CITY OF OTTAWA AGREEMENT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Minister of Public Works) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize the Minister of Public Works on behalf of His Majesty to enter into an agreement to pay to the corporation of the city of Ottawa the sum of $100,000 for the year ending July 1, 1943.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide:
1.	That sums not exceeding one thousand million dollars ($1,000,000,000) be granted to His Majesty for the purpose of making war supplies available to any of the united nations.
2.	That the governor in council may determine the terms and conditions upon which such war supplies are made available to any of the united nations and may require in certain cases payment or repayment in kind or property or reciprocal action or provision of supplies or other direct or indirect benefit as may be deemed appropriate.
3.	That there be established a Canadian war supplies allocation board to carry out the purpose of this resolution, and that such board be authorized to employ officers, clerks and other employees necessary for the proper conduct of the business of the board.
4.	That the governor in council may be empowered to raise by way of loan under the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, 1931, such sum or sums of money not exceeding in the whole the sum of one thousand million dollars ($1,000,000,000) as may be required for the purpose of defraying the expenditures herein mentioned and for purchasing or otherwise acquiring or, procuring war supplies in Canada, the principal and interest of any such loan to be a charge upon and payable out of the consolidated revenue fund.
Business of the House
[Stage Direction]
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Mr. GRAYDON:: May I ask the Minister of Finance at this time to make a statement to the house concerning this resolution?


Mr. ILSLEY:: This is not the stage.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: This is a very important resolution. It introduces an entirely new principle. At the very earliest opportunity the house and the country should be informed as to what the government's proposals are with respect to this whole question. If the minister is not in a position to make a statement to-day then he ought to say when he will be in a position to do so, so that hon. members can intelligently understand and discuss the resolution. It should be done at the earliest possible day, before the resolution proceeds very far, certainly before it gets into the committee stage.


James Lorimer Ilsley: If the hon. gentleman will read the remarks I made last Monday he will find there the fullest possible explanation of this resolution and of the bill to be based on it. I made a carefully prepared statement with regard to our policy of mutual aid. This is the resolution on which the war appropriation mutual aid bill is to be based. I could not make a fuller initial statement than I made then. But when the resolution is reached I will make another one.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is good enough.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING Prime Minister): Hon. members will have observed from yesterday's Votes and Proceedings that the Minister of Finance has given notice that on Monday next he will propose in committee of the whole a resolution with respect to the 1942 Supplementary War Appropriation bill, to provide certain sums of money for the purpose of security and defence. The minister will explain to the house the urgency with respect to this matter. If in the light of that explanation hon. members would give their consent, I would then ask the house to entertain a motion to change the order of proceedings

for Monday next so as to permit this resolution to be the first item of business to be called on the orders of the day.
Richard Burpee Hanson: In case that consent is given, may I ask the Prime Minister how far he proposes to carry the legislation on Monday? I ask that for personal reasons. I had anticipated taking part in the debate on the address on Tuesday, and I could not do that on a later day, before the vote.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Perhaps I had better allow the Minister of Finance to state the urgency of the matter first, and then I can if necessary make a reply to my hon. friend.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Speaker, this is the supplementary war appropriation for the current fiscal year, estimated as carefully as that can be done. I tried very hard to find ways and means of deferring the introduction of the resolution and the bill based upon it until after the debate on the address had been concluded, but the situation is so urgent that I dare not do that. About the fifteenth of the month, which is next Monday, there will be exceptionally heavy demands on the treasury, and the comptroller of the treasury advises me that we may be out of money, we may reach the limits of our existing appropriations, about Monday or Tuesday. If that is so and no other provision is made, bills presented to the government for payment, and which, should be paid, will have to go unpaid. Some of those bills are of a very urgent character, notably those relating to dependents' allowances.
I have communicated with the leaders of the various parties and groups in the house requesting their cooperation in. expediting this supplementary appropriation, giving the assurance that everything which could be discussed on this measure may be discussed on the main war appropriation which will be introduced next week, upon the conclusion of the present debate. I hope that without too much discussion the house on Monday afternoon will adopt this resolution and pass the bill through all stages. It will have to be done by waiving the rules, just as is done every year in the case of interim supply. I do not see that anyone will be placed at a disadvantage if this is done, and I think it should be done in view of the urgency of the situation. It may be that some hon. members will wish to draw the discussion out, but I hope not. The other house is assembling on

Labour Conditions
Tuesday, and I am most anxious to get money with which to meet the government's obligations.
I think that is about all I have to say about the matter. It is urgent need that has moved us to propose this extraordinary procedure of breaking into the present debate, but it was suggested by others in the house a few days ago, and I cannot see any objection to it.


Gordon Graydon: 
James Lorimer Ilsley: In addition to what was voted.


Gordon Graydon: Yes. In view of the
urgency of Jhe matter this party is anxious to facilitate the voting of this money just as much as it possibly can. I think the minister may rest assured that as far as we are concerned any remarks we have to make will be curtailed to the minimum, so that we may assist the government in this matter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I wish to thank my hon. friend the leader of the apposition for the very helpful cooperation which he has just extended, and which I gather is extended in equal measure by the leaders of other groups in the house. Perhaps the question of the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) has been answered by the statement made by the Minister of Finance; therefore with the permission of the house I would move:
That the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne be suspended on Monday the 15th of February instant, in order that the house may proceed forthwith with the resolution and bill to provide for granting to his majesty aid for national defence and security.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services if he is yet in a position to make a statement to the house with respect to the charges made by Andrew D. Maclean, a retired commander of the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve, which appeared in the last issue of Boating. This matter was before the house
some time ago, when the minister was away. Is he now in a position to make a statement, or when may we expect one?
Hon. ANGUS L. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence for Naval Services): My hon. friend sent me notice of this question a few moments ago. As he knows, the charges made by Andrew D. Maclean cover a very wide field indeed. It has been necessary to go through a number of files and generally to secure information from a number of sources in order to prepare a complete answer but I hope to have the information available and to give it to the house early next week.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLD WELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Munitions and Supply, of which I have given him notice. I have received a telegram from Calgary asking me to inquire what steps are being taken to secure employment for fifty men now laid off and one hundred and fifty men previously laid off from the munitions department at the Ogden shops in Calgary.


