment of the house, but I have come to the conclusion that this is a matter the house might wish to discuss. Therefore, unless objection is taken, the hon. member has leave to proceed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not wish to take any exception to the house discussing the important question of mam-power, particularly in relation to agriculture; but the house already has devoted a great deal of time to that very subject, and a day or two ago it was understood that after we completed the statements of the ministers of defence we might take as the next order of business the question of man-power, even before going into matters pertaining to the Department of Munitions and Supply. I do not think it will be very long before we reach the discussion of man-power, and the question of agricultural labour and the measures necessary to meet the needs of agriculture inevitably will come up as soon as that discussion is entered upon.
The hon. member who has just offered1 this motion has devoted a good deal of time to discussing various matters in the house, including the subject now proposed for special discussion. He has not been deprived of the opportunity of speaking whenever he so desired, but I do think, however, that hon. members generally would prefer to go on with the business which is before the house at the moment, having to do with the appropriation necessary for purposes of the war, including the very matter to which my hon. friend refers in his motion, and not to have that discussion interrupted at this time and the time of the house if not wasted at least not turned to the greatest possible advantage as should be the case with all discussions at this stage of the session. I believe if the consensus of hon. members were taken before this motion is put, as to those who favour an immediate cessation of a consideration of the business set out for to-day in order to discuss this particular motion, it would be found that the house is overwhelmingly in favour of proceeding with its regular business.


Mr. GRAYDON:: Do I take it from the
remarks of my right hon. friend that he is going to accept the suggestion I made across the floor of the house the other day, that immediately the war appropriation estimates of
the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services are concluded the Minister of Labour should go on with his estimates?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have not
had a chance to discuss the matter with my colleagues the Minister of Munitions and Supply and the Minister of Labour; unfortunately one or the other of us has been absent from the country during the last day or two, since the subject was mentioned by my hon. friend. However, I think he may take it for granted that in so far as it may give promise of expediting the business of the house, we will seek to meet the wishes of the opposition in the matter.


Mr. COLD WELL:: I was unaware that any agreement had been reached with regard to the order in which the departments would be taken up.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was discussed on the floor of the house; there was no definite agreement.


Thomas Miller Bell: I was surprised when
the Prime Minister said the Department of Labour would be next, because it seems to me the logical order would be the Department of Munitions and Supply and then the Department of Labour. In any case, Mr. Speaker, I think the problem raised by the hon. member for Temiscouata is one which does affect a very large part of the country. Recently I was out west for a day or so, and I was told of the acute shortage of men on the prairies and of the difficulty of obtaining the necesary help even from men recently called for their basic training, who are the men required on the farms at this time in order to complete the seeding. I think there is some merit in the suggestion that this is a matter of urgent public importance.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: I believe this matter is of sufficiently urgent public importance to justify our taking at least a short time to discuss it. We may go on for several days with each of the remaining departments, just as we did with the Department of National Defence, and by the time that discussion is concluded it will be too late to take care of the problem with which this motion is designed to deal. Therefore I would favour spending such time on this matter as the house sees fit to devote to it.


Thomas Vien: Standing order 31 deals with a motion such as this, and subsection (3) reads:
He then hands a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to the Speaker, who, if he thinks it in order and of urgent
Man-Power-Mr. Pouliot


Thomas Vien: A sufficient number having risen, the hon. member has leave to proceed.


Mr. POULIOT:: Mr. Speaker, I shall not take much of the time of the house, but this matter is so important that it deserves immediate consideration, particularly in view of the telegraphic report of June 1 issued by the authority of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon). Most hon. members have read or heard of this report, which indicates that this is not a matter that can wait. This question must be settled at once, in view of the importance of agriculture in this country.
Let me say, sir, that I am not speaking with any political or partisan bias. I think it is my duty as a member of parliament to bring to the attention of the government the plight of many farmers who are too old to continue to look after their farms and who cannot get any help at all. I have a mass of files here which indicate that throughout the country farmers are suffering from an acute shortage of manpower. In British Columbia as well as in Ontario, Quebec and the maritime provinces, owing to weather conditions seeding operations are a month late; according to the official publication I have mentioned, in Nova Scotia only one-tenth of the seeding had been completed by June 1. I was in my own constituency not long ago and I noticed that the farmers are far behind in their work as compared with other years. What I want, and it is the desire of farmers I have met from all parts of the country, is that their case should be seriously considered now by those in charge of the Department of Labour and the Department of National Defence. It will be a very wise thing for the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) and the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) to give definite instructions to the end that all young men of military age who are at present in training camps, who have had experience in agriculture and whose presence is needed on the farms may be given sufficient leave to

enable them to help their fathers or those for whom they work in operations which are essential not only to the welfare of the country, including both military and civilian populations, but also to our soldiers overseas and the hungry people of the allied nations.
It is time to see to this matter, and we are not disturbing the work of the house by directing its attention to such an important problem. We shall not harvest what has been sown if the seed is not placed in time. The harvest will be nil. We cannot take it for granted that the weather will be just as auspicious this year as it was last. We know nothing about the weatheir we shall have this summer and fall. But we do know that the spring weather has been very bad, and for that reason nothing which can promote farming in this country should be neglected.
It is also important that definite instructions be given by the Minister of Labour to national selective service and the mobilization board that they shall not call at this time men who belong to the farm and the land. A certain number of men in the army are farmers, farmers' sons and farm help. Their .presence is badly needed now on the land.
There are some who hold the view that some farmers have not complied with the regulations, and that therefore they should go to their commanding officers to ask for the granting of leave. What happens? I remember well the fight I have made for the farmers, right from the beginning. I remember, too, discussing the matter thoroughly with the late Mr. Lapointe, with the . present Minister of National War Services (Mr. LaFleche), with certain officials of the Department of Labour and others of the Department of National War Services. I sent to all the ministers, so that they might have them translated, all the representations made on behalf of the farmers, articles which were published in a weekly appearing in my county. That publication informed them of the conditions of farmers in eastern Canada.
I remember well that the regulations of the Department of National War Services first described agriculture as a seasonal occupation. I had a long fight before I succeeded in having that occupation described not only as seasonal but also as essential. The grain growers in the west may put gasoline in their tractors in the spring and take it out in the fall. But the work of the eastern farmer and the farmer in British Columbia is entirely different. They must do a whole year's work, and each day must work from dawn to dusk. Those representations had to be made.

Man-Power-Mr. Pouliot
I remember that after the order in council was approved a publication was issued by the Department of National War Services giving some explanation with regard to the work of the farmer. That publication was not complete; it was an aftermath. It seemed to justify the assertion that the farmer's occupation is seasonal, whereas it is not. It is an essential occupation lasting the whole year.
After that we had to fight with the boards. Some progress has been made; but now we have reached the point where we want put into force or have fulfilled the solemn promise made in March of last year by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) that the farmers would be exempted from military service. A directive was issued the day after by the Minister of Labour; but in my seat in the house I heard the Prime Minister make that statement, and on the following day I saw in all the newspapers the statement: "Farmers Exempted from Service".
We shall not be afraid to come to the defence of the farmer. In peace time he is praised; in war time he deserves equal praise, because he ranks with the soldiers in the services in the importance of the task he performs for the country. I want a definite policy with regard to farmers. I do not want to have them deceived by fool talk; let them be told the truth. They should be told what the government has decided with respect to them.
Only a few days ago we heard an imperialist as noted as the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce) speak about the stress placed on agriculture. He made that statement because he could not get enough man-power to help him on his farm, and had to sell his stock. He is not alone, because there are many farmers who either cannot work at all on account of physical disabilities, or cannot get help for their farming operations. This is a serious problem, and it is one with which the country is now confronted.
What happens now? The young man is called by the registrar to pass his medical examination. These examinations were not always satisfactory, but I shall not speak about them to-day. If the mobilization board decide that the reasons given by a man for staying on the farm are not sufficient, he is compelled to continue his training. These farmers have not received the attention they should from the board. If they stay a little longer on their farms for seeding operations or to do any other urgent work that may be needed to be done, they are told that the mobilization board has nothing to do with them and that they must return to their regiments and submit a request for leave to the commanding
officer. What happens? In some cases it is granted, but in other cases it is turned down. When it is granted, what happens? It is sent to Ottawa to the adjutant-general's branch. According to a statement made by the Minister of National Defence in answer to a question asked by myself, there are no agricultural experts in the Department of National Defence.' Such experts are necessary to decide the cases of farmers, but the view is held there that all young men of military age who are physically fit should be in the army. Apparently they consider that farming should be carried on by young men who are physically unfit or who have been rejected by the army.
That is one reason why we have so much difficulty; the army wants all the men who are physically fit. No one will deny that agriculture is an essential industry, but this would seem to be denied by the answers given in a large number of particular cases. When the theory is admitted by all, why is it not applied to all deserving and worthy cases? What do these men in the adjutant-general's branch of the Department of National Defence know about the work that the farmers in my constituency have to perform? They know nothing. If at least they were deciding these cases according to common sense, even though they had no particular experience in farming, I would say that they were showing some common sense, but they show none. I could quote innumerable cases where farmers have been fooled or foiled, where they have not been given justice. And yet we are told to produce more.
Many farmers in my community are interested in dairy farming, in hog raising, in stock and sheep raising and in other farming activities. Not all of them have tractors; some have fine horses and they must plough with a horse or two. Another thing I have noticed, a thing with which I think the majority of members will agree, is that most farmers who have reached the age of fifty years suffer from rheumatism. From boyhood they have had to work hard, and when they reach that age they are no longer able to do the work of the farm and must rely on their sons or on younger men who are .physically fit. Those who drafted the regulations were not fair to the farmer.
The first Minister of National War Services was the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). That was a bad arrangement, because the duty of a minister of agriculture is not to send boys to the training camps; it is to keep them on the farm so that they will be able to produce. But it was with the connivance of the Department of Agriculture that these young men were taken from their homes
Man-Power-Mr. Pouliot

and sent to the camps. Agriculture suffers now. Why? It suffers because of the injustice done to farmers by these mobilization boards. These farmers were told that they would have only one or two postponements at the most, after which they would have to join their regiments. Now it is not possible to get them out of the army to do the needed work on the farm.
We read in the public press and in magazines similar to the one published by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce about the manpower shortage on the farm. Everybody recognizes that there is such a shortage. It is the topic of conversation on trains, on street-cars and on our streets. People are wondering whether we shall have enough to eat next winter, whether our harvest will be good or not. We are then faced with the practical question of whether Joe or Tom is to go to the camp or is to stay on the farm. Some people contend that it is his duty to go to the camp, that if he does not do so he is not a good citizen and should not be regarded as such by the community at large. That is all wrong.
We must be logical about this thing. It is not pleasant to have to move for the adjournment of the house at this time when the session is concluding its work. However, I contend that with few exceptions the officials in charge-I say that in the broadest sense- have not been fair to the farmers. I know of one case where a young man from Temiscouata was in camp in British Columbia and he was given six weeks' leave to come home for the seeding season. Is that reasonable? I know of another case where the mobilization board in Quebec decided to grant leave to a young man who was in a regiment at Valcartier. The colonel of the regiment decided to pay no attention to the order of the board and brought the young man to British Columbia with the other soldiers of the regiment. I brought the matter to the attention of the Department of National Defence, and the result was that the commanding officer was obliged to pay the travelling expenses of that young man from British Columbia back home to his farm in Temiscouata county. That is the way to deal with these cases. We have to inspire in the commanding officer a profound respect for what is done within the regulations, but we have also to inspire in him another feeling, namely the equality of the farmer with every other citizen in this land. The farmer is no less an individual than is the first citizen of this country, the Prime Minister of Canada, or the Leader of the Opposition, or any big man that we have in this house. His usefulness is the same, and he must be ranked 
, the same, not only in theory but also in practice, in any decisions that- have to be rendered.
A friend of mine wrote me yesterday. He has a big orchard and in past years he had help. The young man who helped him is now in a training camp in the maritime provinces. The farmer wanted him back to help with the work in the orchard and on his farm, and he was told by the commanding officer the procedure to follow. He acted accordingly and wrote to the commanding officer but received no reply.
Do you remember, sir, when I asked the Minister of National Defence a long time ago to produce a copy of the king's regulations and orders, which are the law governing all those in the army? At first I was denied the privilege of getting a copy. I had to persist for a long time before getting a copy in English and in French with the amendments. There are two kinds of regulations, those governing the mobilization boards under the Department of Labour-that was sent to us-but did we get the regulations of the Department of National Defence passed under the National Resources Mobilization Act? I had a couple of copies, the first one and the second, but I have never had all the amendments, and we need them. We do not want to infringe on the law. We want to abide by the law, but we want the law to be interpreted liberally and according to the speeches that have been made in this house by such a large number of members since the beginning of this session. That is all we need; we need nothing else. What is platonic love for the farmer? The farmer does not care for platonic love from the members of parliament. The farmer does not care for love; the farmer needs help, assistance in fulfilling a national duty. That is how I consider the matter, sir, and that is the way I think all members should consider it. If at times, to my great sorrow, I have to complain of injustices that have been done to the farmers, I do so because I have a duty to perform. I have seen these farmers at work, producing the crops that come from their farms, the products that are so badly needed at this time when such a large number of countries are paralysed. I see the farmers at work and I respect them, and I am always ready to fight for them.
I thank my hon. friend the member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Dupuis) for seconding this motion. I also thank from the bottom of my heart all my hon. colleagues who have had the courage to rise in defence of the farmer this afternoon. I will tell them all that their action this afternoon will never be

Man-Power-Mr. Dupuis
forgotten and that when they go back home they will be thanked by that class of noble and humble citizens who are the farmers of Canada.


Mr. VINCENT DUPUIS (Chambly-Rou-ville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this motion because I consider this a matter of urgent public importance-very urgent indeed. I do not profess to be one of only a few members of this house to realize the difficulties in which the farmers of this country now find themselves, because I know very well that every member who represents a rural district is conversant with the situation in the rural areas. It is circumstances, the actual situation that compels me to rise and support this motion. We cannot wait another day. Because of weather conditions seeding time is already one month late. Added to that there is a shortage of help on the farms, a shortage which exists in every rural district, and particularly in areas of from fifty to a hundred miles square around large centres like Montreal. The farmers are acutely short of help, so much so that I have heard from many farmer organizations in my own district that if the present situation continues! many farmers will be compelled not merely to reduce their production but to cease production altogether. It is important, I repeat, that we should do our utmost to see that the farmer be not bound by what he at the present time expects to be bound. The reasons are so clear, it seems to me, why we should act, and that immediately, whatever may be the means whereby we shall bring immediate help to the farmer.
So far as I am concerned I speak for myself. I do not want to be held responsible to my own conscience if next winter we are faced with famine. History teaches that when the great causes of war actually result in war, generally war has two nefarious companions, famine and pestilence. Now we have war. It is the greatest scourge that humanity suffers from. But are- we to allow famine to come not only to our doors, not only to the doors of civilians, but to the ranks of the armed forces and those of our allies? I do not think we should allow such a thing to happen if we can at all prevent it, and that is the only reason why I am rising in my place to-day and submitting my humble opinion, asking the government and this House of Commons, which is composed of men of conscience who are, like myself, anxious to win the war, and the sooner the better, to unite, forgetting for the moment our party allegiances and our differences in race and religion, as well as the classes or localities we represent. Let us all forget that for the moment and unite in considering the position
of this very important class in our society, the farming community, and give them the help they so badly need at the moment. And let us give that help immediately.
If it is necessary to get farmers' sons out of the army, let us get them out, because it is quite clear that there are three conditions that are requisite to the winning of the war. First, we must have men under arms in sufficient numbers to defeat the enemy; second, these men must be supplied with arms and ammunition; and third, these men must be fed and fed properly. That is nothing new. Napoleon, ' who was a very great strategist, a great general, declared that an army marches upon its stomach. That is true.
I will not delay the house. I know that we have great problems to solve, and the one now under discussion is one of the most important. We have also other matters of importance to consider, and I should like the house to unite at once in asking the government or those in authority to give to the farmers the help they need so that they will be able to produce more than ever to help our soldiers and the soldiers of our allies to win the war.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: While I have a great deal of sympathy with the farmers, I must point out that prior to two weeks ago, when coal was added, agriculture was the only national selective industry in Canada. There have been nine or ten debates in the past month or so on this question. On May 21 the Minister of Agriculture gave an elaborate description of the working of this new last-minute scheme of national selective service in Canada.
With all due respect I contend that the government have made a fatal mistake, as is only too apparent now that we are nearing the end of the fourth year of the war. In the first two years of the war and for three years before the war, I moved here for a national selective compulsory register to show the number of people available for every industry. We are told now that there are only 4,357 men needed on the farms, but that -must be an impossible figure, because there are 100,000 farms in Saskatchewan alone.
There are other urgent -matters of great public importance not yet discussed than the question we are now considering, which has been up many times, and one of these is coal. We may be all frozen to death next winter, and nothing is being done about it. Housing is another important matter, and neither have had five minutes' discussion this session. No one can get any information in regard to the supply of fuel or the question

Man-Power-Mr. Church


Vincent Dupuis: We are not speaking only for the province of Quebec.


Thomas Langton Church: The war is primary, and men for it. Do the people of Quebec want to wait until the enemy comes up the St. Lawrence and bombs the citadel? That would be much worse than taking men from the forces because of a scarcity of labour on the farms. Men are needed more for the armed services, and there is no use in trying to deny it. War is war and men are first needed for the armed services. But the government has changed the whole farm policy to ration labour and its past programme in Canada. It started off with a voluntary system for the war and farms which was followed by a plebiscite to change it, and the government did not carry that out. After three years they applied compulsion for home defence and for farms.


Thomas Vien: Order. The question before the house involved in the motion with respect to agricultural man-power shortage does not afford the hon. member room for the remarks he is making. I do not think he is quite within the subject under discussion in dealing with plebiscites and matters of the kind.


Thomas Langton Church: You are right, Mr. Speaker. I was merely introducing that as a comparison, to show that the war is paramount and primaiy, and that farm labour is secondary. If you look over the figures given by the Minister of National Defence (Army) you will find that compulsion was established in all Canada for home defence but that it has been considerably relaxed in the interests of agriculture. The minister reported to the house on May 21, 24 and 25 last on the number of applications which had been made to the various boards for exemptions and postponements to enable applicants to go back on the farms, and while I have not the figures before me, my recollection is that about eighty per cent or over of the applications were granted.

Man-Power-Mr. Lalonde
Everything possible is being done by the city people to provide labour for the farms. There are two matters of urgent importance upon which I should like to move for the adjournment of the house. I have already named them as of urgent public importance -the fuel supply, and housing. But I thought it would be better not to do so, because an opportunity of discussing these matters may come later, when we have finished with the appropriation bill. It seems to me that if there is any class of the community whose case has been largely represented in the discussions, it is that represented by the labour problem on the farms. I have a great deal of sympathy for them and for their representatives; I know something of the difficulties which the war has caused them. But from what I know of the soldiers who have come from the farms of Ontario I am convinced that they do not w-ant to remain at home and serve on the farms. The farmers of Ontario are true descendants of the patriots of 1812, and worthy of them. When Canada was attacked in the days of General Brock, the men of the Ontario farms went with Brock when he called to the York Rangers "Push on, York Volunteers", and served at Queenston Heights. They wanted first to defend their country. The first duty of the citizen is to defend his country and face his country's enemies. I cannot see that anything is to be gained by adopting this motion, because the question will be further discussed on the air and navy estimates, and there will be other opportunities on agriculture and wheat estimates, of dealing with the man-power situation.


Mr. MAURICE LALONDE (Labelle):: In rising to speak on this motion I do not intend to offer destructive criticism of the government, but rather to give constructive criticism, concerning the requests made by recruits for postponement of their militia training or for leave. I heartily support the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) because I have had many complaints with regard to requests made by men who have been brought into the army under the mobilization act, and particularly by farmers' sons. Once in the army they have found that they had to follow difficult proceedings and build up a complicated record to obtain the leave which was so much needed, to help either their fathers or the men who were employing them.
I shall not take the time of the house longer than is necessary, but I have in my hand a letter which I received from the commanding officer of the camp at Joliette, in the province of Quebec, regarding the request made by Private Roland Clavel. This young man 72537-209}
voluntarily reported six or seven months ago, in spite of the fact that he was a bona fide farmer's helper, because he believed at that time that leave would be given him later if it should be necessary for him to go back on his father's farm. At the beginning of November last, Private Roland Clavel came to my office, and together we filled up the necessary forms. We filed the three sworn letters required to show that his presence on the farm was absolutely necessary; otherwise it would be left uncultivated, because he was the only son capable of doing useful work on the farm. The demand was put before his commanding officer, who knows absolutely nothing of agricultural problems. It was submitted also to another board, the name of which I do not know; and from week to week, from month to month, Private Roland Clavel stayed in the army, in spite of the fact that all the work of the farm now falls upon his sick father, his mother, and bis small sister, thirteen years old. There are twenty^ four head of cattle to feed' and more than a hundred and fifty acres of land to cultivate.
I cannot let this motion pass without saying a word, because I personally know that the case I have cited is similar to very many others in which I have been interested. Perhaps I am speaking on my own behalf only, but I know that many hon. members have had numbers of cases of this kind. I have before me about forty of them. Nothing is done, and these farmers' sons remain in the army while their parents are working hard to keep the farms under cultivation.
Should the proceedings not be modified in some way so as to give the commanding officer more details about the cases which are brought before him? I will say that the commanding officers in the camps are doing their best to accommodate everybody and to scrutinize every request which is put before them. I do not question their ability or their good faith. But one cannot stand on his feet and proclaim that every commanding officer knows something about agriculture. I urge the government, and more particularly the Minister of National Defence (Army) to set up some kind of easier proceedings so that the private who is in the army will not be obliged to know the law of the land better than the lawyers themselves. These fellows who come from the northern part of the province which I represent in this house do not know anything about these sworn affidavits, letters, forms to be filled out, and so on. They just write to their commanding officers, and sometimes to their members, asking for details. I am ready to work for these
Man-Power-Mr. Lalonde

boys, as I have worked for more than twelve hundred others who put their cases before me so far as mobilization was concerned; but for God's sake give them a chance, and when a clear case comes before the commanding officer let the farmer go back to his farm for a few months at least.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on another subject. If I am out of order I shall be glad to sit down, but it will not take much time.
I refer to the postponement of service for those indirectly connected with agricultural problems, particularly those employed in farmers' cooperatives. It is too bad that some registrars do not know the difference between-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Did I understand the hon. member to say that he had twelve hundred cases of men whom he tried to keep out of the army?


Maurice Lalonde: No. I am glad the hon. member asked me that question. I had in my office more than twelve hundred requests for postponement of military training under the mobilization act.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And how many postponements did the hon. member succeed in getting?


Maurice Lalonde: I could not tell the hon. gentleman offhand; the greater number of them have been granted a postponement of their military training. I do not complain about the work of the registrars in Montreal. If they granted those postponements it was because the men were needed on the farms, because they were employed in the essential industry of agriculture. We are not asking for favours; we are just asking for the right to work in that place where we are most necessary and most useful.
As I was about to say, the employees of these farmers' cooperatives should be granted postponement also; perhaps the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) would be good enough to support me in this matter in discussing it with his colleagues in the cabinet. If you break down the management of the farmers' cooperatives then the whole agricultural system of the community is broken down. The same thing applies to those working in sawmills, those employed as blacksmiths, and so on. I shall not speak about them, since that would be out of order. In reply to the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church), however, I would say that this motion is not made only on behalf of the farmers of Quebec. It is only necessary to look at the newspapers and listen to the radio to realize that these complaints come

from every part of Canada. The hon. member says war is war. We all understand that, perhaps better than he does; for we understand that war may not continue to be war if our soldiers are not fed.	_
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I realize that it is very hard to draw the dividing line between what is an essential industry and what is a non-essential industry. So far as agriculture is concerned, however, I think the point is so clear that it is impossible for any intelligent man in this country or anywhere in the world to say that in time of war agriculture should be considered as anything but the most essential war industry, and I hope it will continue to be so considered.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to detain the house unduly, but I wish to say a few words on this matter. Before the arrival of this much-delayed spring the agricultural situation in Canada in my opinion was not in the very best condition, even taking into consideration the fact that we are at war. I believed there were several things left undone that we might have done. Since the season has been so much delayed I have been greatly concerned lest we should be faced with a food shortage next year. As members of the house it is difficult for us to learn w{iat emergency measures the government has been taking to meet the situation which has developed as a result of the late spring, but it seems to me that a good deal could be done. It would be possible, I should think, to organize special committees throughout the country-


Mr. MITCHELL:: What does my hon. friend mean by a food shortage?


John Horne Blackmore: Well, I should think the words were so plain as to require no definition. If we run short of eggs I should think there would be a shortage of eggs; if we run short of potatoes, as we have run short of them in Ottawa, I would say that is a food shortage. Is that not the understanding of the minister?	,


Humphrey Mitchell: I am not being argumentative; I am just asking the question for my own information. If my hon. friend wants to feed China and other countries, there might be a food shortage, but I was wondering how much territory he would cover.


John Horne Blackmore: Well, it is,quite true that if we do not produce enough food for ourselves we shall not be able to help feed our allies. I should hardly expect a responsible minister to raise that question, especially in view of the fact that within the last two or three days a statement was issued by the deputy minister of agriculture to the effect that

Man-Power-Mr. Blackmore
we would require all the food Canada could possibly produce. I should think that would cover the whole situation and give every member of the government cause for considerable anxiety. Let me proceed with what I was about to say.


Humphrey Mitchell: That would not be so in Canada only, would it? Of course we require all the food we can produce.


John Horne Blackmore: I could not catch what the minister said.


Humphrey Mitchell: I know the hon. member does not want to leave any false impression. Of course we require all the food we can produce, but. I think the responsible official to whom the hon. gentleman referred had in mind shipments to Great Britain and other countries.


John Horne Blackmore: Of course; and I hope I did not convey any other idea. But undoubtedly we can be losing the war on the Chinese front if they are short of food, so that I should think I would be quite within the bounds of moderation in what I was saying. I believe probably a good deal could be done in the way of organizing special emergency committees in conjunction with the provinces and municipalities, to bring to their attention the fact that Canada is actually facing a grave emergency in the matter of food. I believe the situation is sufficiently serious to justify that action.


Humphrey Mitchell: I may tell my hon. friend that has been done already in his own province.


John Horne Blackmore: I am not saying it has not been done in my own province, but I have no assurance that it has been done in the minister's own province.


Humphrey Mitchell: It has been done in the minister's province, too.


John Horne Blackmore: And has it been done in other provinces?


Humphrey Mitchell: It has been done in every province in Canada.


John Horne Blackmore: That is very good. I said in the beginning that as private members we were not in a position to know all that had been done, but in case this had not been done I suggested that it should be done. I suppose the minister has no objection to that?


Humphrey Mitchell: Not at all.


John Horne Blackmore: Very good, that is the point I am making. It seems to me there should be some sort of committee, somewhere, to -which a farmer could present his request for any special kind of assistance he might require. In some parts of the country farmers are at a loss to know where to get the help
they need, and in many cases they are at a loss to know where to get machinery-trucks, tractors and ploughs. It seems to me a special committee should make up a list so as to assist any farmer in need of any particular item of machinery, to meet an emergency.
The matter which concerns me, in connection with potatoes, is that if the price of potato seed were so high that the farmer would not dare to buy seed and plant potatoes, it would be wise for the government to get possession of seed in Canada and reduce the price to such an extent that the farmer would be able to buy the seed required to plant his crop. I suggest that the government would do well to provide farmers across the country with a fairly good idea of the amount of potato planting which has already gone forward. A good deal of potato planting could be done in Alberta, I believe, if the farmers were assured that there have not been sufficient plantings throughout the rest of the dominion.
The idea in my mind is that since Ontario, Quebec and probably the eastern provinces may not be able to seed, on account of the lateness of the year, it would be well to organize the dominion as a dominion-which probably has been done. I repeat it would be well to organize the dominion as a dominion,, so that Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba,, which are slightly more fortunate in their season this year, would be able to plant a few-extra potatoes on land which otherwise would be summer-fallowed. I believe that is sufficient to illustrate the point I have in mind.


Mr. GARDINER:: That was all done last December. The provinces were notified as to the acreages they would be expected to plant this year. That has been carried out fairly successfully, except where weather conditions have interfered. On the question of seed, I think what my hon. friend has in mind in most of his remarks is what is known as certified seed. I believe he will agree that there are very few farmers in Canada who plant certified seed potatoes. The price of certified seed has very little to do with the plantings on ordinary farms across Canada.


John Horne Blackmore: We will grant that, completely. All the minister has said, I grant is true. But the organization which was effected throughout Canada last December certainly would not in any way be adequate for the organization which should be-


James Garfield Gardiner: The acreage required to be seeded in each province would be satisfactory, and the organizations spoken of are set up by and assisting each of the provincial i governments.
Man-Power-Mr. Blackmore


John Horne Blackmore: What we are concerned about now is this: Has provision been made in Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba and any other provinces which are able to plant extra potatoes, to make up for the potatoes which might not be planted in Ontario and Quebec?


James Garfield Gardiner: They have been asked for a certain acreage.


John Horne Blackmore: Have they been asked to increase the acreage as the result of an emergency condition in Ontario and Quebec?


Mr. ROWE:: The minister has said there is no emergency.


John Horne Blackmore: If they have not been so instructed, and if they have not planned *to plant extra potatoes, there is grave danger <of the development of a potato shortage in this country-even in Canada, where we can produce and have produced potatoes with the greatest of ease. I am fully aware of what the minister says, that most farmers do not plant certified seed. But the minister must know that in Ottawa at the present time it is next to impossible to buy a potato in many of the stores, no matter whether it is certified or uncertified. If anything like that condition exists in other principal centres throughout the dominion, unquestionably it will be difficult for fawners to get any kind of potatoes. And if they have to pay a high price, it will be to their disadvantage.


James Garfield Gardiner: I would call attention to the fact that in the figures I placed on Hansard yesterday it was shown that there were five times as many potatoes in storage on May 1 in one province in Canada as there were a year ago. The fact that the potatoes are not in Ottawa does not necessarily mean that they were not produced.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is that statement correct, that there were five times as many potatoes in storage in New Brunswick?


John Horne Blackmore: I have the floor.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But I
should like to ask a question.


John Horne Blackmore: I have the floor.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will the hon. member allow me to ask a question?


John Horne Blackmore: The hon. gentleman can make a speech when I have finished.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am asking a question, arising out of the statement that there were five times as many potatoes in storage in one province as there were a year ago. That statement is challenged.


James Garfield Gardiner: I suppose every statement can be challenged. But they are the best figures available in Canada.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Where are they from?


James Garfield Gardiner: These are the official figures of the bureau of statistics, the only official figures we have.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They are not correct.


John Horne Blackmore: The only thing we are concerned about is this, that we learn that in various parts of Canada there is a definite potato shortage, and that there are places in Canada where potatoes cannot be bought. If there is a shortage of potatoes, and if potatoes cannot be bought, it makes no difference at all to the ordinary individual how many thousands of tons of potatoes there are in storage.


James Garfield Gardiner: How many you are going to produce makes a difference, if the farmer is to be able to sell his product at a price.


Thomas Vien: The motion before the house is a motion for adjournment. The man-power shortage has nothing to do with the question of the present supply of potatoes in the country. If the hon. member is addressing himself to the question of an insufficient acreage of potatoes, or the suggestion that sufficient potatoes are not likely to be grown because of the shortage of manpower, he is in order.


John Horne Blackmore: I have been unceasingly interrupted by hon, members, and that has led me to discuss other than the matter I rose to discuss.
The possible potato shortage is in the minds of all hon. members, and I have no doubt was in the mind of the hon. member for Temiscouata when he made this motion. With Your Honour's permission I should like to say one further word about potatoes. It must be remembered that potatoes are perishable, and it matters not how many tons there are in storage to-day, those potatoes in all probability will not be available for use next fall. So that the minister's remarks are rather beside the point.


James Garfield Gardiner: The shortage was last week, not next fall.


William Earl Rowe: Why are they still in storage, then?


John Horne Blackmore: The minister can have his say. Potatoes should be provided to farmers for seed, at prices they can afford.

Man-Power-Mr. LaCroix
A good deal could be done in this respect by a committee which could look into conditions which have arisen on account of the lateness of the season.
I have nothing further to say, except that the time spent in discussing this matter is well spent. Now is the time to discuss it, before a serious condition arises, and in my view the hon. member was wise in bringing it to the attention of the house.
Mr. WILFRID LaCBOIX (Quebec-Montmorency) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, I am in complete accord with the motion of the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) and I am convinced, now as before, that there is no such thing as exemption from military service for farmers' sons. Although it may be referred to in speeches, it does not really exist. This is indicated by a letter I have received to-day and which, with your kind permission, I shall read to the house:
Quebec, June 1, 1943. Mr. Wilfrid LaCroix, M.P.,
24 Carmel street,
Quebec.
Dear Mr. LaCroix,
I am one of your voters, Achille Legare, of St. Joseph concession, Charlebourg. I am 41 years of age. The seeding season has arrived; my grain should be put in the ground immediately, otherwise, even in a few days, it will be too late. I have no help and cannot procure any.
I have been called by the militia and have reported at the camp. After explaining my situation, I asked to be released immediately so as to do my work.


Mr. MARTIN:: How old is he?
Mr. LaCROIX	(Quebec-Montmorency):
I have just stated it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I had forgotten.
Mr. LaCROIX	(Quebec-Montmorency):
After explaining my situation, I asked to be released immediately so as to do my work. However, I am kept idle here; time flies and in a few days the seeding season will be over, and it will be too late. This will entail an important loss to me.
I beseech you to appeal to these gentlemen in my favour so they will release me and send me on my farm to do my -work.
I rely on you to do this favour for me. Please accept my thanks and my respectful regards.
Achille Legare.
It is an admitted fact that, at present, it is impossible to secure leaves for agricultural purposes. One has to apply for them to the officer commanding at Debert, Nova Scotia, Sussex, New Brunswick, or other places. The answer is ever the same: No.
We hear complaints about a decrease in production. How is production to increase when measures are taken that not only con* tribute to a scarcity of help but are of such a nature as to stop production?
I wish to give another example which is to the point and set out in detail. It was brought to my attention in a letter I received yesterday.
St. Laurent, Island of Orleans,
June 1, 1943.
Mr. W. LaCroix,
Member for Quebec-Montmorency.
Dear Sir,-
I am sending you this plea to acquaint you with the situation in which hog-breeders are now placed. There will be a catastrophe if that situation is not remedied. As you know, the government compel all breeders to sell their hogs to slaughter houses, which are paying $16.65 per hundredweight and the ceiling is $18, so that the breeders lose $1.35 per hundredweight. Moreover, if the hog is just one pound under 140 pounds the company deducts from $2 to $2.50 for each animal; if it weighs more than 170 pounds, there is another reduction of $2.50 to $3, which entails a loss of about $3.10 on each hog. Under the circumstances, the breeders are not even allowed to remove the hogs which are under or over weight.
It is now almost impossible to sell hogs. Those various factors have brought about a 75 per cent reduction in the production of hogs, and within a few months it will stop altogether and there will be a serious shortage of pork. The ceiling on lumber and wood was a terrible mistake, but it is nothing compared with the situation that will confront us as far as pork is concerned.
Please refer this letter to the department which has the responsibility of dealing with the matter.
Yours truly,
Albert Vaillancourt,
St. Laurent, Island of Orleans.
Mr. Speaker, it would seem; that the government's policy has been contrived so as to prevent in the first place, the men who are essential to production from remaining on the land. In the second place, the stupid policy adopted by the various trade controllers, czars or dictators, whichever title may be given to them,-entails a curtailment in production. Now, it has always been said in this house that agricultural production is an essential part of our war activities. We must feed not only our army but also the forces of our allies:
Mr. Speaker, I sincerely regret that the government should have taken such a stand. At least the people should frankly be told what the situation is. When I hear about farmers being exempted, I am- rather sceptical. True, some of them have been granted a
Man-Power-Mr. Wright

postponement, but the latter will have to be renewed at an early date or at some later time. And when it comes to renewing a postponement the matter becomes increasingly difficult. I wonder what the situation will be in one or two months. We are being told that conscription does not exist. Mr. Speaker, you know as well as I do that not one man between the ages of 19 and 45 can obtain work if he has not first enlisted for active service or has not been discharged from the army. In order to obtain his discharge, he must enlist for active service not in this country but overseas. It is just as if the men were being told: Enlist or starve. To-day, no man can work in any one of our war plants or obtain another position if he has not been discharged from the army. As I said, in order to obtain his discharge, he must enlist, undergo a medical examination and. before he undergoes this examination he must sign up for overseas service.
Mr. Speaker, similar conditions obtain in the case of farmers' sons. They are put to every kind of annoyance. As soon as they report they are told: You are farmers' sons, but now that you are here you shall not get out. That policy should be changed at once, if the war is to be efficiently prosecuted.
I do not wish to speak at any great length, but I may say in concluding that I heartily support the motion of the hon. member for Temiseouata. It is often said that he speaks volubly in this house. I wish to tell him that his services are quite helpful to the people of the province of Quebec, and that I congratulate him for having introduced this motion.


Mr. P. E. WRIGHT (Melfort):: Mr. Speaker, it is not often that I find myself in agreement with the hon. member for Temiseouata (Mr. Pouliot), but on this occasion I believe he has called attention to a problem which will become quite serious in Canada during the next year. It seems to me that we have lulled ourselves into a position of false security on account of the climatic conditions which obtained last year and which permitted the production of one of the largest agricultural crops ever raised in Canada. This year we are likely to be faced with opposite conditions and may find ourselves in a very serious position.
The Department of Agriculture have issued a pamphlet called "Objectives for Canadian Agriculture in 1943" which sets out what the government expects from agriculture, during the coming year. They ask for substantial increases in connection with almost every

product of the farm. In oats, twelve per cent increase is asked for; barley, twelve per cent. Wheat is one commodity where a decreased production is asked for, a decrease of fourteen per cent. A small increase is asked in flaxseed, while in rye there is some decrease. An increase of twenty-eight per cent is asked for in hogs; cattle, nine per cent; sheep and lambs, twelve per cent; dairy products, an average of about twenty-five per cent; eggs and poultry, an increase of approximately twenty-five per cent; fruits and vegetables, an eleven per cent increase, while for other crops the increases asked for range from one per cent to as high as 189 per cent. Despite these increases that are being asked for, there is the fact, as stated just recently by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), that approximately 350,000 men have been withdrawn from agriculture since the beginning of the war.
If we are to get these increases and do not have the favourable climatic conditions which prevailed last year, it will mean that we must have more help on our farms. It seems to me that the government have given a lot of lip-service to this question of increasing the supply of agricultural help. We understood that considerable leaves or postponements were to be granted for seeding operations. But what actually takes place is another matter. In many cases these leaves have been refused, and men in basic training are not granted leave at all. Apparently no effort was made to understand the necessities of the farm. I have had a number of cases drawn to my attention of men who were given leave to go on a farm where there was only a small acreage under cultivation, and other cases where men were refused leave whose relations really needed their help. These men could have contributed real service if leave had been granted.
Furthermore, no provision was made for the transportation of these men. If the government had been anxious that men from the army should go back to the farm they would have provided transportation for them. Many men serving on either coast had to pay transportation practically across the whole dominion on a month's leave or perhaps six weeks to help in seeding operations on the farm. If the government had been anxious to get help for the farmer they could have at least provided transportation for these men.
With respect to postponements, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) stated the other day that 80 per cent of the requests for postponements for agricultural purposes had been granted, but these figures again are

Man-Power-Mr. Hlynka
misleading. Many postponements were granted for only a short time, sometimes a month, sometimes three months, and when an application was made for a further postponement it was refused. The granting of short postponements does not tend to help increase agricultural production.


Humphrey Mitchell: The short postponement has been changed since the matter has been under my jurisdiction. The shortest postponement granted for agriculture is six months.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It "may" be for six months.


Percy Ellis Wright: I am glad if that has been done, but my information is not to that effect. A man must be able tc plan his production one year ahead if he is to raise the products which are essential at this time-pork, dairy products, and other necessities. You cannot increase agricultural production by looking ahead for only three or six months, especially the things that are needed most. A short postponement is of little use if you want to increase production. You could provide that the men would be recalled from the farm only in case of national emergency.


Humphrey Mitchell: If my hon. friend would like me to answer that point now, you have to keep your finger on a man otherwise you have no check on him. We want to make sure that he stays on the farm.


Percy Ellis Wright: That could easily be done through national selective service. As it is now a man cannot leave the farm without obtaining permission from national selective service. That matter could easily be dealt with in that way. I know that these short postponements and refusal to grant further postponements have stopped farmers from increasing their production because they had no assurance that their help would be with them for any length of time.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) also stated that under his policy men were to be taken from non-essential industries and put on the farm, but I have not seen any evidence of that policy being carried out. So far as I have been able to observe, no men have been drafted to the farm from non-essential industry, and if the government is really anxious that help should be made available on the farms this policy should be put into effect immediately. Then men should be placed where they are really needed.
It seems to me that something more must be done in regard to supplying agricultural implements. Some of the farmers in western Canada have spoken to me about this matter.
Just before I left home after the Easter recess I interviewed some firms who are in the agricultural implement business in my district and they told me that they did not have available any supply of repair parts for machinery needed in haying, and that parts would not be available until probably the first of June. So that we have the government on the one hand urging farmers to keep their implements in a good state of repair against the time when they will be needed, and on the other hand we find that the government is not making those supplies available to the farmer. I suggest that the government see to it that those repair parts be made available in sufficient quantities to enable the farmers to keep their implements in repair. In that way labour could be saved. Last year labour was sent from eastern Canada to western Canada to help harvest the crop. If more binders had been made available in the west much of that labour would not have been needed. If the government will see that this machinery is supplied to farmers, and at a price they can afford to pay, much labour can be saved.
I support the motion of the hon. member for Temiscouata, Mr. Speaker, because an army cannot fight unless it is fed, and if agricultural products are to be made available to our armed forces and to our people we must look ahead and not just deal with this matter from day to day.