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: I received a similar telegram this morning, which came to my attention only a few moments ago. I believe a complete memorandum in this connection is on its way to me, but as yet I have not received it. The information I have at the moment is that both lay-offs are incidental to a change-over in the type of production. The plant was engaged on an order for the British navy. That order has been completed, and for some time the plant has been retooling to take on another order in connection with a similar gun of larger calibre. I feel sure that both layoffs are temporary, and that the men will be reemployed. I am not sure whether selective service has been advised; I think probably not, as it is hoped that the men will be available when the work is resumed. But I may add that Ogden shops now have in hand the largest volume of business that they have had at any stage during the war, and I think the men will be reemployed at the same plant.


Mr. C. E. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, when I spoke in the debate on the address I referred to the fact that at the Ogden shops men had been laid off. The minister says now that the Ogden shops have ample work and a new contract with which to carry on. I must point out that when I was
War Labour Board

there, just before coming to Ottawa for the session, that was not so. Was the minister informed about it-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order; the minister has made his statement.



NATIONAL WAR LABOUR BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, on February 3 I advised the house the government had been fortunate enough to secure the services of Mr. Justice McTague, of the appeal court of Ontario* as chairman of the national war labour board. In making that announcement I pointed out that in connection with Mr. Justice McTague's acceptance of the position there would have to be a reorganization of the board in fundamental particulars, and that later the house would be given further information on that point.
I am now in a position to give the house full information with regard to changes being made consequent upon Mr. Justice McTague's acceptance of the position, and also for other reasons. In order that hon. members may understand the nature and full significance of the changes I shall first of all outline to the house the membership and functions of the board as originally constituted.
As hon. members are aware the national war labour board was appointed on October 24, 1941. At that time its membership was that of a chairman, a vice-chairman, five gentlemen representing employers and five representing employees. When originally formed the chairman was the present Minister of Labour, Mr. Humphrey Mitchell. When the board was formed Mr. Mitchell was neither a member of the house nor a minister of the crown. Upon Mr. Mitchell's becoming a minister of the crown he continued to perform the duties of chairman of the board, largely because of the special knowledge he had of its proceedings, and also because he believed it his duty to hold the position at least so long as he was able to help carry out the duties of the board along with the other duties attached to his new position. However the minister found, as everyone would expect, that with the heavy duties resting upon him in the Department of Labour it would be impossible for him to continue as chairman of the board. Some time ago he advised me to that effect, and in consequence of the min-	,
ister's representations the government has made certain changes. Mr. Mitchell's retirement from the chairmanship of the board left the vacancy which has since been filled by Mr. Justice McTague's acceptance of the position.
During Mr. Mitchell's association with the board the deputy minister of labour, Doctor Bryce Stewart, for a time acted as vicechairman. When Doctor Stewart retired his position was occupied by Mr. MacNamara, the present Deputy Minister of Labour.
The gentlemen representing the employers were Mr. A. Deschamps, president of the Builders Exchange, Montreal; Mr. George Hodge, manager, department of personnel, Canadian Pacific Railways; Mr. G. Jackson, of Sentinel Securities of Canada Limited, Toronto; Mr. J. H. Stovel, vice-president and general manager of Dome Mines, South Porcupine, and Mr. H. Taylor of the Canadian National Carbon Company, Limited, Toronto.
The five gentlemen representing the employees were Mr. John A. Bell, general chairman of the Order of Railroad Telegraphers, Toronto; Mr.-William Dunn, financial secretary-treasurer of Toronto district Labour Council; Mr. J. A. McClelland of the International Association of Machinists, of Valois, Quebec; Mr. A. R. Mosher, president of the Canadian Congress of Labour, Ottawa and Mr. Gerard Picard, general secretary of the Confederation of Catholic Workers of Canada, Quebec.
Hon. members will see that this was a board of twelve. As a matter of fact in the actual functioning of the board the work, in the main, was carried on by an executive committee. That executive was composed of the chairman, the vice-chairman, one representative of the employers and one representative of the employees. The representative of the employers on the executive was Mr. George Hodge, and the representative of the employees was Mr. McClelland. The gentlemen constituting the executive carried on as I have said the major part of the work of the board. The entire membership was convened fortnightly, on an average, and on those occasions matters of concern to the board as a whole were presented and dealt with.
One will observe that in the original establishment of the board emphasis was placed particularly upon its representative character. An effort was made to secure a board which would be representative alike of employers and employees. An equal emphasis, however, was not placed upon the judicial character of the board, I do not mean to say that

War Labour Board
the board was expected to do other than discharge its duties in accordance with the principles of justice. In its actual procedure, however, there was no jurisprudence governing its proceedings. One case would be dealt with, then another and another, in the order in which they were presented without any necessary relationship as to the principles governing in decisions. The point I wish to make clear is that the board was not regarded like a court of justice in which principles are laid down which should govern generally.
Mr. Justice McTague has emphasized the fact that it would be helpful in the avoidance and settlement of industrial disputes, and in dealing with industrial relations generally if the national war labour board could partake more of the nature of an industrial court. He feels that the members of the board should be fewer in number, in order that they might, sitting together continuously, gradually build' up a jurisprudence which would govern in labour matters.
The government, after giving careful consideration to Mr. Justice McTague's representations, have come wholly to agree with the view he 'has expressed. The national war labour board, as it will now be constituted, will therefore be more in the nature of an industrial court. It will be limited in its membership, but care will be taken to see that it will also maintain its representative character. It is not intended that any member of the existing board shall be dropped by the new organization that is to be formed, although a number of the members of the old board instead of continuing as members of the new board will constitute hereafter members of a national war labour committee to consult with and advise the presently constituted board. It will be seen that so far as the change in the position of these members is concerned, it is more in the nature of a change in terminology than in function or practice. The past experience of all these members of the old board is being thereby retained in connection with the operations of the new board.
The Minister of Labour, as I have pointed out, has resigned from the board; and for reasons closely connected with the urgency of the matters with which he has to deal in his department, the deputy minister will not be a member of the new organization. The new board will be composed of three members-Mr. Justice McTague, and two gentlemen who have had exceptibnal experience in dealing with problems of industrial relations. One of those gentlemen will be representative of employers, and the other of employees. These gentlemen are, first,
Senator J. J. Bench, K.C., who for some years past, as hon. members are probably aware, has enjoyed retainers as an experienced labour relations counsel from a number of large industrial concerns, and has had wide experience in matters pertaining to industrial relations. When Senator Bench serves he will of course, as a member of the senate, serve without extra remuneration. The fact that he is a member of parliament should not, I think, at this time of war, in any way prejudice his position on the board. In that particular his position would be no different from that occupied by the Minister of Labour, who was chairman of the board and at the same time was a member of the House of Commons and a minister of the crown. Senator Bench is being selected because of his special knowledge of industrial matters, and also because of the success he has had in dealing with industrial controversies arising between employers and1 employees.
The third member of the board will be Mr. J. L. Cohen, K.C. As hon. members probably know, Mr. Cohen is an experienced labour counsel with outstanding abilities. He has acted as the representative of labour organizations on many conciliation boards and has been retained widely by labour organizations because of his exceptional knowledge of industrial questions.
I wish to stress the point that each of these gentlemen has knowledge not second I believe to that possessed by any other persons in this country, either on the side of capital or on the side of labour interests, in dealing with problems of industrial relations. They with Mr. Justice McTague have been selected with regard solely to the qualities they bring to their new duties. These three gentlemen will constitute the board which will, as I have said, be in the nature of an industrial court.
There will be associated with the board in the intimate relationship of expert technical advisers the two gentlemen who, along with the minister, were members of the executive committee of the board as it hitherto existed. I refer to Mr. George Hodge, who represented the employers and Mr. McClelland, who represented the employees. The other members of the present board will, as I have said, be an advisory and consultative committee and will be brought together in the new organization in a manner very similar to that in which they were brought into conference under the former organization.
I should like to express to those who have been members of the national war labour board the appreciation of the government, and
War Labour Board

in this I think I may say the appreciation of the country for the splendid services which they have rendered to this country in the time in which they have served. The board, up to the present, has in many respects been functioning so quietly that I am sure the public are scarcely aware of the extent of the services its members have rendered. As the Minister of Labour mentioned yesterday, some 750 cases in all came before the board in the time it was carrying on and almost without exception all these cases have been disposed of satisfactorily.
There is one other aspect of the board as now constituted which is in the nature of a fundamental change. Heretofore the board has carried on its proceedings in camera; the hearings have not been in public. It is felt that in dealing with industrial disputes that are likely to affect our war effort and affect thereby the interests, not only of the country as a whole but of the united nations as well, it would serve a useful and helpful purpose if the public could have a wider knowledge of the questions at issue. It is, therefore, the intention of Mr. Justice McTague and his colleagues to have the sittings of the board in public. The press will be admitted to the hearings of the board. In that way the public will be kept fully informed of matters which are of immediate concern to the public itself.
That covers, I think, all that I wish to say at the moment beyond adding a word with respect to Mr. Hodge and Mr. McClelland, who have served as members of the executive in the past, and who will be immediately associated as expert technical advisers with the members of the new board. I feel that we are specially indebted to both these gentlemen for the services they have rendered in the past and for their willingness to continue to serve in the capacity in which they will on this new board. I feel, too, we are greatly indebted to the chairman and other members of the new board for the allimportant services they are prepared to render the country at this time of war.


Thomas Miller Bell: When does the Prime Minister expect that the new board or executive will meet to consider matters now in abeyance?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand that Mr. Justice McTague has already been in conference with the parties to the steel dispute and has undertaken to have the proceedings of the board begin on Tuesday of the coming week.

While I am on my feet I should like to table a copy of the order in council which was passed yesterday constituting the new board.


Gordon Graydon: I should like to say just one word in connection with the statement of the Prime Minister with respect to the national war labour board. There were two points that struck me as worthy of comment. The first is the evidence of the beginning of a well-recognized labour jurisprudence. I think most of us who have been interested in labour problems during these years realized that the time had come for the establishment of a well recognized labour jurisprudence. I should like to point out to the Prime Minister that one of the things on which I think the public will be in agreement with the government is that the sittings of the national war labour board are to be in public. This is a step in the right direction.
I congratulate the Prime Minister on these two things, because we discussed them and decided upon them at the Winnipeg convention, and they were included in the programme and the platform of the new party. While yesterday I did not think we were near to converting the Prime Minister on some points, I am glad to see that he has had a change of heart this afternoon.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Just a word in reply to what my hon. friend has said. I feel considerably flattered at the extent to which the Winnipeg convention evidently drew upon a treatise which I wrote some years ago upon principles underlying industrial reconstruction.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It took
you twenty-five years to put them into effect.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They have been going into effect bit by bit.