Mr. ANTHONY HLYNKA (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I have just recently returned from a trip back home, and from my observation the farm labour shortage is indeed acute. Scores of farmers have been forced to quit farming and move into the city. How they will get along is another matter.
I have had to deal with a large number of applications for postponement. I find that they may be divided into two classes. There are those who apply Kr postponements before they have actually joined the armed forces, the other class is composed of those already in the service who ask for leaves. As regards the first class, those making applications for postponements, only a well qualified lawyer could help these young men to fill out properly the application forms. The ordinary farm boy could not possibly be expected to know all that is required in order that he may fill out the forms, the affidavits he needs, and things of that sort. I should like to see the government standardize the application forms. The draft boards right across the country would know whether a man should or should not be
Man-Power-Mr. Hlynka

granted a postponement. Of course, postponements should not be granted wholesale to all who ask for them. We could not possibly win the war in that way. At the same time, we should not force our farmers to fold up and sell out because that will not get us very far either. I suggest, therefore, that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell), who is charged with the responsibility for call-ups should draft a simple application form, giving instructions to every soldier who needs to apply for a postponement. The soldier would be able to fill out the application and, if the request seemed reasonable, the board would have less work in deciding each case individually. I am sure that many of these applications and affidavits, pages long, are never read by the boards. You cannot expect any board to read thousands of applications. That is an utter impossibility. The procedure must therefore be simplified. AVe may talk around the case as much as we want but it will not help matters at all. We are concerned with those cases where men are absolutely needed at home, perhaps the only son, the old father being compelled otherwise to sell out or engage in something else.
As regards leave, I know a number of soldiers who have applied for leave, six weeks, perhaps a month, or two months or whatever it may be. Again, the man is told to apply to his commanding officer. He must write to his parents and tell them to obtain sworn affidavits, three copies of each; he must obtain a letter of request in triplicate from his father; he must obtain medical certificates; and only then can he place the documents in the hands of the commanding officer. Then the commanding officer, if he feels like granting leave, will do so; if not, he refuses it and that is the end of the matter. Then the young man writes to his member of parliament. The only thing the member can do is to refer the matter to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Kalston) or the Department of National Defence, and it is usually refused. If the commanding officer refuses it, the Department of National Defence refuses it also.
Why can we not get down to business and draft a proper and a uniform procedure in these matters? As it is, we have utter confusion. There are scores of young men who have not had any legal training, and you cannot expect them to draw up the documents required of them. I wish to emphasize this particular point, that the application forms, or the procedure followed, should be standardized throughout Canada. This does not apply only to the province of Quebec or Alberta or Saskatchewan; we must standardize the forms for the entire country.

Another matter which I have brought twice to the attention of the government, as other members have done also, but to which no attention has been paid, is that there should be an appeal board in Ottawa to deal with cases that are absolutely deserving; otherwise if a man is refused postponement or leave he has no one to whom to refer his application. That is the end) of it. That is absolutely unfair. Surely we can find three or five or ten men in Canada to deal with the legitimate appeals of men who are absolutely essential, and whose applications should be granted.
This particular question must be dealt with by two departments, the Department of Labour and the Department of National Defence, and the two ministers concerned should get together and divide their labours. The Minister of Labour has to deal with postponements and the Minister of National Defence with leaves, and they should devise a plan whereby we can get a little better satisfaction than the people have had in the past.
Agriculture is absolutely essential to the war effort; in fact, it is one of the major industries in that effort. It is the means of our livelihood; it has been the main industry in Canada, and yet we treat it as a matter of course. I do not want to get off the track, but I should like to mention that not long ago many of us on this side of the house pleaded) with the government and the Minister of Labour to do something about coal miners. I do not wish to go into that question now, but on my arrival home I found many miners released after taking training for three or four months. It is the same story-muddling.


Humphrey Mitchell: Let us get the record straight on coal mines. A number of these men went from agriculture into the mines for the winter.


Anthony Hlynka: I am sorry, but the minister is wrong. There are quite a number of miners released from military training to-day who have been sent back to the mines. Surely the minister should know that; he is the man in charge. But it shows-


Humphrey Mitchell: AVhere is the muddling in that?


Anthony Hlynka: AVell, it shows that you have picked up men who should have remained as miners in the mines and you should have tried to find another way of solving the manpower problem. These men have wasted four months and now they are allotted again to mining. The same will happen in agriculture. I regard it my duty to rise in my place and call the attention of the government to this problem, which is growing more serious as the days go by.

Man-Power-Mr. Lizotte


Mr. LOUIS PHILIPPE LIZOTTE (Kamouraska) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, the
matter which has today been brought to the attention of the house is of prime importance, especially for those members who represent rural constituencies. I commend the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) for having introduced this motion and having pointed out that the matter involved is one of urgent public importance. I must also praise the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Dupuis), who has seconded the motion.
I represent a constituency where 90 per cent of the population is composed of farmers who are anxious to contribute to this country's war effort and increase production. That is what prompts me to participate in this debate.
All hon. members of this house, all those who have spoken during this session and especially in this debate are unanimous in considering agriculture as an essential industry. But they are not all in agreement as to the manner in which the policy announced by the government should1 be carried out. They all agree that if agriculture is essential in peace time it is all the more so in war time when we must feed1 our troops at home and those which we dispatch outside, as well as the people of the allied nations, where an overproduction of foodstuffs is absolutely necessary, especially in the case of those countries which, although at war, are not directly threatened by the enemy. There is complete agreement on that principle but apparently the same feeling does not prevail as regards the implementing of the policy which the government has announced some time ago, after protests had many times been voiced by a certain group in this house.
Why did the government let the press announce under glaring head-lines that farmers' sons would be exempted and that those who had been mobilized could easily obtain, even as a matter of right, leave of absence for going back to the farms? Why did the government let the press announce such a policy on the part of the government, when in some quarters every effort is made to put obstacles in the way of those who apply for postponements before they have been mobilized and of those who, having been mobilized, apply for leave of absence in order to go back to the land, which they should never have left? To my mind, Mr. Speaker, such a situation is utterly ridiculous and, it certainly induces the people to question the government's sincerity. On many occasions I have pleaded in this house for the bona fide farmers who want to increase their production as a contribution to the war effort and I do
not hesitate to say that I will continue to take up their defence in this house and outside, because I know that in so doing, I am furthering the allied cause and helping my country, my constituency and especially the government which, in my humble opinion, should recognize in a practical manner that agriculture is an essential industry and give their closest attention to that problem.
It is a well-known fact, Mr. Speaker, that obstacles are put in the way of farmers' sons who apply for leave of absence, especially those who are now serving in the army, not only in the active forces, but also in the forces called up under the mobilization act and who wish to obtain leave of absence for helping in the seeding operations, the hay-cutting and the harvest. Many cases have been referred to me. I have always done everything I could to ensure the proper observance of the regulations, so that the farmers of my constituency might benefit from them and from the policy announced by the government with regard to farmers. My attention has been called to the case of a farmer's son who reported at the Valcartier camp on February 23, 1943. At that time, he applied for leave of absence for the purpose of going back to the farm. His father, who is 65 years old has but two sons; he is sick and almost unable to work. He has but two sons to work a farm of about 250 acres and to take care of a large herd of cattle. His production is quite large, considering the area of his farm. Well! To-day is the 3rd of June, and with reluctance I must admit that in, spite of the fact that we sent all the necessary papers to obtain leave, and that this recruit's father writes me every week to ask whether his son will be allowed to go and help him sow his seed, since he cannot do all the work himself, this recruit has not yet been granted leave. When a man applies for leave, some commanding officers (although there are others who answer as they should and who do their duty) seem to take advantage of the situation and transfer the recruits who apply for leave from one camp to another. When the soldier has been sent to another camp, the same rigmarole must be gone through, the certificates filled once again, and affidavits from the mayor and the parish priest renewed. In some cases, I have had to- prepare the same series of papers three times in order to secure leave for a farmer's son who was entitled to it according to the regulations in force and the policy openly adopted by the government.
Mr. Speaker, how do you expect a farmer who has only one or two sons to operate a
Man-Power-Mr. Lizotte

farm of two or three hundred acres, how can you expect him to decide that he will step up his production, raise one hundred pigs instead of fifty as he did before, when every morning he wonders if the postman will bring his son's notice for military training? The life of the farmer is one of worry and indecision; he does not know what the next day holds in store for him. Living in an atmosphere of uncertainty, the farmers cannot undertake to increase their production or to raise more cattle, both of which are so necessary in these troubled times.
A French author wrote a book entitled "La terre qui meurt". I would not like to see a Canadian write a book of the same title about our Canadian soil, where brawn which has limbs and numbers can well provide not only for ourselves but for others as well-


Jean-François Pouliot: When hands are left there.


Louis Philippe Lizotte: and help on towards victory those who, on the battlefield, are fighting for liberty and defending each one of us.
The situation has become exceedingly serious! The hon. member for Temiscouata was quite right in saying that the matter is urgent.
The government should see to it immediately, it should grant leave to bona fide farmers' sons who are in the army and who can prove that they must be granted leave to continue tilling the soil to ensure best possible production. Farmers' sons must be granted postponements with the assurance that they will not be called to camp after a month or two. In this manner they will be able to work in peace and they will devote all their physical and intellectual energy, as well as all the attention necessary to agriculture, which is the industry in which they were employed and for which they possess all the required knowledge. I humbly submit that the best way to increase production and to put an end to this situation would be to refrain from calling up farmers during the summer. The registrar's office can easily obtain the information it needs from the national registration cards. When a man is registered as a farmer, he should not be called up during the agricultural season; and if he is scheduled to be called in winter he should be given the right to prove that he is essential to agriculture even during the slack season, though with the farmer there is no such thing as a slack season.
I do not intend to press the matter any further. We are discussing a motion for adjournment, and I do not want to be 
responsible for any waste of time in the house, since this question is one of immediate importance. I urge the government-and I hope my humble voice will be heard-to give early consideration to the shortage of agricultural man-power, which is a question of primary importance.


Mr. J. W. NOSEWORTHY (York South):: Mr. Speaker, agriculture is not my forte, and I have no intention of pitting my meagre knowledge of agriculture against the minister's expert knowledge; nor do I represent an agricultural riding. However, as the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation member at large for Ontario I am constantly meeting with farmers in the communities I visit, and am constantly hearing from them. Two weeks ago I had the pleasure of spending a weekend at a conference which was attended by a considerable number of officials of farm and dairy organizations. Most of what I have to say this afternoon is information which was handed to me on that occasion, with the request that I bring it to the attention of the minister at the first opportunity.
The situation in Ontario in regard to farm labour is serious. Even if the government were to freeze farm labour in Ontario to-day and leave undisturbed every man now on the farms, it would not meet the present situation. I believe Ontario farms have been largely stripped of their man-power, with the result that, according to official reports, many shortages are already beginning to develop. The men with whom I have spoken have no desire whatever to reduce the number of men in the armed forces to the point where we cannot play our proper part in the invasion, when it comes, or cannot have a sufficient number of men in active service. They have no desire whatever to reduce the army reserves to the point where they will not be sufficient for the men who go into action. But when the government asks for an increase in food production, which they feel they simply cannot bring about, they become worried and anxious, and feel that some emergency measures should be taken to relieve the situation.
A few weeks ago a survey was made of Bruce county, and I am assured that the results obtained at that time are fairly representative of the Ontario situation. This survey covered 4,644 farms, of which 2,974 were being worked by only one able-bodied farmer each; 515 others were being worked exclusively by men over sixty years of age; there were only 322 hired men in the entire county, who

Man-Power-Mr. Noseworthy
were assisting on only seven per cent of the farms. The survey further revealed that in that county this year 6,400 fewer acres of land are being ploughed than were ploughed last year. I mention that, notwithstanding the fact that production last year showed an overall increase; but, as the record shows, that production was rather spotty and shortages due almost entirely to lack of man-power were already becoming evident.
A report of the Ontario department of agriculture which appeared in the press on April 15, 1942, in regard to the production of beef cattle in Ontario, stated that the total number of year-old or older steers has decreased slightly in Ontario in. the period from December, 1942, to the present time. In certain communities, particularly in Middlesex county, the production of beef cattle dropped considerably. In a report of the activities of the federal-provincial conference held in Ottawa last December, appearing in the Globe and Mail of December 12, 1942, it was stated that Ontario marketed 163,000 fewer hogs in 1942 than in 1941. I think Canada's failure to fulfil on time its contract with Great Britain in the matter of bacon is pretty well known and has been reported in the press from time to time. A further report from the Ontario department of agriculture concerning hog production, which appeared in the press on April 13, 1943, states that Ontario hogs decreased by 44,000 in 1942, while a Canadian Press dispatch from Ottawa under date of January 25, 1943, quotes officials of the federal Department of Agriculture as saying that an over-all deficiency in pork products is in sight for 1943. The Ontario government agricultural representative in Middlesex county is reported in the press of May 29, 1943, as having said that on account of the prospective shortage of feed grains there has been recently a heavy marketing of sows, while the demand for young pigs has slackened. This reporter goes on to say that this is information gathered from a survey of farm conditions in that county. A report is published bearing date of April 5, 1943, with respect to dairy cattle, and showing that while there was an over-all increase in cattle production amounting to 7-1 per cent as of December, 1942, as compared with the same date in. 1941, most of the increase was in respect of young stock and beef cattle, and very little of it in respect of milch cows.
The report of the Ontario department of agriculture dated April 13, 1943, reports that there was a decrease of 4,400 milch cows in Ontario during the preceding year. Numerous individual press reports would seem to indicate
that the shortage of man-power on Ontario farms is producing or is likely to produce a shortage of foodstuffs such as Ontario raises.
Earl Kitchener, secretary of the Ontario Milk Producers' Association, speaking at Listowel on December 19, 1942, said that in several instances surveys had been made, all indicating that farmers were planning to cut down the production of dairy produce. In one district in which normally there were 10,000 milch cows, more than a thousand farmers had gone out of the production of milk entirely.
I understand that the Department of Agriculture has asked this year for an increase in the production of sugar beets. On May 22, 1943, the Ontario department of agriculture reports that there will be a marked reduction in the acreage of the sugar-beet crop. This is only one of the many conditions prevailing in Ontario, which indicate, or at least may be considered to be danger signals, so far as production is concerned.
The minister has assured us that there is likely to be a plentiful supply of potatoes. The report of the Ontario department of agriculture dated May 27, 1943, states that the yield from the early crop of potatoes will likely be at least twenty-five per cent below normal. With respect to the total crop it states there will be a considerable reduction in the aggregate acreage sowed to potatoes. I understand that the government is asking for an increase of 10-7 per cent. At this point I would say that regardless of the thousands of tons of potatoes being stored in one province, the citizens of Toronto-and I do not know the conditions in any other city-are faced with difficulty in securing a supply of table potatoes and, in numerous instances, are paying the price of seed potatoes in the purchase of potatoes for table use. That is the actual position in Toronto to-day.
If there is not a shortage, by reason of the number in storage, then somebody has fallen down in the matter of distribution. These potatoes are not available at ceiling prices to consumers in different Ontario centres.
On April 30, 1943, the London Free Press reported that after an extensive investigation in Huron, Bruce and Middlesex counties, and after talking with numerous farmers, they are of the opinion that field crops, including grain, will be at least twenty per cent below those of 1942, and that there will be an embarrassing shortage of feed grains and other dirt crops.
Just one further item, in support of my contention that there are danger signals on the horizon, so far as the production of agricultural products in Ontario is concerned, and that unless the man-power situation is faced immedi-
Man-Power-Mr. Noseworthy

ately there will be increasing dangers of shortages. A report issued by a dairy authority on May 11, 1943, shows that cheese production for January, February, March and April, 1943, amounted to 11,684,530 pounds, as compared with 27,629,310 pounds for the same four months in the preceding year, indicating a decrease of fifty-seven per cent in those four months. Apparently some emergency measures must be taken to meet this situation.
I suggest that no one on Ontario farms wants to see our armies stripped of personnel, or their efficiency [DOT] reduced. It has been suggested to me that there are two available labour pools from which farmers might draw. The minister's statement that only 4,000 applications had been received from farmers in Canada for farm help is, I am assured, in no way indicative of the present need for farm help. My opinion is that farmers have reached a conclusion somewhat as follows: What is the good of applying for farm help? Already 4,000 applications have been filed, and these are not being filled readily. "In any case", says the farmer, "if I get a man from the city or from the army, I cannot afford to pay him a proper wage, if he is any good, or a wage which will enable me to retain his services . In Ontario, farmers are becoming disheartened with the struggle. They are beginning to ask, "What is the use of trying to maintain the production level which we have tried to maintain during the past years?" The government has not told us how many divisions it is expected will be sent overseas or how many thousands of reserves will be required to supply these divisions when they get into action. We are told the number of men available in the home defence forces and that it is the policy of the government to raise another 25,000 during the year for home defence.
Most of the farmers with whom I have spoken feel that it would be in the interests of the war effort if something more helpful could be done by way of releasing some of these men now being trained for the defence forces. I am assured that the present regulations with regard to the release of men from the army, a copy of which I have under my hand, does not begin to meet the needs of the farmers of Ontario. There is, I believe, a pool of labour in industry. The speaker who preceded me referred to the hundreds of thousands of workers who have been drawn from the farm into industry, and into the army. I have not the figures of those who have gone from agriculture into industry, but they must run into the hundreds of thousands. 
With the process of levelling off that is going on, wTe hear continually of hundreds- in some instances it is as high as 1,500-of workers who are being changed from one industry to another or who are being laid off in one industry and then being placed in another by national selective service. I should like the minister to tell me how many men have been laid off at the John Inglis plant during recent months and how many have been reemployed. I was told by labour leaders on Sunday that there are still several hundred of the men who were laid off at this plant who have not yet been placed by national selective service.


Humphrey Mitchell: Is my hon. friend
suggesting that they should be sent to the farm?