BORDER CROSSING REGULATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister); Mr. Speaker, I have an announcement to make to the house which I think hon. members will be pleased to hear. The governments of the United States and Canada have been able to effect an agreement which will make border crossing more convenient. Instead of Canadian citizens or British subjects resident in Canada being obliged to obtain passports in order to cross the border to the United States, after the

Border Crossing Regulations
fifteenth of this month all that will be required will be a border crossing identification card which will be valid for a year.
I shall give hon. members a statement which is also being made public to-day in Washington. I am giving it to the house now in order that hon. members may have it in the first instance.
The United States and the Canadian governments, with a desire to simplify travel across the border have agreed on changes whioh will exempt Canadian citizens and British subjects legally resident in Canada from the necessity of obtaining passports for visits of not more than twenty-nine days. Entry to the United States for longer periods and for other groups will continue as at present.
Under the plan which will go into effect on February 15, 1943, a new type of nonimmigrant border crossing identification card that does not require passport will be issued free of charge by United States consular officers in Canada and will bear an endorsement by a Canadian immigration officer guaranteeing the readmissibility of the bearer to Canada. This card will be valid for any number of visits during a period of one year from the date of its issue, provided that no one visit shall exceed 29 days. Visitors' vises and non-immigrant border crossing cards already issued will retain their validity until date of expiry and, if desired, may be renewed as in the past so long as the holder possesses a valid passport.
Persons desiring to obtain a border crossing card of the new type must apply in person at an American consular office in Canada carrying three photographs, one and a half inch square, on non-glazed paper, showing full front view without head covering. They should also carry whatever evidence they have available as to birthplace, nationality and the period of their residence in Canada. In the consulate, they will complete an application form in triplicate.
If the application is approved by the consul, he will issue the border crossing card and deliver both application and card to the Canadian immigration officer in the same centre. The applicant will then call at the Canadian office for the endorsation of the crossing card guaranteeing readmission to Canada and will be given the card and one copy of the application form, the latter to be left with the United States immigration authorities at port of entry to the United States.
United States consulates and Canadian immigration offices are established at the following points in Canada:
Halifax, N.S. Fredericton, N.B. Saint John, N.B. St. Stephen, N.B. Quebec, P.Q. Montreal, P.Q. Ottawa, Ont. Toronto, Ont. Hamilton, Ont. Windsor, Ont.
Niagara Falls, Ont. Sarnia, Ont.
Fort William, Ont. Winnipeg, Man. Regina, Sask. Edmonton, Alta. Calgary, Alta. Victoria, B.C. Vancouver, B.C.
Under the new system there will be no further necessity of maintaining branch passport offices at Moncton, Windsor and Vancouver. Accordingly, these offices will close on February 15. Applications received after that date will be forwarded to the Passport Office, 38 Bank Street, Ottawa. All subsequent applications for passports from the limited number of persons desiring to visit the United States for periods of more than thirty days or to visit other countries to which it is possible to travel should be addressed to the Passport Office, Ottawa.
Richard Burpee Hanson: If I may be permitted, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that everybody will welcome this reform. I would point out to the Prime Minister that I advocated this step as long ago as the summer of 1940, and now this reform has been accomplished after three years' delay.


Mr. FULFORD:: May I ask whether the foreign exchange control board will make regulations in line with these new United States regulations?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend will have to ask the board.



PRODUCTION AND RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver Centre):: May I ask the Minister of Munitions and Supply whether he can now answer the question I asked yesterday as to the setting up in Washington of a combined copper committee?


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend was good enough to send across to me the clipping to which he referred. I notice it says that Mr. George MacDonald represents Canada on the committee. Mr. George MacDonald is the representative in Washington of our metals controller. He will be a member of the committee and will draw in such a staff as the requirements of the committee may indicate.


Howard Charles Green: What are the purposes of the committee?
The Address-Mr. Maclnnis


Clarence Decatur Howe: The committee is to inform the combined production and resources board of the copper position, available and potential supplies.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, February 11, consideration of the motion, of Mr. W. E. Harris (Grey-Bruce) for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Graydon, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my first reaction to the speech from the throne was that it was fortunate that in the debate which would follow on the address members were not limited to the matters appearing in the speech itself. Indeed the speech is almost barren of any constructive proposals. The only mention in it of anything of a constructive nature is the paragraph referring to the reconstituting of the committee which met last year on post-war reconstruction and rehabilitation, and in the paragraph in which a committee on social insurance is announced. It may be said that never was so little said in so many words.
The group with which I sit has always favoured the extension of social insurance. We have been indeed in the forefront in pressing for social insurance when many of those who to-day are so loud in their praise of this action by the government were making it quite clear that they were opposed to what they called hand-outs and doles. Times do change, and men's minds change with the times.
The speech from the throne gives every indication of having been thrown together in a hurry. What the government would have done were it not for the providential appearance of the Beveridge report it is hard to say. That only now in the fourth year of the war, when the need for social insurance and social reconstruction looms so large in people's minds, the government is taking hold of these matters is an indication of its profound reluctance to do anything in this respect. It should be noted that the Beveridge committee was appointed in Great Britain in June, 1941. We are going to appoint a committee perhaps in February, 1943. Should the investigation and the drafting and submission of the report of such a committee in Canada take as long as it took in the United Kingdom, it will be the end of 1944 before we even have a report.

Because of the constitutional jurisdictions of the governments of our country, after the report is made dominion-provincial conferences will have to be called, and after that we may have legislation. These, then, are the matters which have brought forth such paeans of praise from the government supporters.
I have said that while we approve social security measures, hon. members should be careful not to expect too much of social security based solely on social insurance. Sir William Beveridge makes that very clear, if we take the trouble to read his report beyond the first few pages. On almost the first page of his report he says that a revolutionary moment is not the time for patching; it is the time for revolution; but evidently he was referring to the revolutionary change from piecemeal social legislation to a national scheme based on one contribution. At page 163 of his report Sir William Beveridge says:
Fourth, and most important, income security which is all that can be given by social insurance is so inadequate a provision for human happiness that to put it forward by itself as a sole or principal measure of reconstruction hardly seems worth doing.
I would like hon. members to note that, "hardly seems worth doing." He goes on:
It should be accompanied by an announced determination to use the powers of the state to whatever extent may prove necessary to ensure for all, not indeed absolute continuity of work, but a reasonable chance of productive employment.
So then, along with any plans we may make for social security based on social insurance we must make provision, social provision, if you like, for employment. Then he goes on:
Fifth, though it should be within the power of the community to bear the cost of the whole plan for social security, the cost is heavy and, if to the necessary cost waste is added, it may become insupportable. Unemployment, both through increasing expenditure on benefit and through reducing the income to bear those costs, is the worst form of waste.
We have been indulging in the worst form of waste during the last ten or twelve years- at least, for the decade between 1929 and 1939; and unless we take measures not only to put social insurance into effect but to abolish unemployment, we are not going to make very much progress.
I want to say a word with regard to the man-power muddle. It is not a man-power policy, it never was a man-power policy, it is a man-power mess.
I have stated many times before, here and elsewhere, that the main reason for our manpower difficulties is that we have no over-all plan for war. We have not decided yet how many men Canada can afford to put into the