Mr. NOSE WORTHY:: I am suggesting that in the interests of the war effort those men who have had farming experience might be placed on the farm. There are many thousands of young men in industry who have had agricultural experience. They were taken from the farm last winter and placed in industry for the winter months with the understanding that they would go back to the farm in the spring. The minister probably knows the actual number who have gone back, but my information is that there are still many thousands who have not yet been returned to the farms from which they came.
If help is to be given to the farmer, either from industry or the army, the government will have to face up to the necessity of subsidizing farm wages. Executives of farm organizations assure me that there is no other way of overcoming the shortage of farm help. If the farmer is paid a subsidy he will be able to compete with industry and the armed forces in the payment of his help. That is the first suggestion I would make. I am told that it would help immeasurably if the farmer were able to obtain the gasoline he uses for his tractor tax-free. I am speaking particularly of Ontario where the tractor is used on small farms. Many farmers feel that present prices do not permit them to buy gasoline for use in their tractors.
Another suggestion that has been passed on to me is that the government subsidize the purchase of feed grain as soon as seeding is completed. If this were made sufficiently attractive it would induce farmers to maintain or increase their herds. I am told that many farmers are reducing their herds. There

Man-Power-Mr. d'Anjou
will be a plentiful supply of grass this season, and many farmers are likely to reduce their herds to a point where they can feed them without having to buy feed grain. Relief of this kind would help, not only in the production of meat but in the production of eggs and other agricultural products. I pass these suggestions on to the minister, not as a schoolteacher farmer but on behalf of the genuine dirt farmers of Ontario.
Mr. EMMANUEL d'ANJOU (Rimouski) (Translation):	Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a
few words on the matter at present before us. This question is vital to both the province of Quebec and the whole of Canada. I represent a farming constituency. I have never failed, ever since I have held a seat in this house, to fight on every occasion for the gallant agricultural class. Therefore, I am grateful to the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) for having moved this resolution, which gives me another opportunity of taking the defence of the farming class whom I humbly represent. I am glad to pay this tribute of gratitude to the hon. member for Temiscouata. He has always been, in this house, the gallant protector of the agricultural class and the upholder of every worthy cause. Some hon. members blame him for his numerous and lengthy speeches. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Temiscouata never fails to uphold the rights of his fellow-countrymen or fellow-citizens. I would wish this house had twenty-five members as energetic as the hon. member for Temiscouata, for then the present government would go through the mill time and again.
Frankly, it must be admitted that the agricultural class of this country is in a pitiable and discouraging situation. There is so much truth in this statement that, in my own riding, some farmers, unable to procure the help necessary for the operation of their farms, have had to sell or leave them. However, we hear on the radio, we read in the press passionate pleas begging the farmers to produce more and more, to increase their output. But they are being refused the help they need so much. The farmer is deprived of his sons who are sent to military camps, while the father, often far advanced in years and unwell, remains alone on his farm. Through discouragement, he very often forsakes his agricultural calling.
The agricultural class, as I so often repeat in this house, deserves every consideration on the part not only of hon. members, but also of the government and is entitled to all possible encouragement from them. A
short while ago, an hon. member from Ontario stated that victory could not be attained without soldiers. If soldiers are essential to a victorious conclusion of the war, these troops must be properly fed and our farmers and their sons must be placed in such a position that they can till their land. It has been said that the land is the great provider. If our soldiers are to be earnest and energetic defenders of their country they must be well fed.
The present government have unfortunately deceived the farmers of Canada. Last year, large headings in the newspapers proclaimed that the administration had decided to grant exemptions from compulsory military service to farmers and their sons. This campaign was launched just before the holding of the plebiscite to incite farmers and their sons to vote "Yes". Once the subterfuge had had the desired results, exemptions were completely refused to them. Personally, hundreds of cases have been brought to my attention and I have voluminous files on the subject. I have applied everywhere to secure postponements and leaves, not exemptions, mind you, for they were unobtainable, in spite of the deceptive promises. I have applied for postponements or leaves for farmers' sons whose presence was absolutely essential on the farms and never have I been successful in obtaining practical results.
Why do not the present government, who draw their inspiration from the Union government of 1917, set up in the county seats, exemption boards or appeal boards whose members would be the worthiest citizens of the locality and whose duties would be to decide whether the farmers' sons whose exemptions are requested are really more useful on the farm or in the military camps? In 1917, the town of Rimouski had an exemption committee comprising the mayor of the town and two well-known citizens of my county, honest and sane people, to whom the farmers, accompanied by their sons, addressed1 their requests. These requests were carefully examined, and when the members of this board decided that the farmers and their sons or helpers were more useful on the farm than in the army, they granted them an exemption. The present government, and I repeat what I have already said, is even more nefarious than the 1917 government which was condemned so severely by the Canadian electorate at the time of the 1921 elections.


Mr. LECLERC:: In that case, why don't
you go over to the other side of the house.
Man-Power-Mr. Jaques

Mr. d'ANJOU:	Following the example of
the hon. member for Temiscouata, I will tell the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Leelerc) that the constituents of Rimouski elected me to this seat in the house, and here I stay; I will also speak as I see fit even at the risk of displeasing the hon. member.
Mr. Speaker, I really believe that the motion introduced by the hon. member for Temiscouata came at the right time, and I hope that the government will seriously consider all the reasons which he gave as well as those which were suggested by the hon. members who spoke before me in support of his views. We want to win the war, and yet, we will not allow the farmers to produce what is needed to feed not only the civilian population, but our soldiers as well. When justice is sought for a farmer, the same answer is always given, and that is the crowning argument; we are at war! The end of the war will not mean the end of the world; Canada will still be in existence. But unfortunately, as the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Lizotte) said a while ago, a Canadian author may write "La terre qui meurt." Farms will be deserted in the other provinces just as in the province of Quebec. My province is primarily agricultural, and it will be greatly affected. Therefore, I shall be pleased to vote in favour of the motion introduced by the hon. member for Temiscouata who has, in all circumstances, and I say it once again, defended the rights of his fellow-countrymen and of his fellow-citizens; I hope that the number of members who are conscious of their responsibilities and who fully understand the position of the agricultural class will be broad enough to support the motion.


Joseph-Hermas Leclerc: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
point of order. A while ago, I made a remark to the hon. member when he said that the present government was more nefarious than the union government of 1917. Such is not my opinion, but if it be the opinion of the hon. member, why does he not take his seat on the other side of the house?
Mr. d'ANJOU:	In that case, I am not of
the same opinion and it does not concern the hon. member whether I stay on this side of the house or go over to the other. Mr. Speaker, I shall be delighted to support the motion of the hon. member for Temiscouata.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. NORMAN JAQUES (Wetaskiwin):: I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that if I were to suggest gold mines as a field for finding the needed farm labour I should be told that I did not know what I wTas talking about. It would seem that once a man works in a gold mine he is unfitted to work at anything else. At least that has been hinted in this house, and I might suggest that the same is true of those who think in terms of gold.
At a time when farmers by reason of war necessity have been deprived of a great deal of their labour, they have also suffered great losses in machinery, because they can neither buy new machines nor obtain repairs for their old machinery, and there is beyond question a considerable loss of efficiency on the farms in consequence. I might mention a case that was brought to my attention this session.
A number of elevators in my riding, at the request of their patrons, the neighbouring farmers, had intended to install machinery for cleaning grain and they went so far as actually to buy the grain cleaners, which are now and have been for the last eighteen months or so lying in the elevators. But they cannot get permission from the construction controller to install the cleaners because, as I am informed, and as the late controller of construction told me, they cannot spare either the labour or the materials from the war effort. That also is the answer which has been given to me in Alberta by the machine companies. They say that they cannot get the machinery or repairs for the farmers because the manufacturers cannot get the materials to put into the machines.
If that were strictly true, I would not be speaking to-night; but it is not true, because an immense amount of iron and steel, and other materials which the farmers could use, are at the present time and have been since the war started wasted in the mining of gold. I simply wish to say this just now. Surely in this time of war the needs of the farmers, that is, the needs of those who must produce the food of the nation, and the food of the allied nations, should come before the needs of gold miners.


Mr. FREDERIC DORION (Charlevoix-Saguenay):: We certainly owe the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) congratulations upon having raised in the house a matter of such great importance. I cannot refrain from congratulating also the hon. member for

Maji-Power-Mr. Dorion
Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Dupuis), who did not hesitate to join the hon. member for Temis-eouata, even if it did not please his colleagues.
Many members of the government looked scandalized this afternoon when this question was brought before the house. It was as if a crime was being committed.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not think my hon. friend is serious when he says that we were scandalized and that it was a crime. That is not fair.


Frédéric Dorion: I said that many of them were scandalized, though this debate might interrupt only for a few hours the consideration of the war budget. When any hon. member raises a question, even of primary importance, such as this one, the majority of the members sitting to your right, Mr. Speaker, successfully hide their discontent. The whole trouble in this matter, as in so many others, comes from the fact that since the beginning of the war the government has not been able to foresee the consequences of its acts.
As regards. the raising of men, the government has acted as if it were the same thing as the production of goods. They decide to raise 10,000 men and orders are given to those concerned to raise 10,000 men, without asking whether this can be done without endangering agriculture, the mines or any other essential industry. That is why we are faced to-day with a problem which is almost without solution.
I believe the government should be grateful to the hon. member for Temiscouata for having brought this problem to the attention of the house to-day. We must not forget that agriculture entered this war as one of the most depressed industries. Farmers *were unable, owing to the prices they received, to pay the wages which their labour was entitled to expect. By its very nature, agriculture is not an industry which can suddenly turn over to new methods and increase its output, as many of the mechanized industries can. However, we have seen the government spending millions upon millions of dollars to build war factories. But how many millions did we give to agriculture to improve its means of production?
I was amazed not long ago to learn that some industries are allowed twenty per cent and even fifty per cent depreciation during the war. Are these industries more essential to the war effort than agriculture? The only thing the farmer demands is to keep on the farm those who can help him to make the land produce as much as possible.
One thing is certain: the farmer will not make money through this war; and this cannot be said of many other industries. It is urgent that the government take the necessary means to improve the situation. And do not forget that with this state of affairs, with all the restrictions imposed upon the farmers, their morale is getting lower and lower, and this may be the worst of all. It may be a good war effort to spend as many millions as possible; but we must not forget that the basis of all our war effort is agriculture.


Joseph-Hermas Leclerc: Mr. Speaker, my speech will be a short one, as usual. I am not in the habit of taking up the time of the house where I consider that, speaking generally, a considerable amount of time is wasted. I do not hesitate to state that the session should be over by now. I simply wish to support the motion of the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), because certain statements are deserving of utterance. Various views have been expounded to-day. I approve of some speeches and disapprove of others. If, for example, the farmers are behind in their seeding, it cannot be attributed to the scarcity of manpower. The rainy season is to be blamed. Contrary to what the last speaker has said, the farmers make more money in periods of -war. However, their income is still not large enough to allow them to compete on the labour market and pay two or three dollars a day for help. Butter would have to sell at from 75 cents to SI a pound to permit them to do so. The farmers are unable to pay such high wages.
I specially wish to draw the attention of the house to the trouble we are faced with regarding the men called up for training. The government have amended their man-power policy. Since March, 1942. this policy is more liberal than heretofore. Before that time it was deemed advisable to call up every farmer because it was considered that they might help to protect their own homes. Our views have altered since that time. To-day there is no trouble in getting postponements for bona fide farmers' sons, but difficulties are met with when we are dealing with those who have been called up in 1940 and 1941.
In my riding, I have come across many very deserving cases. I shall call two or three of them to your attention. Last winter, a seventy-year-old widow, who has only two sons, requested that I try to get leave for one of her sons who had been called up before 1941. After months of work, I finally was successful in securing leave for that young
Man-Power-Mr. Leclerc

man who, however, did not reach the farm, where only one son remained, until late in the spring. On this farm, there were 25 milch cows and anyone who knows something about agriculture, realizes the amount of work the care of these animals represents. I may state in passing that, in Shefford, we have the largest herds in the province of Quebec. The mother exhausted her strength in attempting to help her son. Finally, in June or July, I believe, the other son, who had been called up for training, was granted leave for a few months. He went back to the army in the fall. This year, after some delay, I was again successful in securing further leave for him. He is now on the farm, having obtained leave of absence for three months. Mr. Speaker, that is not enough. He should have been granted at least six months, for, in my opinion, a farm on which there are 25 cows, as well as sheep and other animals requires at least two good men. The truth of this is evidenced by the fact that, at the time when there was only one son on the farm, although the latter includes a woodlot, they had to buy fuel wood.
I may mention another nearly similar case, where 25 cows were kept. The father and mother are at least seventy years old. Both became ill, and a nurse had to take care of them. They had only one son at home. This spring, I obtained a postponement for him but as every one will admit, two men are scarcely enough on a farm of that size, and at least three would be required. Those two men can scarcely do all the work and they should remain on the farm the whole year round. In the cases I have just mentioned, the men are not French-Canadians, but English-speaking people.
I could mention many other cases. A dairy farmer told me on Monday morning: "I keep 30 milch cows, but I have only one son at home". Moreover, this farmer sells his milk in town. All those cases deserve our consideration and I ask the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) to consider them most carefully. Farmers' sons whose services are essential on the farm, whether they were mobilized in 1940, in 1941 or even in 1942, are entitled to the same consideration shown to those who are liable to be called up this year and who are practically exempted.


Mr. C. E. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: I am not going to occupy the time of the house as an effective means of hampering our war effort. My purpose is not in any way to detract from that great cause. But I do wish to say a few words upon this subject before it

is allowed to pass. I believe the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) did! well to bring this matter forward, because it is very timely.
A while ago the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) asked1 the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) where the shortage of food would be. I do not think it takes any stretch of the imagination to know where a food shortage may occur.


Humphrey Mitchell: It just depends upon
what kind of imagination one has.


Charles Edward Johnston: That is the trouble with the Minister of Labour; he has not a good imagination.


Humphrey Mitchell: Coming from my hon. friend that is a compliment.


Charles Edward Johnston: That shows that I can at least pass the minister a compliment when he has it coming to him. There is no question as to where the shortage of food will be; it will be right here in Canada. One does not have to use imagination in that respect. The shortage is here now; otherwise there would be no necessity of rationing, and rationing is being extended all the time. I am not objecting to that, because it is the proper thing to do if there is a scarcity, but it is great folly for us to ration food without making any concerted effort at the same time to increase production.
So far as the shortage of food is concerned, the minister has in mind, as we all have, that Canada is raising more foodstuffs now than she ever did before. Nobody is denying that. But we have committed ourselves to definite obligations to countries overseas, obligations which we cannot escape. Therefore we must raise enough in addition to take care of our own wants, and I maintain we can do that without any difficulty if we have a proper man-power policy.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has asked for greater production this year of all foodstuffs; and, speaking in the house some little time ago, he expressed the opinion that there was nothing in the way of reaching that objective, so far as man-power is concerned. I hope he is right, but I greatly fear he will find1 himself mistaken before next fall comes round1. Just because we have on hand a good supply of certain commodities, such as wheat, I do not think we should sit down contentedly and say that all is well. This year, I believe we are in for a setback, even in regard to wheat; and if we should have a disastrous season, with the commitments we

Man-Power-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)
already have for overseas delivery, we in Canada are going to find ourselves rather short even of wheat, as well as other commodities.


Humphrey Mitchell: So long as we do not
run short of talk we shall be all right.


Charles Edward Johnston: If we do,
I am sure the minister will make up any shortage; he has done very well in that direction so far; but that is about all he has done, for the onus of this whole question falls upon the shoulders of the Minister of Labour. I am n>ot going to blame him personally; as I said once before, speaking of the strike in Montreal, he was asked to do an impossible thing, and I explained why I -made that statement. I do not intend to go further into that matter now.
Some of the difficulties we shall face this year will come as a result of the late seeding which, together with the shortage of manpower to put in the crops, will make the harvest exceedingly late. Then, again, there will be a man-power problem; the harvest will be so late that there will be a great rush, and there simply will not be enough men to take it off. That is a problem we might as well face now, ini order that we may make some preparation to meet it. I believe this whole question could be handled most efficiently if we would all face it honestly. Let me explain what I mean by that, and I do not think I could do better than quote the words of the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) as reported at page 3275 of Hansard for yesterday:
. . . I am not running an air force to go farming, but to fight overseas and to train here. If a man enlists in the aircrew he enlists of his own free will and he must go through the training for a most important job of work, costing us $25,000 if he is a pilot, $27,000 or $28,000 if he is an observer or navigator and so on. I do not think we can afford to let him go away on farm leave. I do not know whether the committee will agree with me. but so long as I have anything to do with the air force, either it will be an air force or they will be farmers and will go back to their farms. I do not wish to have a double-barrelled organization, running farms and an air force at the same time.
I wish to congratulate the minister on his frankness, and to say further that he has been staunch in his stand in that regard ever since the beginning of the war. That is the proper stand to take. You cannot fool around with this question; and I think if the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) would come out with a similar statement we would begin to clarify this matter.


Mr. BOUCHER:: What about the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner)?


Charles Edward Johnston: I am just coming to that. There is no use ini talking; neither in the air force, the army nor the navy can you have a man here to-day and gone tomorrow, andi the people in these departments are not to blame. That blame properly should be placed upon the mam-power policy of this government; that comes under the Minister of Labour, and that was what I meant a moment ago when I said that the responsibility definitely fell upon the shoulders of the Minister of Labour. There is no manpower policy so far as agriculture is concerned. The Minister of Agriculture has also been placed in an impossible situation, and now he is trying to get out of it as best he can. I remember that I was talking to the chairman of one of the selective service boards in regard to agricultural postponements and he saidi, "I don't want to take these boys off the farms any more than you do, but here is the position in which I am placed. I get an order from Ottawa saying they want
25,000	men. Out here in the west, where am I going to get them? We have taken practically all the men we can get from the cities, though we can still pick up a few here and there. Anyone with an ounce of brains knows the only place we can get 25,000 men is from the farms, and as long as they tell me to get 25,000 men I am going to take them from the farms or any place else. If they don't like that, they can change the policy." That is talking straight, and there was no argument against it. There, again the responsibility was thrown directly where it belongs, right on the shoulders of the Minister of Labour, and whether or not he likes it he will have to accept that responsibility. When a man is taken off a farm and put into the army, apparently that is where he should be, and that is where he should stay. But if he is essential to agriculture he never should have been taken off the farm. Surely that is what the selective service boards are for.
If we look at agriculture in the proper light we must agree that agriculture is just as important as any other war industry in Canada. We have discovered the folly of saying, "Well, when harvest time comes we will send some of the school boys or school girls or what have you to the farms." We tried that experiment last year; no doubt the Minister of Labour did so in all good faith, in order to meet an emergency. These fellows from eastern Canada were sent to the west
3306	COMMONS
Man-Power-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)
but, as the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Hlynka) says, they could not take it. You cannot take a fellow from the city, I do not care whether he is a school boy or a full grown man, and put him on a farm at harvest time and expect him to keep up with the other men. It just cannot be done. I spoke to some of these fellows who were on their way back east last fall, and they acknowledged that they could not keep up with the work. It was not their fault; they just could not carry their end. It would be the same whether you paid them $7 or $8 a day. So that the farmers are reaping the benefit of our muddled labour policy, to the extent that ini my own constituency as much as ten bushels to the acre have been lost on account of mice. Who should be blamed for that? The farmers were not to blame; it was definitely the fault of the government.


Humphrey Mitchell: The weather.


Charles Edward Johnston: Not altogether.


Humphrey Mitchell: The harvest was late last year.


Charles Edward Johnston: Well, if the labour had been available the threshing would have been done, though a small portion might have been left over. I know of machine after machine in my own area that was running with only three, four and five teams when it should have had twelve or fourteen. The threshing was not completed in those areas, and the farmers were penalized to the extent of ten bushels to the acre. Not only that, but in a great many cases the grain was swathed, and not in the stook. The grain in the swath this year was spoiled, and some of it sprouted before it could be threshed, with the result that the harvest carried from last fall to this spring resulted in late seeding.
Coming back to the question of man-power, and as to whether it is efficient or not, may I refer to postponements from the army. Mind you, I wish to make it definitely clear that I am not disagreeing with the army or the air force. I think it is the height of foolishness for either the army, the navy or the air force to take in men and then be forced to allow them out for other work. But let it not be misunderstood that I do not think the boys who are essential to agriculture, should ever have been taken off the farms and put into the army, and those who are there now should definitely be put back on the farms, with instructions to stay there. I think the agricultural leaves from the army, the navy and the air force are handled in an entirely wrong

manner. In the last couple of months I have been convinced, from what I have seen, that once you begin to get a postponement for a young fellow in the army, the air force or the navy, and happen to write a commanding officer, or the boy writes his commanding officer, right then they begin to step on him. Delay after delay occurs, as was pointed out a while ago by one of the other speakens.
The boy who happens to be at the army or air force camp is first instructed to get affidavits. He has to write home to his father or mother and they have to run around the country getting these affidavits. Then they send those off to the boy, and he has to take the matter up with his commanding officer. And so the process goes on for three or four weeks. Then the commanding officer does not think he can let the boy go on the grounds stated. Then probably the boy, his father or his mother writes to their member of parliament, and the member takes it up through the department. By that time the boy is transferred, and probably he is sent overseas.
I have one case before me, one which came to my notice to-day, where that very thing happened. I started correspondence in connection with this matter last spring, when seeding first started. When finally I got a favourable reply from the department the boy was drafted for overseas, although he had not finished his basic training so very long ago. I have another case, right here, which occurred in connection with the navy, *where the same is true. In this instance the boy was drafted to another ship, and away he went. The father and the mother wrote saying they imagined there was no use in going on with the matter. This boy was told that, so far as the armed services were concerned, no more leaves were being granted, and that all leaves were postponed.
This is definitely interfering with agricultural production. I fear lest this fall, when it is too late, we shall find out that we are falling far short of our expected production. Then we shall have a catastrophe on another front. That is too serious to be overlooked. Now is the time to take action, although even now is quite late.
I have in my hand a letter from a different part of Canada, namely, from Quebec, and I find that in that province conditions are no different from what they are in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. I should like to read a portion of this letter, in which

Man-Power-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)
a lady writes to me respecting her son. She had been at a meeting at which the deputy minister of agriculture was present, and following the meeting she wrote:
I protested to the meeting that there was even then, October, 1941, a serious lack of labour on eastern Canadian farms and that we had been forced only a month ago to sell at auction the highest producing pure bred Holstein herd in Quebec. . . . We had a succession of men who either enlisted or were drafted.
And then at a later point in the letter:
The fact that dairy herds were being sacrificed was recalled. Doctor Barton answered this by stating that individuals might be forced to liquidate here and there but such animals were purchased by other farmers and continued to produce.
And then in brackets she writes "Mr. Gardiner's theory". The letter continues:
To-day my husband and I are alone on a 300-acre farm within 55 miles of Montreal. Our son, 18, is in the R.C.A.F. He is better off out of it, we think. The farm, I mean. Here he too would be alone. . . . We have about 15 head of stock and milk one cow for ourselves, feeding a couple of calves.
There was a great dairy herd destroyed. She goes on in the letter to point out that in that neighbourhood other dairy herds had to be sacrificed because the boys were taken away.