The Address-Mr. Maclnnis
armed forces, to get the best results both for ourselves and for the other members of the united nations. Listening to this debate, I was struck with what must have seemed to many here the unreality of the long debate, or rather debates, in which we indulged in this house last year. We debated conscription on the address, on the plebiscite, and on the amendment to the National Resources Mobilization Act. This group realized what was being done, how the house was being duped about something on which the government never intended to take any action; and very shortly after the house adjourned the government showed quite clearly that it did not intend to do anything, by appointing to a place in the cabinet a man who had voted and spoken against the amendment to the mobilization act.
When the amendment to the mobilization act was before us last year the leader of our group made this statement:
In our opinion, this house should decide now, at once, without further delay, for total mobilization of industry, of wealth and of man-power. But what are we doing under this bill that we are discussing? We are merely allowing the government once more to postpone its decision on one phase of the mobilization that I have mentioned, and that not the most important.
I think the truth of that statement is clear to everyone to-day.
I do not believe that anything could indicate more clearly the mess we are in with regard to man-power than the fuel situation. My own province of British Columbia is possibly blessed with fuel to a greater extent than any other province of Canada. I am not going to take the time of the house to deal with this matter because it was dealt with fairly well by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr/ Reid) when he spoke the other day. But let me point out that although the people of Vancouver had a terrible experience during two weeks of the coldest weather the Pacific coast has experienced in thirty-three years, our fuel situation had been brought to the attention of the fuel controller as long ago as last June, and it was indicated to him that unless something were done there would be a serious fuel shortage in British Columbia. Yet, as was also pointed out by the hon. member for New Westminster, when the fuel situation reached its worst the saw-mills closed down. The excuse was that they were closing down for their annual overhaul, but one large mill was closed because a certain important operator, having bought it, decided that he had no further use for it. It did not concern him what public need there was for it; and I suppose most people in this
house are not concerned either, because that is the essence of private enterprise.
If a situation such as we had this winter is not to recur, two things must be done. First, fuel production must be declared an essential industry-which it is; and, second, at the first sign of shortage, rationing must be imposed and impartially enforced. That is the only way by which equitable distribution can be assured when there is a shortage of any essential commodity.
A word on the government's labour policies. This is not the first occasion upon which I have drawn them to the attention of this house. I wish however to congratulate the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) and his party on their new-found interest in labour.


Mr. HOMUTH:: Oh, it is not so "newfound." Don't talk like that.


Angus MacInnis: Don't feel hurt.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I don't feel hurt. I am just laughing about it.


Angus MacInnis: I said "new-found" as indicated in their amendment to the address. This group will vote for the amendment, and we hope that the Progressive Conservatives will vote for our subamendment, to prove that a real change of heart has taken place.
I also listened to the leader of the opposition's criticism of the government's labour policy. It is the first time that the government's labour policies have been criticized effectively from that side of the house since 1940.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Thanks.


Angus MacInnis: I also listened to the Prime Minister's defence of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell). It was extremely weak. If anything could be weaker it was the defence which the minister made for himself in this chamber yesterday. The Prime Minister said- I hope I am putting it correctly-that the chief function of the Minister of Labour in the cabinet was to maintain the price stabilization and wage control policies of the government.


Mr. MITCHELL:: He did not say that.


Angus MacInnis: Well, it was pretty close to that.


Humphrey Mitchell: No, not close. He just did not say that.


Angus MacInnis: Very well; we will leave it at that. The modification of my hon. friend will go in the record.


Humphrey Mitchell: It is not a modification.
The Address-Mr. Maclnnis


Angus MacInnis: What I want to ask is this: if that is the principal function of a minister of labour, why seek a man who had had experience with organized labour? Why not appoint a banker, or a manufacturer, or, if you like, another lawyer? Another lawyer among the twelve or fifteen already in the cabinet would not make much difference. However, the Prime Minister wanted someone connected with organized labour; he wanted someone in the cabinet in whom organized labour would have confidence. To have confidence in that individual, organized labour would expect that in the cabinet that man would put forward the claims of labour. And it is because the present Minister of Labour, judging by the results, has not put forward the claims of labour, that labour is so much dissatisfied with his work. Unfortunately labour has accepted token representation in the past, and the Prime Minister is satisfied that labour should have token representation. The time, however, has passed when labour will be satisfied with token representation.
The Prime Minister mentioned that he had offered the portfolio of labour to Mr. Tom Moore. I am not going to bring Mr. Tom Moore's name into this any further, but I want to tell the Prime Minister that I am satisfied he could not get anyone in the labour movement who was qualified to fulfil the duties of minister of labour to accept the position. All that would be expected of him would be to act as apologist to the organized labouT movement for the government's policy, and no real representative of labour is prepared to do that.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is untrue, and my hon. friend knows it. That is the old soapbox socialism.


Angus MacInnis: I said I was not going to bring Mr. Moore's name into this, but Mr. Moore himself told me that was the reason he would not take the position.


Humphrey Mitchell: Let Mr. Moore speak for himself.


Angus MacInnis: He was offered the job; he did not accept; you can draw your own conclusions.	[DOT]


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbtiry):: I think we had better leave Mr. Moore' out of this.