Mr. McDONALD (Pontiac):: Did the boy
not enlist?


Charles Edward Johnston: I am glad the hon. member asked that question, because I had just picked up the speech of the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power), with regard to which I wished to refer to that very point. The hon. member asked if the boy did not enlist. May I refer for a moment to the statement by the minister:
If a man enlists in the aircrew he enlists of his own free will. . . .
That statement is absolutely wrong and misleading. This system of enlistment we have is the most scandalous that was ever put across a country. It is not enlistment in any sense of the word; it is coercion.


Thomas Vien: Order. The hon. member will recall the motion before the house is one to adjourn the house because of a shortage of agricultural man-power. The question of enlistments is certainly not within the purview of that question of man-power.


Charles Edward Johnston: I was going to show the house that the method of taking men from the farms was the effect of that. The question was asked definitely and I intended to spend a second or so in answering it.
It is definitely linked up with the shortage of man-power on the farms, and I think I can prove that to Your Honour in a few minutes.


Humphrey Mitchell: Before my hon. friend does any proving, surely when he refers to members of aircrew he must know they are the most courageous men who were ever born.


Charles Edward Johnston: That has nothing to do with the matter.


Humphrey Mitchell: Oh, that is all right; but you said they were coerced into aircrews.


Charles Edward Johnston: I did.


Humphrey Mitchell: Surely my hon. friend is not serious about that. He makes a charge against young fellows like that who are flying over France and Germany to-night.


Charles Edward Johnston: Do not try to bring a red herring across the path like that. The minister knows better than to do that.
Why did most of these fellows enlist?- because we did not have the gumption in this house to say what we thought. That is the fact, and every member sitting here knows it. And a good many members sitting in the cabinet know it, too. If we had had-I was going to say the intestinal fortitude, but I do not think that is parliamentary-if we had had the gumption to go out and state a definite policy we would not have the trouble we are having to-day. These fellows who were on the farms knew they would be called up. It is happening every day, and it is happening even now. They know they will be called up, drafted out of the farms and taken away from essential industry. They know they will ibe drafted into the army, and so they enlist.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend knows we are not drafting people from the farms into the army at this time. My hon. friend knows that.


Charles Edward Johnston: They certainly are being drafted at this time. That only shows the confusion that exists, even today. With all due respect to the Minister of Labour, I do not think he is serious, because I am sure he knows the difficulty he himself is finding with this man-power policy. But in my judgment he will never be able to settle the agricultural problem until he straightens out that question.
These young fellows on the farm, who are most anxious and willing to stay there, who know they are essential to agriculture, who know their parents cannot get along without them, must make a choice, they must either enlist or be conscripted. Hon. members
3308	COMMONS
Man-Power-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)
know the stigma that is attached to the word "conscription". If everyone physically fit had been conscripted and put where he was most fitted, put to his task under a decent and proper selective sendee, we would not have the difficulty we have to-day. That is what is the matter. We have not as yet a definite man-power policy.
I hope the Minister of Labour will be able to get some suggestions out of what I have to say. Here is another suggestion that will help to solve the agricultural problem if heed is taken of it. At this very minute we are entering into an unemployment period. That is what is happening right in the heart of war. Men in industry are being thrown out of work. At the Calgary Ogden shops fifty men were laid off at one time, and two hundred at another. Those shops are producing essential war materials, and yet a return tabled in the house shows that only fifty-three, if my memory serves me aright, of these men have been replaced by selective service. Something like sixty are on unemployment insurance, and selective service does not know where the rest are.
Some of those men were experienced agriculturists. Why did the selective service boards not get after them? The one lady to whom I referred to-night has one son in the navy; he enlisted because he knew he would be conscripted. The other boy enlisted in the army for the same reason. I received this letter only yesterday, and she tells me that they have six hundred acres which are not seeded. Does the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) or the Minister of Labour contend that we can reach our objectives in agricultural production with conditions like that? That is only one case and there are many more over the country.
I am not going to speak at any great length on this matter. If the Minister of Labour will be as frank as the Minister of National Defence for Air was, he will come out and say he knows where the difficulty is. There is no question about that; otherwise I do not think he would be occupying his present position. He knows he has been in an impossible position trying to operate under a two-way system. He will have to establish a man-power policy which will put these men where they belong and keep them where they are best suited. If they are essential to agriculture, put them there and see that they stay there. If they are in the army, you will have to take them out and put them on the farm.


Humphrey Mitchell: If my hon. friend is
not careful I will put him in agriculture.


Charles Edward Johnston: If the minister puts me in the Department of Labour I know I shall not do any worse than he has done.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend misunderstands me; I said I would put him to work on the farm.


Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Mr. Speaker, the problem of the shortage of farm labour is not one that has risen over night. This problem is the direct outcome of the policy of the government for three and a half years and its failure to tackle courageously and intelligently the problem of the allocation of manpower. We are paying the price to-day in a threatened shortage of fuel and food. Four different ministers have had this problem tossed into their laps. The first one was the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), who for a while was Minister of National War Services. It was then passed over to Mr. Thorson, who was Minister of National War Services for a short time. Then it was the baby of the present Minister of National War Services (Mr. LaFleche), and finally it was tossed into the lap or on to the doorstep of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell). He cannot be blamed entirely for the present situation because he has inherited it. But the problem is there, and it is always more difficult to solve a problem after three and a half years of muddling than it is if it is tackled properly in the first place.
We recognized at the outbreak of the war the need of and advocated an intelligently planned programme for handling this problem. On September 9, 1939, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well) set forth in this house the views of this group. Discussing this problem, he said among other things, as reported at page 57 of Hansard:
We have tremendous resources. In modern war huge masses of men are being replaced by mechanized units which require vast quantities of supplies to maintain them in the line. Frenzied demands for the enlistment of more and more men, if granted, may defeat the very object in view, success in this struggle. This was to a more limited extent true in the last war. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, for example, noted that condition in a letter which he wrote on May 15, 1907, to Sir Allen Aylesworth, in connection with the problem of conscription, in *which he said:
"There is a shortage of labour in agriculture and industry, in fact in every field [DOT]where brawn and muscles are needed, and in the face of this condition people there are still yelling for more men being taken away from occupations in which they are so much needed."

Man-Power-Mr. Douglas (Weyburn)
We have recognized that throughout the progress of the war there have been two extreme schools of thought with reference to the problem of man-power. There have been those who have cried for an ever-increasing army who could talk of nothing else than conscripting men and putting them into the armed forces as though that in itself would solve the whole problem. We have maintained that to do that would be to overlook the fact that we have certain commitments for the production of war materials and foodstuffs and that our effort must be a balanced effort rather than a one-sided one.
On the other hand there have been those at the other extreme who have sought to have almost total exemption for fanners and farmers' sons and who have wanted to use every possible excuse to deprive the armed services of man-power. We have dissociated ourselves from that point of view. We have never believed that any special class or group should have special privileges. In our opinion that is class legislation, and class legislation of any sort is nefarious and harmful. The point of view we took was that we wanted an intelligent plan for the allocation of man-power. First of all we should find out what is our total available man-power; how many physically fit men there are within certain age groups. Our man-power pool is not a bottomless pool; it has definite limitations. Our first task was to find out what that was, and we asked for that repeatedly. Registration was supposed to provide that information. It did not do so very effectively. Then, out of that pool of man-power we must decide first of all the minimum number of men that would be absolutely necessary to maintain our home economy-to run our railroads, our mines, our factories and our foundries.
*Next we must decide what was the absolute minimum necessary to grow the foodstuffs which we ourselves required and sufficient in addition to meet the commitments which we have made to Britain and our allies. After we have decided the numbers that were needed at home and how they should be apportioned among these needs, we must decide what available man-power we had for the fighting services and how they should be allocated as between the army, navy and the air force. But that has never been done. Since the outbreak of the war, what there has been is a competition between the different departments of the government for the services of the same man. It did not matter what the man was doing, whether he was on the farm, in industry or in a mine. The army was asking for him; so were the air force, and the navy; munitions factories were beckoning to him; the coal mines wanted him in the mines; the railroads
wanted him on the railways. All the different departments of the government were competing with each other for the services of the same man, and at the same time the Minister of Agriculture was setting a programme for the farms of this country. In other words, the policy this government was following was the policy of laissez-faire. The policy which this government followed in peace time it follows now in war time-the policy of doing nothing until public opinion makes you do it, and then do just as little as you have to do, and do it too late.


Mr. ADAMSON:: And do it the wrong way.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What happened under that policy? The law of economics naturally took men from the low-paid industries into the higher paid industries. Men drifted from the farms into the munition factories, from the mines into the shipbuilding yards. All the time men were moving from the low paid industries into the higher paid industries. Also a large number of men went into the armed services. The result of it all was that on the prairies particularly, many of our rural areas were already completely denuded of man-power long before the government brought in compulsory military service. As a result of this unplanned confusion we find that Canada after three and a half years of war finds it has more men in non-essential industries than it had a year and a half ago.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is not true.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The last available figures in January showed that it was true. The minister can give his figures.


Humphrey Mitchell: I shall be glad to give them when discussing man-power.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The second thing that happened was this. After three and a half years of war we find the government asking the agricultural population, with
395,000	fewer men on the farm, to produce more foodstuffs than we ever produced before.


Humphrey Mitchell: Are we not asking all our people to make a similar effort? And they are doing a pretty good job at that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: They are. But I am trying to find out whether we have not gone beyond the limit in what we are asking our farmers to produce when we have 395,000 fewer men on the farm. We are asking them to produce quantities of foodstuffs that we would have thought a few years ago it was impossible for them to produce, even with hundreds of thousands more men on the farm than we now have. The result of it all is that to-day in Canada, one of the greatest
3310	COMMONS
Man-Power-Mr. Douglas (Weybum)
agricultural countries in the world, we are rationing meat; we are rationing butter; we have some restrictions on cream, and in certain cities of Canada potatoes are unobtainable. If we had told that to anybody in the House of Commons three and a half years ago they would have said that such conditions were impossible.


Humphrey Mitchell: Is it not because we are trying to feed the British people?


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: No; that is only part of the story. We are not exporting beef or butter to Great Britain.


Humphrey Mitchell: Cheese.


James Lester Douglas: What we are shipping to Britain is only part of the story. There is something more, Mr. Speaker.
At the beginning of this session I made a plea to the Minister of Agriculture in which I said that unless something was done in connection with the man-power situation on the farms we would face actual food shortages in this dominion in the next twelve months and might not be able to meet our food commitments to Great Britain-and it is very important that we do. The Minister of Agriculture answered in a very eloquent speech, but there was more eloquence than logic in it. He said that last year we produced more than we had ever produced before and with less manpower. That is true, but it was because, first of all, we had the best climatic conditions right across Canada that we had had1 for the previous twenty years. Such conditions may not be duplicated. Second, it was done at the expense of the people on the farms whom we asked to make superhuman efforts. Old men, women and1 children-I saw them last fall out in the fields shovelling wheat and pitching stooks.	[DOT]


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: Pitching stooks?


Mr. MAYHEW:: Some farmer!


James Lester Douglas: 
Humphrey Mitchell: It is not hard to conceive if you know what the figures mean. It can be understood by anybody who knows about the shifts in our industrial economy, part-time workers in the cities and so forth.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is not
only our industrial economy, may I point out to the minister?


Humphrey Mitchell: And in agriculture.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In Votes and Proceedings of March 22, 1943, I find that in Saskatchewan, which is not an industrial province, the number of persons registered for employment was 2,769. That was at a time when it was difficult to get workers on the farms and difficult to get men to work in the coal mines in the southern part of our province.
Let me review what the government has done to meet the shortage of agricultural manpower. The first thing the government did was to pass an order in council, P.C. 2252, on March 23, 1942, which was supposed to freeze men on the farms. The fact is, of course, that this did not keep men from being called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act, although it was intended to do so. The best proof of that is found in the figures which the Minister of National Defence put on Hansard the other day, as reported at page 3031. I quote:
The intake of new personnel into the army for the fiscal year 1942-43 by military districts, based on telegraphic reports from the districts, is as follows.

Man-Power-Mr. Douglas (Weybum)
Then follow the figures. The total is 74,204, who were taken in during the fiscal year from April 1, 1942, to March 31, 1943. That year pretty well comes within the period since the order in council was passed. What do we find? In spite of the fact that it was an order in council which purported to prevent men from being taken off the farms, we find that in military district No. 12, which is Saskatchewan, nearly 7,000 men were taken off the farms and put in the army. And when we compare that with other military districts we find that Saskatchewan is the third highest in Canada, the only other districts which are higher being No. 2, with 10,908, and No. 4, with 15,886. That is an amazing thing.
If one needs further proof one has only to look at the table which I placed on Hansard at page 2920. That table showed that although in Saskatchewan 22,119 were called up, only 8,041 were granted postponements. When the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Lalonde) this afternoon said that he had been handling 1,200 cases for postponement from military service and that more than half of them had been granted postponement, and when I look at administrative division F, Quebec, and observe that out of 26,565 on call, 21,474 were granted postponements, I begin to understand something of the 1,200 cases referred to by the hon. member for Labelle.


Humphrey Mitchell: I will give the hon. member much more interesting figures than those when we have the man-power debate.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I shall be glad to get them, but to me these figures are startling. In Saskatchewan 22,119 men are called and 8,041 are granted postponement, and in Quebec 26,565 are called and 21,474 are granted postponement. And Saskatchewan is a province which is almost entirely agricultural, a province wherein order in council P.C. 2252 was supposed to have been enforced in order to prevent men from being taken off the farms.
The fact is that it was not applied, and the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) is correct when he says that the men who were administering these boards were put in a dilemma, being told by the military authorities, on the one hand, that they wanted so many men, and by the government, on the other hand, "You are not to call farmers off the farm." Well, they had to take them off the farms, or they could not meet their quotas. If one needs proof that the order in council did not work, one has only to look at the interpretative letter sent out last January,
which shows that the government itself became alarmed at the extent to which farms were being denuded of the essential manpower if they were to produce the quotas of foodstuffs which the country had set.
When that did not meet the situation the government tried another measure. It was announced with some fanfare that men in the army were to be granted leave, and most people got the impression, through public statements which were made, and announcements over the radio, that this really amounted to something. But I fear the public were badly deceived. It did not affect more than an infinitesimal number of men. Look at the regulations and see who are eligible to receive agricultural leave. I think it is worth while putting it on the record:
Agricultural leave may be granted to personnel of the Canadian army serving in the following formations and units:
1.	Personnel on the strength of home war establishments district depots.
2.	Other personnel on the strength of the district depots, less those awaiting dispatch to basic training centres and those awaiting allocation after completing advanced or trades training.
3.	Personnel of Veterans Guard of Canada who have completed individual training and who can be spared from the duties on which their units or detachments are employed.
4.	Personnel of units employed on operational duties less those earmarked for overseas service. Such personnel must have completed individual training before being granted leave, and the number granted leave must not exceed five per cent of the unit strength at any one time.
Let us review these exceptions. First of all. a man cannot be granted leave if he is taking basic training. In other words, the ones most recently taken off the farm and whose parents are finding it most difficult to get along in their absence, are the very ones who cannot come back for spring leave.
Those awaiting dispatch to training centres and those awaiting allocation after completing their advanced or trades training cannot be granted leave, and even where they may be granted leave, the number granted leave must not exceed 5 per cent of the strength of the unit. And before a man can be granted leave he must have the approval of his commanding officer, which in turn must be endorsed by the district officer commanding and the general officer commanding. Well, of course, under these regulations the provision that the men in the army would be granted leave to do farm work has had little or no beneficial effect upon the scarcity of farm labour.
Before I sit down I wish to suggest that there are three things that ought to be done. First and foremost, the men now on the

3312	COMMONS
Man-Power-Mr. Douglas (Weyburn)
farms, men who are engaged in agriculture, should be kept there. The minister said a moment ago, interrupting the hon. member for Bow River, that men are not being called now. I cannot speak for the other groups in the house; but there is not a member in our group from Saskatchewan who does not get letters every (week-one might almost say every day, but I think I am safe in saying every week-with regard to men who are still being called off the farms in Saskatchewan, and who have made application for postponement and in some cases had their applications rejected. That is the first thing. These men ought to be kept there, not because they are farmers. I do not want any man to be allowed to shirk his responsibility because of his occupation; but if the country decides that, in order to feed this nation and our allies, a certain amount of foodstuffs must be grown, then it is our job to say to these people, "Your task is to produce these foodstuffs, and in doing so you are doing your part toward winning the war, just as much as though we had put you in uniform or put you in some other field of service".
The second thing which the government ought to do is to consider very seriously how they will dispose of the 68,228 men who are known as home defence personnel or "R" recruits called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act. A great number of these men are off farms. I do not think it is being too optimistic to say that the danger of invasion of this country has receded to some extent in the last twelve months, and that if the invasion of Europe takes place the danger to this country will recede proportionately. It seems to me that the government must make up its mind what it is going to do with these men. Sixty-eight thousand men is quite a sizable pool of manpower; and, unless the government decides that it is going to convert these men into General Personnel and send them overseas, a great many of them ought to be returned to the farms, at least temporarily, if not permanently.
I agree with what the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) said, that you cannot have an army that is farming one day and fighting the next. So far as the general service personnel is concerned, I think that is correct. But here is a body of nearly seventy thousand men. The Minister of National Defence said that 25,000 more are to be called in the next year. That will be over 90,000 men who cannot be sent out of Canada. A great many are farmers or farmers' sons, and I think the government will

have to make up its mind either to use them as soldiers or to put them back on the farms.
As I said to the minister the other night, it was my experience last fall to see in the province of Saskatchewan young men taking their basic training, most of them off the farms, husky, brawny specimens out doing route marches, within a stone's throw of women and school children out working in the fields. It seems to me that the situation is ridiculous and that, if this country is to be faced with a food shortage, and if because of the lateness of the spring we need manpower, there is a pool of man-power that could be utilized.
Just one other suggestion I make to the minister. A large number of people have gone out of agriculture not into the army, but, as he knows, into industry, and some of them into non-essential industry. I know many of them who have gone to take more lucrative jobs; you cannot blame them for that, but they are jobs which do not contribute to Canada's war effort. I think a country which has assumed the responsibility of saying to some men, "You must go out and risk your lives for this country", ought also to take the responsibility of saying to other men, "We do not think you need to be waiting on tables or serving in stores; we think, since you came from the farms, that is where you ought to go." That will mean, of course, making certain adjustments. We cannot ask a man to leave a job at $125 a month and go to work on a farm at $60 a month. In some cases it might not be a sacrifice for him, if he is a single man, but if he is a man with a wife and family, it would be a very serious sacrifice indeed; and one of the things the government should take into consideration would be the advisability of treating these men who would be taken out of non-essential industry and returned to agriculture in the same way that we treat the man in the army, namely, pay his dependents an allowance, in addition to whatever he himself earns on the farm.
The argument will be, of course, that we would be paying different groups of men different pay. But we are doing that every day in the army, the air force and the navy. Two men may be marching together in the same platoon; one man single, the other man married, with several dependents. The total amount of money they are receiving out of the public treasury is different even though the service they are rendering is the same. It is one of the anomalies which comes out of our war; and when the government ask a man to do a certain thing which they

Man-Power-Mr. Picard
think he ought to do, they must accept the responsibility for looking after his dependents. I suggest that if the 220,000 men who have left agriculture and are said to be in industry are to be returned to the farm, the government should give serious consideration to setting up a dependents' allowance for those men who have families, so that, should they return to work on the farms they will know their families will not suffer by virtue of the fact that the government has asked them to make their contributions in agriculture rather than in some other part of our war effort.


Mr. L. PHILIPPE PICARD (Bellechasse):: Speaking on February 17, as reported in Hansaard at page 499, I concluded my address with the following words:
Let us not forget that the land is the first element that enters into the question of production. Farming is the primary industry and the most essential in carrying on a war, because the best trained men, -with the best and most modern equipment, cannot fight on an empty stomach.
I hold the same view to-day; but, because of the importance of this question I have decided again to take a few minutes of the time of this house to express my views on the problem.
On that same day I had asked the government to examine-
.	.	. the difficult situation in which some
farmers find themselves at this juncture. They do not know how to plan their production for the next year. They do not know where they will stand as far as help is concerned. On the one hand they are advised by the Department of Agriculture to produce more and more, which is good advice; on the other hand they face mobilization orders and varying interpretations in each district by the mobilization board. They do not know where they will be, if they are without the help of their sons or their farm hands. So far as production is concerned, they face a shortage in certain supplies which they need.
Prior to that, a year ago, on February 12, 1&42, if I may be permitted again to quote myself, I stated in this house, as reported in Hansard, at page 529: I
I admit readily that it would be hard to uphold that the agricultural class should benefit by special treatment that is not granted to other classes of people who do their share of war work.
I meant by that the same thing as the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas), that, as a class, if their production were not needed, if we were not at the moment in a war when the need for more food was present daily, it would not be just and fair to state that one class in all the population should benefit more than another. But it is not just because they
are farmers, but because at this moment the farming industry is the most important, after our armed services and our war munitions factories that they should get special consideration. As I stated before, the army cannot fight on an empty stomach; I said at the same time:
The primary consideration is the service rendered to the country by the land tiller and the necessity to maintain or raise the production of food in order to help feed Britain, and, above all, to maintain Canada's health and vigour by proper diets, ensured by increased supplies of food. Therefore what appears to be important is to maintain a sufficient number of experienced men to cultivate the farm lands of the country. Although I am a layman in agriculture, I imagine it could be very easy for experts in that domain to determine how many men are needed to farm land of a definite number of acres with a given type of equipment and a certain number of head of cattle and hogs, and so on.
At that time somebody told me that this was not a practicable thing to do. I now know that there are experts of the Department of Labour who are doing this very thing. They are analysing the food situation, the situation on the farms, the productivity of certain lands, the number of people needed on different lands. I have met some of these experts, and I think they are doing a great job. They were very much surprised when I told them I had been criticized for having said that it could be established how many men would be needed on a given farm in different parts of the country. If you have flat lands which can be cultivated easily with modem implements, in the west, that would be one thing; in Ontario and Quebec it may take a greater number of men for the same number of acres. These experts are, I know, at work at the present time, and we shall soon see that they can produce results.
In the course of the same speech I stated further:
It would be quite easy then to state that a farm of thirty acres operated with horse-drawn implements with fifteen head of cattle, three horses and the usual small poultry yard, needs so many men. The owner, with three boys of military age, whose farm would fall under a category considered to need three men, and who is still able-bodied, would be allowed to keep two sons on the farm and -would give the third to the armed services.
Or to agriculture, to serve as a farm hand in another section of the country or in his
own district.
This classification of farms could be fairly accurately established, and the decisions of boards of the war services department could then be arrived at with a maximum of security against favouritism and law-evasion.
I think the importance of agriculture during this war is better established than probably
Man-Power-Mr. Picard

at any other time in the history of our country. I should like to read a sentence from an address by Hon. Herbert Hoover to the conference of mid-west governors on March 15 of this year:
Germany in 1914 produced about eighty-five per cent of her food supplies despite the blockade. Her war leaders were sure they could ration the population down fifteen per cent, and therefore had no anxiety about food. They neglected the food front. In three years, Germany was dangerously short of food. In four years, mobs were demanding bread and the emperor's head. And Germany weakened on the military front.
The lesson, we should take from this statement by Mr. Hoover is that during this war, while perhaps in many branches of agriculture we are one of the largest producers, we should not relax our efforts but should increase our production and1 do as much as we can, not only to feed ourselves but also to feed our allies and to anticipate the demands that will arise when the invasion of the continent takes place. Commenting on this statement by Mr. Hoover, the New York Daily Mirror of March 16 had this to say:
That lesson is that food production and distribution must be put on the same footing as the production of munitions.
I think that is one of the elementary truths we should realize at the present time. Then this newspaper went on to offer certain suggestions, which fortunately we have already adopted in our country. They said an immediate survey of their food resources was indicated. In a moment I will show that this already has been done by our Department of Agriculture. Then they stated that the responsibility for food production must be concentrated in one authority, because in the United States many people in addition to the secretary for agriculture have something to do with the production, control and distribution of food. Here we have control boards and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). In my opinion the Minister of Agriculture should be made supreme in the control of the production and distribution of food in this country. Not only because he is capable of doing that work but because if this were done we would have the advantage of putting all branches of agriculture under one head, to be directed under one jplan.
As I stated a moment ago, those were two suggestions in regard to the United States, offered by a newspaper in that country. Here in Canada we have made a survey of our food situation and a new programme has been drawn up. I have in my hand a booklet

entitled "Objectives for Canadian Agriculture in 1943", containing a foreword by the Minister of Agriculture, from which I quote:
It is a challenging programme. It calls for larger quantities of foods than Canada has ever undertaken to produce before-particularly meats, dairy products, eggs, fresh fruits and vegetables. These foods are urgently required to meet Canada's needs for the civilian population, for the armed forces in Canada, for ships' stores, for the Red Cross, and for export commitments to Great Britain and others of the united nations.
Each year since the war began, farmers throughout Canada have contributed notably to the war effort by increasing their output of those food and fibre products called for.
Then the minister paid tribute to those who voluntarily entered that field, and went on to say that all those who joined the ranks of the farmers deserved the same credit.
Let us look for a moment at this programme and at the reasons why we should now consider agriculture in a different way from that in which we have considered it previously, and I quote not from the words of the minister but from the pamphlet drafted by his department concerning these objectives for agriculture in 1943:
When war came in September, 1939, there was an abundance of almost every kind of farm product. In the case of certain staple products there were large surpluses. Disposition of these at profitable prices had been a problem for some years. It was not surprising, therefore, that there should be little concern about food supplies.
Just in passing I may say that this might explain why a couple of years ago there was less interest shown by members of other parties or from other sections of the country, and fewer requests made that agricultural man-power be spared and left on the farms. To-day it is consoling to have people from all parts of Canada join with those of us who a few years ago stood almost alone in asking that special consideration be given agricultural needs in regard to mobilization. Then the report goes on:
With the invasion of France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark and Norway in the spring of 1940 the situation changed very considerably. Supplies hitherto available, particularly from Denmark, were cut off, but accumulated stocks of certain foods were large and these had to be worked off before additional supplies were required from overseas. Subsequently arrangements were made to ship larger quantities of certain products, notably bacon and cheese.
Canada was requested to increase her shipments in these different staple products. With these changes that took place agriculture and industry in Canada had to face a

Man-Power-Mr. Picard
new problem, a new situation, and everyone in Canada had to accept as his first consideration the necessity of producing more in the way of food. We even had to make sure there would be sufficient raw material for the manufacture of farm implements, which at one time we were tempted to lay aside, and we also faced the need of maintaining more men on our farms. The report goes on to say:
Full employment and a very marked increase in payrolls, together with the increased consumption resulting from having more men engaged in the armed services, caused a very marked increase to occur in domestic demand. The combination of these various factors had by the summer of 1942, reversed the position as far as farm products were concerned. Shortages instead of surpluses began to threaten in the case of a number of products and the necessity of restricting consumption became evident in some instances.
Later on the report says:
It was not until the changes in our food requirements and supply position occurring in
1942	directed attention to the whole agricultural position that the need for increased production in a much wider range of products became apparent.
The rapid change that occurred in the food situation in 1942 made it necessary to take stock of our position and to make plans for
1943	that would ensure maximum output.
Then looking more particularly at the part of the country which I know best, as I have noticed most hon. members are tempted to do at times, I find that in the acreage seeded to oats, for instance, Quebec last year stood fourth in the whole country, having more even than Manitoba and one other of the prairie provinces. When it comes to hay, Quebec had the largest production, and was even asked to increase it by another 7 per cent. In 1941, 3,871,000 acres of hay were under cultivation, whereas in 1943 the goal is
4,29S,000.
AVe have the same situation in my province in several other fields. For instance, we see that this year in connection with hog production Quebec is asked for a 26 per cent increase over last year's production. \\Then it comes to dairy production we find that the estimated milk requirement for 1943 is placed at 8,500.000,000 pounds, which represents an increase of approximately 1,000,000,000 pounds over 1942. In this respect Quebec is the second greatest producer, and is asked this year to raise her production by 10 per cent.
AVe are the third province in the production of eggs and poultry', and again we are asked to raise our production by about 22 per cent, and we are asked to increase by 46 per cent the production of poultry' meat.
Then, going into the subject of potatoes, we find that Quebec is the largest producer. Despite the fact that it already has 172,700 acres under cultivation, it is asked to increase that area by ten per cent. This goes to show that the programme for this year in respect of all these different products will demand the work of more men than are usually required, with implements which are not more modern but have been used for two more years, and which cannot be replaced, and can be repaired only with great difficulty.
I should not like to speak at too great length respecting the hard life of the farmer- although some have done so. I know it is a hard life, not from personal experience, but because I have visited the people I represent. I know that in a climate such as we have in our part of Canada a great amount of energy is demanded, if our people are to carry on, and to face increased production when they are not sure of maintaining the same number of men they used to have for that type of production.
I should not like to change the rosy picture painted the other day by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Wood), one which I thought was very touching, and which I admired. In his statement he expressed a great truth about the farmer when he said that everything, of course, in connection with agriculture depends upon
. . . our philosophy of life, and the importance people attach to certain things.
He said:
The best things of life are the things which money cannot buy.
Then he went on to say:
Many farmers keep up their homes and gardens and obtain from their farms an income which goes a long way to sustain them satisfactorily, and they get many pleasures there which it is impossible to get in the city. If one appreciates these finer and better things of life, an efficient farmer on good land has an advantage over the average city man.
But despite this rosy picture, the lot of the farmer, under the difficult conditions he faces in certain parts of the country, is not an easy' one. For instance, we cannot compare acreages in western and eastern Canada, as some hon. members attempt to do, because the size of a farm does not necessarily indicate the number of men required to operate it.
I can assure the house my experience with the mobilization board has been that far from being too easy, as some hon. members have sought to insinuate, they have been just and
Man-Power-Mr. Picard

fair, and have taken into consideration all aspects of each case they have had under review, when men have been before them.
I have here, concerning the production of man-power, the text of-not a speech-a statement which was given over the radio.


James Lester Douglas: Was the hon. member referring to me, when he said that insinuations had been made as to its being too easy?


Louis-Philippe Picard: Yes.


James Lester Douglas: I made no such insinuation. I merely pointed out that there was a great discrepancy between the number called in two different areas.


Louis-Philippe Picard: 
Gordon Graydon: Better put him in a
museum.


Louis-Philippe Picard: 
Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a good deal of interest to the debate to-day. Much has been said, and said with emphasis, and much of it has been of value. I can assure you that I am not going to exhaust my forty minutes, because the subject has been well covered. I wish to point out one or two simple things as I see them.
The present agricultural emergency resolves itself, as I see it, into two things. One is that agricultural leaves have been granted, but instructions evidently have been given that commanding officers have no authority to extend those leaves. That is my understanding of it. The other important point is that seeding is already late, and many of the agricultural leaves that were granted have been used up and the men have had to go back into the service before they were able to do very much on the farms because of the bad weather. That seems to be the problem at the moment. All that has been said to-day is of much value with respect to the manpower problem generally and as it applies particularly to agriculture in the coming year. The season is late, and every day's delay or every two days' delay may mean the difference between a crop of ten or fifteen bushels to the acre, and a crop of twenty-five or thirty bushels. That is how close we are running now.
Just about a week ago I was travelling around a little bit in the constituency of Wellington North, not far out of Toronto. The hon. member for that constituency is not here to-day. Perhaps he is out there, helping the farmers to put in their seed. But I doubt it, because when I was there the whole country looked like the delta of the Nile. No seeding had been done at all and the farmers were getting tremendously worried. That seems to be the immediate problem.
I would just add this. The minister is going to reply perhaps very soon now. Personally I do not wish to hear any apologies from him. I do not want him to rise and take a lot of time in the defence of his department or in defence of the government.


An hon. MEMBER:: The last speaker did that.


Ernest George Hansell: Yes; the last speaker did that. What I want, and what I think the house wants and what the country wants is a straightforward announcement of what the government is going to do now in order to ensure that crops will be put in without delay and be harvested in the fall. I notice
that the minister has his spectacles on. His desk is loaded with papers. His parliamentary assistant is sitting right behind him with another raft of notes on his desk. I am not concerned about the spectacles or the notes.


Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I will not detain the house very long.
An. hon. MEMBER: Hear, hear.


Humphrey Mitchell: I think my hon. friend who says "hear, hear," will agree that the manpower question, while due regard must be had to the part which agriculture is playing in this war, is something that affects the industrial structure, the fishing industry, and the armed forces as well as the farming community. I did hope that this debate might have been deferred until I had been given an opportunity-


An hon. MEMBER:: Until after seeding.


Humphrey Mitchell: I will come to seeding in a minute. I was going to say I had hoped that this debate would have been deferred until the whole man-power policy of the government could be reviewed iby the House of Commons, because in my opinion that is the sound and logical way of facing up to the man-power problem as it exists in Canada to-day.
I wish to be frank with some of my hon. friends. Under the War Measures Act we cannot change the weather, unfortunately, but I do pay tribute to the farmers of the country, and I would remind the house that while we have been talking to-day the farmers have been planting the seeds. An hon. member asks, what are we going to do now? I will tell him what the farmers in his own province have done. Eighty-three per cent of the wheat in Alberta is already planted., according to a telegraphic report of June 1. May I say to my hon. friends from Saskatchewan that the whole of their crop has been planted. I say, to the credit of the farmers of Saskatchewan, that notwithstanding climatic conditions, notwithstanding that, as I am given to understand, they had approximately three million acres of wheat that had not been threshed last year, they measured up to their responsibility and until the fall, I am informed, by the deputy minister of agriculture of Saskatchewan, they think the problem is well under the bridge. These are facts and not opinions. I am frank to admit that I do not understand as much about agriculture in its practical operation as some of the members who spoke this afternoon, but I do know, and I think the country should be told, what an admirable contribution

Man-Power-Mr. Mitchell

has been made by the farmers in every province of Canada to the war effort since the outbreak ' of hostilities.
I often used to say to my friends in the labour movement that if Hitler could be defeated by speeches and typewriters there would not have been any war, and I think it is a fair thing to say that you cannot plant wheat by making speeches. The farmers in the agricultural provinces have proved to the members of this House of Commons that while we have talked they have got on with the job, much to their undying credit.
I might refer now to the provinces that were discussed this afternoon-Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and largely Quebec.


An hon. MEMBER:: And Ontario.


Humphrey Mitchell: Not much has been said about Ontario, but I shall come to that province. In the province of Quebec they, too, have been in difficulties owing to weather conditions. It has been cold and wet, and the report with reference to the province of Quebec is to the effect that those crops which are better because of wet conditions have improved. As a matter of fact, with their permit system in operation, all the persons who have been given temporary permits to go into industry during the winter season, when things are a little slack on the farms, have not yet been returned to agriculture, and the figures are rather illuminating. There were 2,127 temporary permits granted to go into other lines of work and vocations, and of that total, to date 620 have been cancelled; 1,057 have gone back to the farms voluntarily, and 879 permits have not been cancelled. So much for the province of Quebec.
Perhaps I should say a word with regard to cooperation between the provinces and the dominion. When people talk about manpower muddle as regards agriculture, it is fair to say that they do not know what they are talking about. The hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) put it clearly this afternoon when he said that it was much easier to state a problem than to solve it.


Mr. LOCKHART:: Would the minister give the Ontario figures, so as to complete the record?


Humphrey Mitchell: I should be grateful if
my hon. friend would not interrupt my train of thought at the moment. I am speaking *extemporaneously.


Gordon Graydon: He does not interrupt
often.


Humphrey Mitchell: I appreciate that. He
is in the next constituency to mine.


Gordon Graydon: Is that a compliment to him?


Humphrey Mitchell: It is a compliment to him. As I was saying, the hon. member for Weyburn remarked that it was much easier to state a problem than to solve it, and I think it is fair to say that in the evolutionary development of the man-power situation in this war the Canadian people will be found to have measured up with any other nation among the united nations. Make no mistake about that.


An hon. MEMBER:: In spite of the
government.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend, of
course, for political reasons would have to say, in spite of the government. I listened to him this afternoon and he was not quite as honest as I was, though I may have been out of the house part of the time he was speaking. However, like myself, I do not think he is an expert on agriculture. He said he admitted it, and I am glad he did. Let me say this. In cooperation with the provinces, the farmers' organizations and the federal government, I believe that everything that is humanly possible to enable us to deal adequately with the man-power problem, so far as the farms are concerned, has been done.
My hon. friend who comes from the province of Quebec moved this resolution, and I would point out to him that at this very moment there are 900 local committees working in complete harmony with the government of Quebec and the federal government to meet the problem. An hon. member speaks of Ontario. That province, let me say, through the farm organizations, and in every other way, has been working in complete harmony with us. Take the constituency represented by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon). I have lived for many years close to it and I know it is a representative farming community of the best type in Ontario. The agricultural war committee is made up of representative farmers in the county, and they list no requirements for hired men by the year, estimating that 450 seasonal workers will be required. This estimate was made as late as May 4.


Gordon Graydon: Who made that estimate.


Humphrey Mitchell: This is the committee
of local farmers. These are known as victory committees.


Gordon Graydon: The minister had better
give me the names of those farmers later.

Man-Power-Mr. Mitchell


Humphrey Mitchell: I shall be glad to give the names of the committee. I could go through all the provinces in a similar manner. I have been careful to canvass the situation in the different provinces with ministers of agriculture, and I wish to be frank with the house, because, after all, wisdom is not all on this side, and I deeply appreciate some of the suggestions made by my hon. friends across the floor this afternoon.


Gordon Graydon: Better be careful of these admissions.


Humphrey Mitchell: Oh, I think we are all grown up men. We can understand that.


Mr. KNOWLES:: Will the minister put on the record the figures for other provinces, such as Manitoba?


Humphrey Mitchell: I think I said that when we come to the main debate I will do that. I shall have more time. Of course I have to stay here as long as my hon. friends want me. As I said, I was speaking extemporaneously, and I did not mean to make a long statement this evening, but only to inform hon. members from various provinces who have spoken, of the condition of the crops in those various provinces, and what has been done.
This is from the minister of agriculture of British Columbia:
This department desires to express its appreciation of the early consummation of the dominion-provincial farm labour agreements which we feel sure -will prove helpful to agriculture generally. Result seeding should be made possible without great hardship. Compulsory transfer orders should when successfully carried out be of tremendous assistance and would respectfully suggest that mobilization regulations be definitely clarified in order to further agricultural production. Policy generally should be effective and believe that failing its adoption production could not have been maintained.


Gordon Graydon: What is the date of that telegram?