Angus MacInnis: The trouble with the
government's wage ceiling is that the government took power to freeze wages and it froze all the inequalities of wages. To freeze the wages or salary of a person getting $2,000 or $3,000 or $4,000 or $10,000 or $15,000 is one thing, but to freeze the wages of a person getting forty or fifty cents an hour is alto-
TMr. Mitchell.]
gether another thing. When the government took action to put a ceiling on wages it should also have taken action to put a floor under wages, and seen to it that the wages paid were sufficient for a decent standard of living.
Yesterday the Minister of Labour made great play with the cost-of-living bonus. But the large majority of Canadian workers are getting no cost-of-living bonus. The only workers who are getting cost-of-living bonus are those who through their organizations demanded it and got it because they were able to take it. If there is anything in the government's policy that is clear it is that through their labour policy they have demonstrated to labour that the way to get justice is to be strong enough to take it.
I was glad to hear the statement of the Prime Minister to-day in regard to the new board. My understanding is that the changes were proposed by the new chairman. I go as far as to say that I congratulate the government upon having been able to secure Mr. Justice McTague as chairman of the board. I had occasion to criticize him in this house, not for anything he had said or done in connection with any dispute he had had anything to do with, because my recollection is that he has shown much enlightenment in his observations in regard to the position of labour in our economic set-up. I wish the reorganized board in its new setting every success. But I want to make this clear, that since the war began, or at least since the government's wage policy has been put into effect, boards have lost their meaning. Boards have no authority; they are in the same position as the Minister of Labour-they are supposed to maintain the government's price and. wage stabilization policy.


Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. member is not suggesting that the government dictates policy to the board?


Angus MacInnis: I will tell my hon. friend in good time what I suggest-and I will not merely suggest it; I will make a clear statement of fact. It is clear from the findings of boards that they do not discuss whether a wage rate is too high or too low. What they consider is whether section so-and-so of such-and-such an order in council will allow them to make a finding that would increase the wage rate. That is what they do. The chairman of the board that heard the steel dispute, Mr. Barlow, now Mr. Justice Barlow, was a member of a royal commission appointed by the former minister of labour to investigate the shipyard wages in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. That board

The Address-Mr. Maclnnis
made a finding, but when the finding was placed before the present Minister of Labour he reduced it under an order in council by about five cents an hour.


Humphrey Mitchell: We reduced some of the findings and increased others.


Angus MacInnis: I do not think any were increased. This is a new way of legislating; a royal commission is appointed and when its unanimous report is received, the Minister of Labour by order in council reduces the wages recommended and puts a clause in it that all wages not covered by the order in council shall be set at rates which the minister may consider fair and reasonable. This is dictatorship with a vengeance.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend has not explained the circumstances of the order in council.


Angus MacInnis: The minister mentioned in his speech that attempts to regulate or control wages were made as far back as June, 1940, and quite definitely in December, 1940, by order in council P.C. 7440. I drew the attention of this house at that time to the result of that order in council in the Peck Rolling Mills dispute. Here was a group of employees fifty per cent of whom were getting thirty-two cents an hour. The board that investigated the dispute did not say the wages were too low; they said that because of the wording of P.C. 7440 they were bound to find that the rates were fair and reasonable. That is all that boards can do to-day. There is nothing else left for them to do.
The attitude of this government towards organized labour ean be measured by the government's policy towards organized labour in government-owned industry. In June, 1940, the government passed order in council P.C. 2685 approving of collective bargaining as the proper method of settling labour disputes. But from that time until the end of 1942 the government refused to recognize organized labour in industries that it owns and controls. It was only in December of 1942 that the government passed an order in council making it possible for the government to recognize organized labour in the industries it owned, and to enter into collective agreements with those organizations. I do not know why the order in council was necessary; I believe the government could have done it without an order in council; however, that was done. And the government did that only when it was faced with a cessation of work in one of its plants.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is not true.


Angus MacInnis: I am telling my hon. friend that is absolutely true.


Humphrey Mitchell: It is not true, and my hon. friend knows it.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I must ask the Minister of Labour to withdraw that remark.


Humphrey Mitchell: I know whereof I speak.


Thomas Vien: The minister must withdraw his statement.


Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, the inference to be taken from what' the hon. member has said is that an order in council was passed-


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker-


Richard Burpee Hanson: He is
entitled to make an explanation.


Thomas Miller Bell: He is not entitled to make a speech.


Thomas Vien: The minister has intimated that the statement made by the hon. member for Vancouver East is false, and that cannot be allowed. It must be withdrawn.


Humphrey Mitchell: Very well; I withdraw.


Angus MacInnis: I am satisfied that there is sufficient ground for all the criticism that has been levelled at the Minister of Labour.
I have said before, and I want to say again in all earnestness, that it is most important, particularly at this time, that parliament and the country should realize how essential it is that labour should be organized, and that organized labour should be accepted as a full partner in everything that pertains to the great struggle in which we are now engaged. That labour should be accepted as a partner is not only important in winning the war; it is also important so that labour may gain the experience and understanding which will enable it to take a constructive part in solving the problems which will confront us when this war is over.
There is another matter to which I wish to refer, and while it involves the Department of Labour I am very happy to say that I have nothing but commendation for the actions of the minister in regard to it. I wish to refer briefly to matters arising out of the evacuation from the Pacific coast defence area of persons of Japanese origin. Among those removed from that area were nearly eight thousand children from one to sixteen years of age, of whom possibly 5,500 would be of school age. In the province of British Columbia we have a compulsory school attendance act, but since these people
The Address-Mr. Maclnnis

have been moved from the coast area no attempt has been made to make provision for the education of the children. At the opening of the British Columbia legislature this month the provincial minister of education gave notice that he was introducing a bill to enable municipalities to refuse to extend educational facilities to any child born of Japanese parents.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Some of them were too
well educated before.


Angus MacInnis: That is what my hon. friend thinks. I know of people who are not well enough educated, and I could mention names.	,


Karl Kenneth Homuth: So do I, and not very far away.


Angus MacInnis: I brought this matter to the attention of the Minister of Labour and I think of his deputy minister, urging him to make provision for the education of these children; for if there is anything to indicate that there is racial prejudice and discrimination, it is a refusal to give these innocent children the benefits of our educational system.


Humphrey Mitchell: If my hon. friend will excuse me, this is more or less an international question. I have no objection to anything he may say about the Department of Labour on a national basis; I am quite ready to take care of myself, but I do not think he is altogether correct in what he has just said. Facilities have been provided. It is quite true that they may not be quite up to the mark at the moment, but facilities have been provided for educating those children of Japanese origin in the province of British Columbia.


Angus MacInnis: Maybe the minister is doing the best he can under the circumstances, but the fact of the matter is that these children are being denied proper educational facilities. I should like to quote a paragraph from an editorial in the Vancouver Province in connection with this matter. The province of British Columbia takes the position that this is a responsibility of the federal government. I agree that in regard to children moved en masse the financial responsibility at least rests with the federal government. The editorial states:
This is a reasonable position but it is still difficult to understand why Mr. Perry, the provincial minister of education, should resort to such sweeping measures as that of outlawing the Japanese children from our public schools, for that certainly is what it would be to enact the proposed amendment. . . .

If Japanese born here are to be permitted to stay here, they should have the protection of Canadian law without any such harsh discrimination against them and certainly they should have that protection now, while they are here.
We have heard a great deal about Hitler's Nuremburg decrees. We must be careful that we do not pass Nuremburg decrees of our own.


Mr. NEILL:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Angus MacInnis: I hope Your Honour is taking note of these interruptions.


Alan Webster Neill: Can the hon. gentleman tell us how many white children in British Columbia are not being educated because of a lack of teachers? Let him tell us a sob story about that.


Angus MacInnis: That is an altogether different matter, and something we should look after; but no white children are being deprived by law of education in this country. There are quite a number of anomalies we should try to overcome, but I am dealing now with a matter of definite discrimination because of race.
In the very few minutes left at my disposal I wish to refer to some statements made by the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Graham) in the course of his speech a few evenings ago. He attacked this group for advocating a planned economy. That, of course, is his right; but in drawing attention to his knowledge of planned economy he referred only to the results in Germany and Italy, which he said were not good. When a person thinks he is qualified to speak on planned economy, surely his knowledge extends farther than Germany and Italy. I wonder if my hon. friend, in all his reading, has heard of the greatest planned economy experiment in history. If he has heard of it, then why did he not refer to it? Possibly it would not suit his purpose. Lawyers are that way; they leave out all the evidence which is favourable to the other side, and bring in all that is unfavourable.
But this group is not advocating the kind of planned economy they had in Germany or Italy, or indeed the kind they have in Soviet Russia. We have made that clear on many occasions. Neither Hitler nor Mussolini abolished the profit motive in his country; and it is because they did not abolish that profit motive that they have had the support of the capitalists in every country of the world-including this one.

The Address-Mr. Maybank


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Where is this perfect
country?


Angus MacInnis: I did not mention any perfect country, but I did mention a country where they had put planned economy into effect. And if the hon. member has ever heard of a city named Stalingrad he may understand something of the results of that planned economy.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: And are we going to adopt the Russian idea?


Angus MacInnis: If my hon. friend has anything to say about Russia, he can make his own speech.
The hon. member for Swift Current attacked certain proposals by the leader of this group, in which it was advocated that the government should appropriate five billions of dollars for expenditures in the first two years after the war. The impression he tried to leave was that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) was asking for the expenditure of this money without reference to parliament, or on the sole recommendation of a committee. That is not what my leader said at all. He made it clear that any recommendations would be made to parliament, and that parliament would1 act upon them. At page 57 of Hansard, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar is reported as follows:
We have found billions annually for the destructive, wasteful and yet very necessary purposes of war. We must assure our people that we can and will find billions annually for the constructive, life-giving and equally necessary purpose of the peaceful development of our land.
He went on to recommend the appointment of a representative committee. But these are the words to which I wish to draw the attention of the house:
. . . the definite commitment by this parliament that Canada is prepared to accept from that body a programme of national social economic development upon which this parliament will spend

Note the words "this parliament".
-in cooperation with the provincial authorities -and I mean that this parliament will appropriate the sum of money-an amount, let us say, of not less than five billion dollars in the first two years after the cessation of hostilities.


An hon. MEMBER:: Where will they get that from?


Angus MacInnis: Where they are getting it now. It continues:
With that national appropriation in sight the exploration of appropriate domestic policies could proceed with reality, and the boys now fighting our war would have an assurance that we were in earnest regarding expressions of faith in a new and better world.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member's time has expired.


Angus MacInnis: One further word: Everything the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has said indicates that parliament would decide how and when this money was to be expended.


Mr. RALPH MAYBANK (Winnipeg South-Centre) :: Mr. Speaker, I believe there is only one subject concerning which I should like to make a few remarks, and such as I may say will be for the benefit of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) who is at present, I imagine, engaged in making up his budget. It is my hope that in that budget he will take account of the position of the poor people, the aged ones, who, as a result of the action of a former Liberal government, are receiving old age pensions. It is my hope that the minister will increase that pension as an earnest of the social security which is foreshadowed in the speech from the throne.
At a time like this there are many matters upon which one might desire to speak. We are impelled very often to discuss controllers, and to try to evaluate them and classify them as good controllers; sometimes good, or always bad. We feel we ought to discuss whether we should have a food controller, how control should be applied, and all that sort of thing. All these subjects might well form the subject matter of a speech, but it is my intention this afternoon to hold myself to one subject only; although that one is, in my judgment, a most important one.
Before adverting to that theme, however, may I make a few observations arising from the speech of the hon. member who has just taken his seat. I say at once that in con-, trast with some of the other members of his party, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) is always somewhat refreshing when he speaks, because he never denies or seeks to evade the issue of state socialism. He does not wrap up his ideas in a great many circumlocutions and wordy evasions designed to hide from the public, and more particularly the private owners of farms in Saskatchewan, the fact that his party, bearing a name consisting of initials, is indeed an organization committed to the principles of state socialism. I want to commend the frankness of the hon. member in this respect.
Since the subject of critics is in my mind, I must say it is my belief that I am constitutionally a critic almost all the time. Perhaps I do differ from some other critics in that I rarely wrap up that which I have to say in words which would be difficult to understand or capable of fourteen or fifteen different
The Address-Mr. Maybank