Humphrey Mitchell: This is a report to me on June 1. It may have come in a few days previously; I do not know.
Then, from Alberta, the provincial minister of agriculture reports that the dominion-provincial agreement will be helpful and that his department is prepared to give the fullest cooperation to make the joint programme a success. He does suggest that the effectiveness of the programme might have been considerably increased had the farm labour agreement been negotiated and approved at an earlier date. Reference is made in his reply to the additional task which farmers had this spring in completing threshing which had to be left over from last fall.
72537-211J
I think I quoted a telegraphic statement of the conditions of the crops in Alberta, which apparently is a little more hopeful than even this wire from the minister.
Then, from Saskatchewan:
Early completion dominion-provincial farm labour agreement has resulted in effective cooperation between dominion-provincial departments concerned. Seeding crop well advanced and will be completed with minimum delay but some individual hardship. Compulsory transfer orders have had limited value so far but should become more effective as season progresses.. Clarification of mobilization regulations has greatly assisted agriculture. Postponements to agricultural workers granted since February first major factor in seeding crops on farms affected. I believe present policy will result in labour being generally available for ordinary year around farm work but severe shortage at harvest time possible. Early plans for labour supply at that time imperative.
May I say to my hon. friends from Saskatchewan that I think their victory committees are doing a magnificent job there in the allocation of farm labour. I have always believed that the best form of government and the best organization is that which is closest to the people, and it is to the credit of our farmers' organizations that in every province of the dominion, when we ask for their cooperation we have got it. The seeding reports which I have received are a vindication of the work which in large measure has been undertaken by these victory committees in the province of Saskatchewan.
From Manitoba, the provincial minister of agriculture states that Manitoba farmers are unable to meet present competition for labour and pay current wages from farm revenues. He describes the farm help problem in Manitoba as an all-year round one, and suggests that more experienced help must be transferred back to agriculture from other industries. The minister makes the observation that the farm labour agreement is a step in the right direction and has resulted in the coordinaton of effort to secure farm help. He expresses appreciation for the cooperation received from the labour department.
As regards Ontario, the minister of agriculture for Ontario writes that the dominion-provincial agreements will be helpful in solving the farm labour problem, but points out that, according to estimates secured through the offices of the agricultural representatives, there is still a very great shortage of seasonal and year-round help. The minister states it is his conviction that there must be a return ' to the farms of much of the experienced help which has migrated into industry and the home defence units. He is not hopeful that the present move for the compulsory transfer
Man-Power-Mr. Mitchell

of men. back to agriculture will be of substantial benefit. He is of the opinion that some plan for subsidizing wages be offered to experienced farmers now in industry who might be brought back to agriculture.
The premier of Quebec stated in his wire that the "dominion-provincial agreement will be of great help to solve the Quebec farm labour problem." He mentions that late seeding has caused some difficulties, but these are being overcome. The premier believes that additional benefit might be secured through a further clarification of mobilization regulations so far as farm workers are concerned. He says that full use will be made of student labour which can be mobilized for farm work and advocates the temporary release of farmers' sons as well as experienced farm workers now taking military training.
As to New Brunswick, the dominion-provincial farm labour programme in New Brunswick is making good progress. A provincial director of the programme has been appointed and the agricultural field men for the province have been active with organization work. Close cooperation is being secured from the employment and selective service offices in New Brunswick.
As regards Nova Scotia, the provincial minister of agriculture regards the farm labour situation as critical. He advocates early release of farm labour now employed in other industry and asks that certain classes of men in the armed forces be released for temporary periods to assist with seeding and harvest. The use of Italian prisoners of war and conscientious objectors is recommended. The minister states that there has been an improvement in the administration of the mobilization regulations as they affect agricultural workers, but believes there is still room for further improvement. He offers the fullest cooperation of his department in the joint undertaking of the dominion and ,the province to meet the problem of farm labour.
The premier of Prince Edward Island suggests that the farm labour programme was organized too late for his province, but at the same time adds that the dominion-provincial agreement has been helpful in meeting the labour shortage on the farms. The premier states that as a result of the increased production of live stock and live-stock products the need for regular experienced help is a most diffcult one for farmers. He is sceptical about the effectiveness of the recent compulsory labour transfer orders in providing much assistance to agriculture. The reason cited for this conclusion is that little relief can be expected from directing inexperienced help to farms. The clarification of the mobilization regulations has been of assistance. The premier observes

that there is much dissatisfaction among farm labourers on account of the difference in wages paid in industry compared with those of agriculture.
A lot of ground has been covered in the debate this afternoon and evening. Much of it spills over into the Department of National Defence, and much of it, of course, is out of order in relation to the resolution which is before the house at the present time.
I can assure my hon. friends that when the whole man-power problem is discussed I shall look for their comments and, may I say, criticisms, for, after all is said and done, the essence of democracy is criticism. Without criticism democracy could not exist.
Further, may I point out that this nation is not the only one of the united nations- indeed, I may include the axis powers-which is at the moment facing a man-power problem. When that problem is discussed by the house I hope to be able to indicate the position in which Germany finds itself at the moment and to compare it with our own. Much the same conditions prevail in the United States and Great Britain. I am in fact convinced of this, that if we did not have a shortage of men for the army, the navy, the air force, agriculture, industry, the mines, the base metals, and lumbering, this country would not be doing its duty in the present grave emergency. The fact that we have a shortage is a reflection of the contribution of this dominion on behalf of the united nations in the present struggle.
In the years to come I for one will look back with pride on the contribution made by the people of this dominion. We have had almost a revolution in the application of our man-power policies as they affect the Canadian people. Whoever thought we would live to see the day when well nigh all the manpower and woman-power of this country would pass through the employment service; that we would reach the point where in the great majority of cases we deny the individual the right to advertise in the newspapers for a job? That in itself is a revolution among a democratic people. Whoever thought we would live to see the day when a man would have to give seven days' notice before he could quit a job and when an employer would have to give seven days' notice before he could discharge a man? I know that in Germany and other countries where dictatorships exist, these things are taken as matters of course, but these are new policies to the freedom-loving people of this dominion, who I think are without a peer in the world when it comes to an appreciation of the basic principles of

Man-Power-Mr. Mitchell
freedom. Whoever thought that in the short space of six months these people would willingly-and I speak now in a broad way, of course-accept these changes? Of course there will be exceptions to that rule; we will get letters from people who think we have gone too far, but let us not forget that simply reading a letter in this House of Commons does not make it true. It is the easiest thing in the world to take the word of someone else before due investigation is made.
Some hon. gentlemen have expressed criticism-perhaps rightly so; I do not know-in regard to the application of the call-up for. compulsory military training. I think when the figures are brought to their attention, at leaist since the latest policies have gone into operation, there will be very little criticism offered. But let me point out one fact. I would not want it to be said about any administration over which I presided that any vocation, any form of employment, could be made a hideaway, as it were, for people1 who should be meeting their obligations to the country. So that I say to hon. members: When you get these letters, at least give us a chance, because I think, speaking in a broad way, the work of these mobilization boards has constantly improved. As one hon. member from near Quebec city said this afternoon, they are an improvement over the boards which functioned during the last war. I do not say that with any desire to criticize the boards that functioned at that time, because in connection with many of our policies we have built on the mistakes of the past. That is the logical thing to do. I think our conception of the length of this war has been beclouded by the length of the last war. I am one of those who still think this war is going to last a long time. I am one of those who still think much more direction will have to be given our people before the man-power problem of this country is finally dealt with in an efficient way. Last fall it was my good fortune to be in Britain. Mr. Bevin, the minister of labour there, has, I suppose, even more power on paper than I have on paper, but notwithstanding that power ninety-five per cent of the movement of men and women in industry has been on a voluntary basis and compulsion has been necessary only in regard to the remaining five per cent.


Major James William Coldwell: Could the minister tell us how that result was achieved? Was it not through close cooperation with the labour organizations?


Humphrey Mitchell: Since I have had charge of the direction of selective service, every move I have made has been in consultation with representatives of the employers and the
workers of this country, through the national selective service advisory board. I do not think it serves any good purpose to say that we do not consult anyone. I speak for my own department, of course, but in every step I have made I have endeavoured to consult with the representatives of both employers and employees. I think there are well over three hundred representatives of these two very necessary parts of our industrial and agricultural structure serving on various boards under my jurisdiction, and I have always found it far more satisfactory to get their sage advice before moving in the direction in which we would like to move.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has any use been made of the trade unions by selective service, where transfers have to be made?


Humphrey Mitchell: I think we are very close to the trade unions; probably my hon. friend knows that.


Thomas Miller Bell: That is what we do not know.


Humphrey Mitchell: I have just stated that any move is taken after consultation. I should say, however, that sometimes you must move with expedition, in an emergency; sometimes you cannot wait. If my hon. friend were sitting here instead of there, perhaps he would be a little more rigorous than I have been. However, we have endeavoured to obtain the friendly advice of the trade unions in the operation of selective service. Sometimes it is rather difficult to give advice when occasionally you must be a couple of steps ahead of your own people, but to the credit of both great partners in industry I think it can be said that they have measured up to their responsibilities in connection with the selective service programme of the federal government, and I do not think it would be fair if I did not pay them this tribute.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I think I have pretty well covered all I wish to say at the moment, though I could say more. Something has been said about the loss of production. I could mention what is occurring in the various provinces, and perhaps it would be as well if I did.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Having given the
figures in connection with one province, the minister must have the figures for the other provinces. Could we not have them also? It would take only a moment to put them on record.
Man-Power-Mr. Mitchell


Humphrey Mitchell: I think my hon. friend will sympathize with me, because in the first place I was given no notice that this debate was coming on this afternoon.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: But the minister has the figures for one province.


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes; I collected a few things, but later I shall have a complete manpower statement to make. I think it was the leader of the opposition who asked that this statement be forthcoming.


Gordon Graydon: I certainly did.


Humphrey Mitchell: It will be given when I have an opportunity to db so. I am in the hands of the house; I have not been able to get on as soon as I should have liked, but my hon. friend may rest assured that I shall give any figures I can get.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: The minister has the figures for one province.


Humphrey Mitchell: I have no other figures before me. I am trying to get these figures up to the latest possible date, because the later they are the better. This statement in regard to provinces shows that in Prince Edward Island the percentage of cows milking to total numbers showed a marked increase in the month of March. The number of calves born was somewhat higher'than that of the same month last year. In Nova Scotia more cows were reported on farms in the month of March. In New Brunswick the production of milk exceeded that of March. In Quebec there was no apparent change in the number of cows available for milking purposes. In Ontario a subsidy was offered for butter, and there has been increased milk production. Many farmers have been forced to change their plans on account of the labour shortage. In Manitoba the total production of milk increased. In Saskatchewan more milk was produced in March than in the same month of 1942. In Alberta cow numbers showed a substantial advance in March over those of the same month last year, and more cows were freshened for milking purposes.
And so, Mr. Speaker, I believe I have more or less effectively-at least I hope I have-1 answered the questions asked by my horn, friends this afternoon. The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Hlynka) said the forms necessary to fill out in connection with the compulsory call-up for military service are difficult to understand. I believe when I give the latest figures respecting the number of postponements, particularly in connection with agriculture, he will not find them so .difficult.

I think I need not say more at the present time, except this:	This has been a debate
respecting agriculture, and on- behalf of the House of Commons I should like to pay tribute to the cooperation, the hard work and, in many instances, the sacrifice of the farmers in this great dominion.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, may I say a word
at this stage in the debate respecting our position in connection with this motion for the adjournment of the house. We have been attempting to follow, as best we can, the procedure laid down>-true, in an informal way, but nevertheless laid down'-under which we would deal, department after department, with the war appropriation bill. There may have been times when there have been deviations from that informal arrangement. Nevertheless it has seemed to me that the most important measure before the house at this session has been, without any shadow of a doubt, the war appropriation bill. This party has felt that the man-power problem, in its relation to the war appropriation measure, was perhaps the major one to be faced at this time. It was that thought which prompted my suggesting to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) last week that, after the estimates of the three armed services had been discussed1 we should put aside our other business and proceed at once with the estimates of the Department of Labour, thereby affording ourselves an opportunity to come to grips with the man-power problem in Canada, a problem which we may justifiably regard as the chief one facing us to-day.
I was rather surprised this afternoon when I learned of the motion which, first of all, would deal with the man-power problem in a piecemeal fashion and, second, would have the inevitable result of delaying for another day the discussion of the estimates of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell). For these reasons I point out to the house that in my opinion we would have been better as a House of Commons, urgent as this matter is, to have at least dealt with it on a broad front, and a front which would have brought some results at the conclusion of debate. I believe the problem of man-power cannot be divided into departments. What has been done this afternoon has been to take one department, regardless of the whole.
While sitting in my seat this afternoon, listening to debate, I could not help wondering how much farm help we were giving our farmers in Canada through the talk to which

Man-Power-Mr. Gray don
*we have listened during the afternoon and evening. To my mind there is only one way in which we can help the farmers with their labour problems, and that is to give them help.
I do not agree with the minister, nor do I agree with some other hon. members who spoke this afternoon who seem to hold the view that the farmer does not need help. Those of us coming from agricultural constituencies know that he does.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not think my hon. friend heard me say that the farmer does not need help.


Gordon Graydon: The minister said a number of things to-night when he was speaking; but may I say to the minister that he left the definite impression that things were not so very bad, so far as agriculture is concerned. If he will say to-night that things are good, in connection with the agricultural help situation, then I would like him to say it.


Humphrey Mitchell: I thought I made it plain to my hon. friend. I had not thought I created the impression he has indicated. If I did, then I certainly did not intend to. A man would be foolish to do that, under present circumstances. But I do say what I have said before, offering it as a tribute with all the sincerity in my being, and in the knowledge that we are all cooperating together, that notwithstanding the serious problem we are up against we are producing more than ever was produced in the history of this country. Surely that is to the credit of the farmers. I am frank to admit that in the very nature of things, when you have close to a couple of million people in the armed forces and in industry, you cannot have as many people on the farms. That is an actual fact-and the same condition exists in every other country in the world.


Gordon Graydon: I am glad to have the minister correct what I thought was the impression he had created in connection with the agricultural man-power policy. But he read very carefully telegrams and reports from various governmental departments in the provinces. Certainly, so far as my knowledge goes, the problem indicated in those reports in connection with man-power seemed to be a very simple one compared with the problem which is presented to members of parliament from time to time.
I say to the minister that he will find prevalent in the agricultural sections of the dominion a condition such as has never existed at any previous time in our history. He will find that there never before has been
a time when farmers, their wives and families were so completely played out with hard work as they are to-day. I make that statement from personal experience because, as the minister knows, I have gone among them. I do not think I have ever seen the farming people more tired than they are to-day, and that condition has arisen largely because they have not been able to get the help necessary to operate their farms.


Humphrey Mitchell: I agree with the hon. member, and I think it would be safe to say the same about the men and women engaged in industry.	_


Gordon Graydon: We are not dealing with industry just now, but I would be glad to agree with his statement about the people engaged in industry. But when we talk about emergent conditions, and when we are confronted with a motion for adjournment to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, then I say that the problem of farm help was urgent months ago. It was urgent weeks ago; it was urgent yesterday; it is urgent to-day, and unless government policy is changed, it will be urgent to-morrow and in the months ahead. I should like to point out to those who are responsible for bringing up this motion that, so far as urgency is concerned, this motion is both too little and too late.


Maurice Lalonde: Why did you not start something before?


Gordon Graydon: My hon. friend made a very good speech and I am doing my best to keep up with him. There is no doubt that this question is urgent, but I repeat that it has been urgent for some time. In my opinion the policy of the government with respect to national selective service must be changed. This is not the time in the interests of the farmer to bring up this matter. I say that plainly and clearly. If I thought that we as a party could do something this afternoon or this evening for the farmer by simply talking about this matter, then we might take a different stand. But we are not doing anything by simply moving the adjournment of the house. During the debate on the estimates of the minister we shall have a chance at least to fight this thing through. I wish to say to the minister that, so far as our group is concerned, we have made some preparation to fight this thing through.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Where will you get?


Gordon Graydon: You have not got very far, but we still have hopes. I say to the ministry that we wish to come to grips with the whole question of the man-power policy.
Man-Power-Mr. Graydon

We want to do that at as early a date as possible, and that is why we have not tried this afternoon to delay the house. I hope the house will understand our reasons for taking this action.
There is no question that the policy of the government with respect to man-power has been muddled, misconceived and misfitted; but I should like to reserve my remarks with respect to that for a more suitable time when the whole problem, integrated1 as it is with industry and the armed forces, can be properly discussed. I hope that we will have considerable support from the house in that connection.
This motion provides only a palliative for agriculture, and I do not think we want to spend much time on palliatives. I should have liked to see the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) put some teeth into this, as we hope to put teeth into it when we deal with man-power. I should have liked to see him rise in his place and do something more than move a milk-and-water resolution such as this. I should have liked to see the hon. member come through with a proper national selective service scheme, one which would have brought labour to the farms of Canada and not bring up something which has resulted simply in a lengthy debate which can give no help whatever to the farmers generally.
Mr. POULIOT; At the beginning of the session I sent to each hon. member an article which I had written on national selective service, and if the hon. member did not have his copy translated, it is his own fault.


Gordon Graydon: I think I have received everything the hon. member has sent me, and I thank him for his courtesy. I have given it close study and attention, and part of my remarks to-night are based on the study I have given to matters of this kind in general.
In closing, I wish to say to the government to beware of the existing situation. There are reasons behind the movement which has taken place this afternoon. One of them is that the government have failed to deal manfully with the man-power problem. We as a party take a back seat to no one, whether he has moved this or supported it, in our desire to see the farmers of Canada provided with adequate labour in the months that lie ahead. That is part of our policy. We may differ in the method of bringing it about. We hope to take some action that will bring results and give help to the farmers which I am doubtful will be given by talking in the House of Commons for a whole day and delaying a debate which we are waiting for and which we hope to be ready for when the time comes.


Mr. J. SASSEVILLE ROY (Gaspe) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I shall, at the outset, congratulate the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) on the timely action he has taken this afternoon, in moving the adjournment of the house for the discussion of the serious problem which agriculture is facing on account of the present labour shortage. This is not the first occasion on which the hon. member for Temiscouata has rendered a service to his country. During this session he has made numerous remarks and speeches which have been quite effective but which could have been still more helpful, had the oligarchy which rules the country at this time been more willing to accept the good suggestions he offered. As I said, I congratulate him on his action and I hope it will bring about very good results.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) has just deprecated the action of the hon. member for Temiscouata. His criticism surprises me very much. If agriculture is in such a serious plight as has been stated, and it must be true, if the hon. members of this house, whatever their political affiliations may be, whether they be Liberal Conservative, Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, or Social Credit, who took part in the debate and represent various rural constituencies all over the -country are aware of local conditions. I believe it was quite helpful that such representations should have been -made to the government, in view of the fact that the seeding season is now so far advanced, as was stated this afternoon by the hon. member for Labelle, who I notice is now smiling. If the government would heed the representations that have been made by the hon. members and disregard the concerted oligarchy this government represents, and which will take -advice from no one, the nation would perhaps not be so often confronted with problems as alarming as the one which it is now facing, the famine problem. In the light of what I have read in the newspapers and heard from hon. members of this house, I feel that if common sense prevailed, as well as a determination to- do the right thing, with a view -to serving the country efficiently and helping our allies in the war, if such a spirit moved all cabinet members the useful suggestions that were made would immediately have produced good results, and the leader of the opposition would not have referred to the futility or the uselessness of the present debate.
There is a labour shortage in Canadian agriculture. That is unquestionable. The numerous letters we receive from farmers

Man-Power-Mr. Roy
who ask us to endeavour to secure the release of their sons from military service are proof of this. There are a great many others. I have here a copy of the June 1, 1943, edition of the Montreal newspaper La Presse in which is reported a speech delivered in New York on that date by the hon. the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Bertrand) of whom I caught a glimpse as he entered the- house and to whom I am glad to extend my greetings. He discussed the problem brought about by the labour shortage, while dealing with fisheries. I wish to quote the following passage from the newspaper report I mentioned a few moments ago:
New York, June 1 (C.P.)-Owing to the labour shortage fish production in Canada this year may be reduced to 750,000,000 pounds as compared with 923,000,000 pounds in 1941, it was stated here to-day by the Hon. Ernest Bertrand, Minister of Fisheries in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I believe I am in order in dealing with fisheries and fish, because the motive which prompted the motion introduced this afternoon, namely the labour shortage in agriculture, is indeed based on the shortage of foodstuffs in this country. Fisheries automatically come up alongside agriculture in this debate because foodstuffs are also derived from them. Further on, the honourable the Minister of Fisheries referred to the lack of young men and the labour shortage in the fishing industry. He said1:
On the other hand, the problem is serious, because we have lost a considerable number of our young and most efficient fishermen who have enlisted in the army and the navy. Many others are employed in war plants, and quite a number of small fishing boats have been chartered for war patrol duties. On one side, there is an enormous demand, and on the other, a shortage of labour and equipment.
According to a statement of the hon. Minister of Fisheries, there is likely to be a decrease in the fish production this year, due to a scarcity of man-power attributable, so he states, to the fact that men have gone to the war industries or have been conscripted into the army.
The hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) proved this fact a while ago, but I doubt that this was the best argument in favour of the point he was attemping to make. Answering criticisms of the government policy, especially National War Services, of which I shall have a word to say later, the hon. Minister of Labour stated that the call-up of men for the army was not the only reason for the present scarcity of man-power. A large number of farmers, farmers' sons and farm employees, during the relatively slack winter season, asked permission to work in the war
industries and have neglected to return to the farm. While I am on this question of work in the war industries, I shall point out that these men have not yet been released from their jobs, which they still hold, as suggested by the statement of the hon. minister. If they have not yet been sent on the farm or elsewhere, it is of course because industry needs them. Canada is expected to be alone responsible for winning the war. A sufficient number of men had to be trained and a fairly large number had to be sent overseas so as to be in a position to win the war by themselves. Moreover, Canada was to be the arsenal and the granary of all countries and supply allied nations with all they require in the way of munitions and armaments in order to win the war. At the same time, Canada was to feed the entire population of Great Britain because they are waging war and have suffered from air raids. It has also just been realized-and I wish to stress the point-that Canada should also feed the starving people of India and of China. The hon. minister replied to the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) that rationing was established not because of a shortage of potatoes but because we must think of China and remember that others go without. I would point out to the hon. Minister of Labour that although China had known poverty, hardship and famine prior to 1941, until then neither the minister nor the present government had ever thought of sending our food surpluses to China.
Never has the hon. minister or the present cabinet thought of sending there the food surpluses that were glutting our markets even in the west, and this applies to our butter which was so abundant, that its marketing offered quite a serious challenge to the administration a few years ago. No one has ever thought of sending our food surpluses to China, a country which was as much in need then as it is tq-day. It is only after Canada, England and the United States declared war on Japan that this thought came to our minds. That is why such arguments make little impression and do not always carry conviction.
I revert to the colossal undertaking which consists in playing the game of our ambitious industrialists, by increasing production as well as profits, as we know, and by organizing a huge aripy, of a size comparable to that of vastly more populous countries; the hon. minister himself foresaw, as he stated in the course of last year's debate on bill 80, the conscription bill so-called, that deficiencies would develop in certain fields, unless we were very careful.
Still another minister was of the same opinion. I mean the then Minister of National
Doctor Eduard Benes

War Services, Mr. Thorson, who is now replaced by the hon. Minister of Labour to a certain extent. He stated, as reported in Hansard for 1942:
Furthermore, our war industry programme contemplates and involves heavy man-power requirements. So does the programme for essential agricultural production. I shall not deal in detail with either of these programmes, except to say that the man-power necessary for their performance cannot be withdrawn from the essential purposes of war without hurting those purposes.
It is the duty of the government to allocate man-power in accordance with the needs of the war purposes of Canada and the war objectives that I have mentioned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

[Stage Direction]
Address of His Excellency Doctor Eduard Benes, President of Czechoslovakia, to members of the Senate and of the House of Commons, in the Railway Committee room, House of Commons, Ottawa, Thursday, June 3, 1943, at 12 noon.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: We in Canada are indeed greatly honoured to have in our country today His Excellency Doctor Eduard Benes, the President of the Republic of Czechoslovakia. I wish at once to extend to Doctor Benes the warmest of welcomes on behalf of the government, the parliament and the people of Canada. Doctor Benes is such a well-known international figure and has played such a prominent part in world events over the past three decades that he does not come to us in any sense a stranger, and needs no introduction to any democratic audience in any part of the world.
I should like to say to Doctor Benes what I said in the House of Commons yesterday, that he will have noticed a very close sympathy between the people of Canada and the people of the Czechoslovak republic. The agreement at Munich, which had the effect of partitioning his country and caused great sacrifices on the part of his people, sacrifices made, it was thought at the time, in the interests of the whole of Europe but which have since proved to have been on behalf of the whole world- that agreement was never recognized by Canada and is not recognized by Canada today.
We share in regard to Czechoslovakia the view of the British government that the Munich agreement has ceased to exist as a factor either in present or post-war relations.

We look forward to the day, which we hope is coming speedily, when the Czechoslovak republic in its entirety will again be restored to its full independence.
One expression, Mr. President, which we have sought to give to our feelings of close relationship with the people and government of Czechoslovakia has been to welcome to Canada Doctor Erantisek Pavlasek, who is seated to my left, as minister of /the Republic of Czechoslovakia, and to appoint in London a minister from Canada to the country of which you are presently the head. I would take advantage of this opportunity to say how greatly Doctor Pavlasek as minister of Czechoslovakia has endeared himself to all those who have had the privilege of making his acquaintance while here. As you yourself told me, Mr. President, when we recently talked together in Washington, Doctor Pavlasek was a close friend of the founder of your great republic, Masaryk, the country of which you are a co-founder and that he was one of the most cultured gentlemen in Czechoslovakia. We here have come to appreciate through the personality of Doctor Pavlasek and in his public utterances not only much of the culture of Czechoslovakia but also the high ideals of your country.
I am not going to take time this morning to say more than one other word by way of welcome to Doctor Benes. It is that we welcome him not only as representing the brave people of Czechoslovakia and the great services they have rendered to democracy but we welcome him also and in great measure at this moment on account of himself. He has a career of public service that has been paralleled' by very few men in the world's history. As all present know he was co-founder of the Republic of Czechoslovakia. He was the first Foreign Minister of that country and has been its President for many years. He bore the heaviest responsibilities throughout the trying period of the Munich discussions and the years which followed, a time when his country was passing through a terrible ordeal. He did all within his power to keep united the forces of freedom in his own and other lands. It is of interest to know that he came at that very time to America and was for a very short period associated with the university of Chicago. He found there a sphere from which as President in exile from his country he might be able to direct its affairs in its titanic struggle for freedom. He has, as you know, been responsible for the organization of the different forces of Czechoslovakia. I should like to say to him how much the people of Canada in common with people everywhere who love liberty appreciate the

Doctor Eduard Benes
great services which Czechoslovakia rendered to the cause of freedom in the last great war and the great services she has never ceased to render to the cause of freedom since and in the present war.
Czechoslovakia has had to bear some of the heaviest burdens any country has ever been called upon to endure by way of sacrifice for a great cause. These she bore at the time of Munich. These she ha3 borne ever since. These she is bearing heroically to-day. Notwithstanding that at present the country is occupied by the enemy, her forces both within Czechoslovakia and in different parts of the world, are fighting in the cause of freedom with the allied and united nations of the world. That is a great tradition for a nation and we know that that heroic effort is going to win its due reward.
I need not touch on other aspects of Doctor Benes' career, of his presidency of the Assembly of League of Nations and of course his leadership at the present time of his government in exile. From the beginning and all through his life he has been the exponent of high and noble ideals and of those great aims, purposes and practical measures which seek not only the higher development of the peoples of his own country but also fraternity and unity between all nations.
When I was recently at Washington I asked Doctor Benes how it was that he came to venture on some of the prophecies that he had made, prophecies which are giving much in the way of hope to the world at this time. He said to me, in reply, that the so-called prophecies were not in reality prophecies, that as a matter of fact he has had the good fortune, in the many years he has been in public life, to form intimate friendships with men in many countries and had been particularly fortunate in being able for the most part to keep up these friendships through the period of the war, and that from information he had gathered at first hand in this way he has ventured to give open expression to some of the views which he holds regarding the present and the future.
I should like in this connection to read a statement that Doctor Benes publicly made before the war actually took place. All of us would, I think, regard it as a prophecy. Doctor Benes himself would say that it is based on logic and philosophy and expresses only a sequence of facts gathered from the confidences of the acquaintances he has maintained.
In November, 1938, the gentleman who this morning is seated to my right made the following statement in regard to what he believed was likely to happen within a short
time after the Munich agreement had been entered into. He said at that time that he believed war was inevitable after Munich. He went on:
I do not know when it will break out, possibly in a year, perhaps in two or three. I personally doubt whether it will take more than a year.
This was in November, 1938. The attack on Poland came on September 1, 1939.
The first to suffer the blow will be Poland.
. . . France will pay horribly. . . . Hitler will attack all-in the west, and even Russia-and in the end America, too, will be in it.
I do not think I need say anything further by way of introduction of the President of the Czechoslovak republic as one who is entitled to speak with great authority on international affairs.


Doctor EDUARD BENES (President of Czechoslovakia):: Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker of the Senate, Mr. Speaker of the House of Commons: Let me first thank you very warmly and sincerely for the kind words with which I have been introduced to this distinguished audience.
It is the first time in the history of Canadian-Czechoslovak relations that a president of Czechoslovakia has the honour of addressing the Canadian parliament. I am cognizant of the great historical significance of this event, and I am profoundly grateful that the honour is mine.
The great contribution of Canada to the struggle of the world for the defeat of German nazism and for the reestablishment of liberty, the achievements this country has made in her war, the organization of her army, navy and air force, industrial and especially financial success in solving extremely difficult war problems, the steadiness and the spirit of this country, evoke a deep and sincere admiration.
The sympathy of the Canadian government and people for Czechoslovakia, expressed in words and deeds during the past four years, has been an encouragement and inspiration in this darkest period of modern Czechoslovak history.
You know that for centuries beginning with the middle ages this small nation in the heart of Europe had been a glorious independent kingdom and a prosperous state. The state that first began the fight for religious freedom in Europe. In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, Prague, its capital, was a great centre of learning, contributed largely to European cultural, spiritual and material development, and played an outstanding role in European history and particularly in the history of the Holy Roman Empire and the
Doctor Eduard Benes

Austro-Hungarian monarchy. Perhaps your government knew, too, the famous declaration made by the German Chancellor Bismarck after his victory over Austria in 1866: Whoever is master of Bohemia, is master of Europe. Europe must, therefore, never allow any nation except the Czechs to rule it, since that nation does not lust for domination. The boundaries of Bohemia are the safeguard of European security and he who moves them will plunge Europe into misery.
In my estimation there can be no better comment on the position of my country even to-day.
The recognition of our cause here in this country in 191S was also undoubtedly due to the unmistakable determination of our people to live as a free and independent nation. More than one hundred and fifty thousand Czechoslovak soldiers, many of whom came from Canada to Europe, fought for their country's liberation in the first world war in Russia, France and Italy. When the war was drawing to a close, the epic march of the Czechoslovak legionnaires across the Siberian plains to Vladivostok fired the imagination of the Canadian people as well as the rest of the world. The first unit of our legionnaires made its way across the Pacific from Russia to the battlefields of France, landed in Vancouver and was enthusiastically welcomed by the Canadian people.
Czechoslovakia's twenty years' record as a free and independent democratic state is one of which we are justly proud. Surrounded on all sides by authoritarian countries and governments, she remained faithful to the democratic traditions which came to her very largely from the western hemisphere. Her social legislation and her educational system were progressive and advanced; her financial system was stable, her currency, one of the soundest in Europe; her general economic standard was very high and her import and export trade greater than that of Italy. Until 1938 this republic was one of the most prosperous and happy countries in Europe. Even the concentrated campaign of nazi Germany, beginning in 1936, using corruption, lying propaganda and threatening war and violence, failed to shake the inner harmony of the Czechoslovak republic.
In her foreign policy Czechoslovakia resolutely and consistently followed the policy of peace, international arbitration and collective security. She fostered and encouraged friendship with her neighbours-* Austria, Poland, Yugoslavia, and Rumania. She was the most loyal member of the League of Nations. She supported the Locarno policy, was an original signatory of [Dr. Eduard Benes.]
the Briand-Kellogg pact, and was ready to play the part demanded of her in any generally accepted system of collective security. In Geneva she resolutely opposed the Japanese invasion of Manchuria and China; I was President of the Assembly of the League of Nations when we voted the sanctions against Italy upon her invasion of Abyssinia. Czechoslovakia was ready to oppose militarily the occupation of the Rhineland and Austria. Our army and air force were ready and thoroughly efficient. Up to the year 1939 we did our duty completely, not only to our nation, but to Europe and democracy as well.
Czechoslovakia was in mortal danger from the moment that Hitler and the nazi leaders came to power. When Hitler saw that the policy of sanctioning against Italy was not strictly applied and when the German remilitarization of the Rhineland was not opposed by force, he thought that the countless seeds of bitterness and mistrust sown by the dictators would permit him to reap a harvest of	destruction	of democracy	inEurope and bring about the realization of his pan-German	plan. The	success	of the	annexation of	Austria in	March	led to	the
September crisis in 1938.
My own view then was that Hitler's demands and attacks against Czechoslovakia should have been rejected even at the cost of a war. We had ready one and a half million splendid soldiers. But the western powers were not ready for war in 1938,	either	morally,	or
materially. Through the sacrifice made by Czechoslovakia, Europe and the world gained a year's time in which to prepare better for the defence against the coming onslaught. In my opinion, the second world war began with the criminal occupation of Prague. And from the very day of occupation, March 15, 1939, all Czechoslovak citizens have been at war with Germany.
Since 1938 the Czechoslovaks at home have endured great hardships, sorrows and suffering. They know that many of their soldiers and airmen who escaped from their enslaved homeland lost their lives while fighting for its liberation in Poland and in France. They know that after the Franco-German armistice, Czechoslovak soldiers and airmen reassembled in Great Britain, and that in the decisive battle of Britain, Czechoslovak airmen played an honourable part. They know that Czechoslovak soldiers are now fighting in Russia and in Africa and manning the defences of Great Britain even while they see their own country being converted into an arsenal for a war against the united nations. Many are now

Doctor Eduard Benes
working as forced labourers in Germany and elsewhere. Those who resist the oppressors are either executed in masses or tortured in prisons and concentration camps. Their country is pillaged and germanized, their national education completely destroyed. The undying memory of the martyred village of Lidice forbids us ever to relax in the world-struggle now waged against the powers of evil and darkness.
We know what we are fighting for. Our every effort is. first of all, spent for the restoration of our democratic way of life, for those moral values that are fundamental to it, as opposed to the nazi creed which deprives individuals and nations not only of freedom but of human dignity and equality. We are fighting, too, for the return of international order, in which the sanctity of treaties and the pledged word will prevail, in contrast to their deliberate violation whenever the nazis consider it expedient. We are fighting for some sort of international charter-a charter which shall embody the rights of man and be applicable to the people of all countries; in short, for a world that is new and free. In my opinion, this entails the punishment of all those people who are guilty of perpetrating numberless crimes and cruelties of the past four years-not in the spirit of vengeance, but with a full measure of justice.
Secondly, we are fighting for a social and economic reorganization of the European continent, which will be in great danger of chaos and disruption after the present war. The ionsequences of this war will be far-reaching and social and economic difficulties far greater than those of 1918 in Europe. The democratic united nations will have the duty to remain politically and militarily together even after the present war. But the peace which comes after this war will necessitate their new close collaboration also in the social and economic spheres.
Thirdly, we are fighting for a more lasting peace in the future, one which will be guaranteed effectively by an international organization. A new system of collective security must be prepared and established, one which will be more practical and function more effectively than the last. The first steps have already been made in the treaty signed by the united nations, but more discussion and preparations on the far-reaching questions of peace will be necessary before unity among the united nations will be achieved.
This is directly connected with the fourth fundamental aim of the present war, the one which will perhaps be the most difficult and
at the same time most decisive to realize: a new political reorganization of Europe and the world. All these aims are interrelated and inseparable.
All the united nations, the great British commonwealth in which Canada has so vital a part and which has played such a glorious role in the present war; your great neighbour, the United States, whose friendly three-thousand mile boundary is an example of good neighbourliness to the rest of the world; Soviet Russia, who first broke the legend of nazi invincibility; China, whose strength seems incredibly increased as we look back on her heroic fight against the Japanese aggressors, as well as the smaller united nations, all share in this global struggle and all agree in these four great peace aims, which must be achieved in this second world war. Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Greece, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg, Norway, Austria as well as France-all have to be liberated. France has had to come to humiliating terms with the enemy. Even to-day the enemy has not exacted his last full measure of humiliation and vengeance. Germany has torn up the armistice agreement, imprisoned her manhood, or compelled it to work at forced labour. Yet France has never ceased to be capable of greatness. I believe that before very long France will rejoin her allies as a fully sovereign and belligerent nation. She will take her place at a council table of Europe. Europe needs a strong and regenerated France-and the same is true of the other subjugated nations-and without her there will be no lasting peace on the European continent.
After the collapse of Germany the united nations must, in my opinion, remain an organized body which will create the basis for the new post-war international order and for the new system of international collaboration and security, in which every member will play its due and proportionate part.
All Czechoslovaks are greatly indebted to Canada as well as to Great Britain and to the British commonwealth for the magnanimity with which she received Czechoslovak citizens who fled from their homeland in the past several years. They only followed their fellow countrymen who came years before to establish themselves permanently in Canada and are now faithful Canadian citizens and true Canadian patriots. I firmly believe that they are fully sharing Canada's effort in this war and will always serve to promote and strengthen our mutual understanding and friendship.
Doctor Eduard Benes

Canadians of Czechoslovak origin are now fighting in the Canadian and partly in the Czechoslovak army abroad. Many fliers, Canadian and Czechoslovak, trained here in your great country, are bravely fighting together to defeat our common enemy, who brought this war upon us.
Czechoslovakia's gratitude for Canada's consistent policy toward Czechoslovakia since 1918 is boundless. Mr. Mackenzie King's repudiation of the wanton German aggression against Czechoslovakia in the House of Commons on March 20, 1939, Canada's refusal to recognize the occupation of Czechoslovakia on April 7, 1941, and the granting of full recognition to the government of Czechoslovakia in England on July 17, 1942, has been the rounding out of this mutual relationship. These are ties that bind Canada and Czechoslovakia together and will bind them forever; and my thanks for all this, Mr. Prime Minister, to you, to your Parliament, and to your great country.
Czechoslovakia's policy has not changed since 1918. Nor will it change after victory is ours. I feel authorized to declare on behalf of my nation that after the final victory in this great war is achieved, the Czechoslovak nation will reconstruct its old home rapidly and successfully by its untiring efforts, remaining faithful-as it always was during the difficult periods of its long, chequered and glorious history-to the democratic way of life, to the principles of spiritual and religious freedom and to the ideals of peace and peaceful international collaboration, of which Canada and its brave and1 freedom-loving people was always one of the most typical and courageous representatives in the policy of the whole world.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would ask the Speaker of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Commons if they would express on behalf of the members of parliament our appreciation of the memorable address to which we have just listened by the President of the Czechoslovakia republic. May I say to Doctor Benes that we follow in our parliament the practice he followed as President of the League of Nations, and speak in either one of two official languages- I know, had time permitted, the President, as was the custom of the League of Nations, would have wished to repeat in French the address which he has just delivered in English. I would suggest that one of the two gifted gentlemen who will express our thanks to Doctor Benes might take notice of the fact that we are a parliament which recognizes more than one language.
[Dr, Eduard Benes.]


Hon. THOMAS VIEN (Speaker of the Senate) (Translation):: Your Excellency, it is for me a privilege which I highly prize to be called upon to convey to you the warmest thanks of the members of the Senate and of the House of Commons for the honour you have conferred upon us by your presence here to-day and for the memorable address which you have just delivered.
In discharging this very pleasant duty in my mother tongue, one of the two official languages of this country, I derive added satisfaction from the fact that you, sir, speak it yourself with such fluent elegance.
We have, for a long time ardently desired the privilege now so charmingly extended to us by your excellency. For more than a quarter-century we have witnessed your achievements and closely followed your rapid accession to a foremost rank in the political world.
We warmly cheered at the birth of the Czechoslovakian republic. We have shared her happiness, admired the heroic courage of her people, and shed burning tears, as we still do, over her misfortune. On their return from Geneva, your friends, our Prime Minister and our late and lamented Senator Raoul Dandurand often spoke to us with admiration of your illustrious master, Mr. Masaryk, and of yourself, his worthy successor. Your worldwide reputation has preceded1 you here. We admire in your excellency the wisdom and caution of the statesman; the vigilance and valour of the patriot; the indomitable courage of the apostle disseminating throughout* the world the immortal principles upon which are founded true democracy, liberty, order and peace.
On one of the memorable occasions which marked your brilliant career, you declared yourself a citizen of this young Europe which had sprung from the embers of the most disastrous conflagration the world has ever known, and of a new state which has devoted its strength and energy to the reconstruction of a world perpetually in the making.
Like ourselves, you are seeking an ideal, a symbol, a formula for a civilization capable of guaranteeing to humanity as a whole the complete enjoyment of its rights and of freeing it for evermore from fear and want.
We thank you for having given, by the warmth of your eloquence, a new and more vivid ardour to our faith in truth, honesty and human fraternity. We shall keep of your visit an everlasting memory, and this day will remain deeply graven, in letters of gold, in our annals and our hearts.

Doctor Eduard Benes


Hon. J. A. GLEN (Speaker of the House of Commons):: Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. President and ladies and gentlemen; There are many occasions, Mr. Prime Minister and Mr. President, during a man's life when the hopes and dreams of the past become the realization of the present. I think that Doctor Benes is in that position to-day. He to-day sees in the immediate future the realization of those hopes. Everyone will remember Doctor Benes during those days of Munich of 1938, and how he conducted himself with cool and calm courage, steady judgment and with a definite purpose in mind. He held for himself during that time a high honour-I think he will consider it a high honour-that he incurred the most bitter hatred of Hitler. For all of us will recall those days of the Sudeten incident when Doctor Benes was leading his people, how Hitler chose hijn as public enemy No. 1 and reviled him to the whole world as a traitor to Czechoslovakia and, therefore, a traitor to Germany! I shall always recall the steadiness with which that challenge was met, and the determination with which Doctor Benes carried on his high office in behalf of his country.
The Prime Minister has told you of the prophetic utterance foy Doctor Benes in November, 1938, which was fulfilled to the last word. Now Doctor Benes has given us another prophecy, though he himself knows and says this is a very dangerous field. He predicts the end of this war; I think the words he used were: "in the winter of 1943-44." May he see the fulfilment also of that prediction. Doctor Benes' address to us is an inspiration to Canada. It conveys to us some measure of the courage and steadfastness which was exhibited by his people and by himself during those terrible days. I should like to recall a broadcast that was made by Doctor Benes some time ago, which has remained in my memory. I do not recall his exact words, but I remember that he asked himself one question: "What do I want?" The answer he gave was, "I want to go home. I want to go to my own country. I want a free Czechoslovakia in a free Europe."
Mr. President, on behalf of those who are gathered here at this joint meeting of both houses of parliament, I thank you for your presence here with us to-day. As I stated, you have again entered into the realm of prophecy, and we do hope that your prediction on this occasion will come true within at least another year. Whether or not, I want to assure you that all Canada joins with you and your country, that we shall prosecute and
continue our efforts until this war is successfully finished. On behalf of this joint meeting I express to you that which has been so evident from time to time during your address, the great pleasure you have given us. I express the wish of every man and woman in this audience when I say to you that we hope in the very near future you may return to your own home, your own country, a free Czechoslovakian, in a free Europe.
Friday, June 4, 1943