meanings afterward I believe it would be fair to say also with respect to myself that although I sometimes exhibit feeling, I try to be constructively critical. I am often in agreement with criticisms I hear from the colleagues of the hon. member for Vancouver East.
Probably my state of mind arises from the fact that by reason of past history I have nearly always been one of a minority. I am told I had a grandfather; I am told that my said grandfather was bom in a county named Wexford; and I am told that that county was a Catholic county. My information further is that this grandfather insisted upon being a Protestant, apparently to enjoy being among the minority. I am told further that the Protestants in that community organized themselves under the banner of the Orangemen.


Mr. REID:: What size of shillelagh did he carry?


Ralph Maybank: I have not been told about that; but whatever he carried I am confident it would be different from that carried by anybody else, because that would give further opportunity of being in the minority. As I say, the Protestants of Wexford organized themselves as Orangemen. But again, in order to stay in the minority, this grandfather refused to be one of the Orangemen. I think that tendency to insist upon being in the minority has been passed down to his grandson and accounts for my being often a critic.
Indeed there are times when those critics to whom I have referred are in consonance with me; but not in all respects, for I wish to say to them immediately that I think it would [DOT] be better if they, this organization of critics, would begin to strive, not merely to acquire but to exhibit intellectual honesty. I think their lack in that regard is the great defect of this society of critics at the far end of the house. They are an organization of, shall we say, state socialists, statists, or whatever expression one wishes to use. They are an organization that proposes to cure the ills of the world by means of the government assuming ownership of everything. It is not often they will express that view, but when one goes to their documents and carefully construes them, it can be discovered. Such was not the situation in Jim Woodsworth's day. He was too frank, too ruggedly honest to try to shy away from the position which he had quite properly taken in the first instance. He always admitted that what they were out to do was to acquire everything collectively and effect whatever measure of improvement could be brought about in that way.

But to-day, with the exception of the hon. member for Vancouver East, as I have indicated, this little group of organized critics never says a word about socialism if they can avoid doing so. They attack the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell), and sometimes I do not blame them; they attack the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), and sometimes I do not blame them. They may have quarrels with the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent), and they may attack him at times. I may also quarrel with him, although always in a friendly way. It may be that before long I shall be joining them in connection with some of the proposals that come up. But while they inveigh against many things, never, never, can one get this group of critics to tell anything about what they favour. They soft-pedal their socialism.
For example,, let us take their amendment, the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation amendment and let us analyse it in order to see what they have proposed. I think it will be seen that it is state socialism in its nature. The amendment reads:
And further we regret that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to take the necessary action to achieve a total war effort by neglecting to apply the powers contained in the National Resources Mobilization Act to war industries and financial institutions in the same manner as they are being applied to the mobilization of man-power for military service. .
That is a lovely bundle of words under which to hide when it is desirable to hide. Lack of clarity is what is intended-what they advocate is expropriation of wealth, expropriation of industry, expropriation of finance and so forth. While such is the meaning of the amendment, you can explain that any way you like according to the particular hustings upon which you happen to be. That, I submit, is not intellectual honesty.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing wrong with being a socialist. It has become respectable in recent years, and these gentlemen should remind themselves constantly that it is no longer not respectable to be a socialist. Why in the world a person who is a socialist wants to hide the fact and go through life with a cloak up in front of his face is something I cannot understand. The aim of many of us who are not socialists, pretty well the most of us, is very similar, in fact nearly identical with the aim of the socialist.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why do you hide it?


Ralph Maybank: I hide nothing. There is no hiding about it. I say quite frankly that I am not a socialist. I believe that much can be obtained by reform. I know it comes slowly, but there is no doubt as to where I stand.

The Address-Mr. Maybank


Angus MacInnis: How much reform?


Ralph Maybank: The greatest happiness for the maximum number of people is our aim. But on the point of respectability the position of the reformer is no more respectable than is the position of the socialist. These gentlemen are still worried about being thought not respectable; either that, or they are worried about some people on the plains of Saskatchewan who still own farms, not being willing to accept state socialism.
I am reminded of some advice which I heard that a father gave his son. He said that the son's first aim in life should be "to get on"; the second aim for him should be "to get honour"; and the third aim should be "to get honest-." I submit that to be good advice for this group of critics. They have got "on" to a certain extent in the world. Socialism no longer being under the stigma of being unrespectable it may be said they have reached the comparative stage; they have got "honour". What is necessary for them is that they get "honest". They lack intellectual honesty and it would be good if they could develop that.
After all what would you think of a Catholic who got in among a crowd of Protestants and then attempted to hide the cross that dangled from his watch-chain; and generally to cover up the fact that he was a Catholic; and when any question arose about it, to slink away until he was absolutely cornered into admitting that he was a Catholic? Or what would you think about a Protestant who went to a celebration on the 17th of March, but when he heard anything said about Protestants he would act like Saint Peter prior to the third crowing of the cock and would deny that he was a Protestant? There is nothing more reprehensible than that kind of evasion. I submit to this group of critics that it is unworthy of them; it is unworthy of any group of Canadians who desire to have any influence upon Canadian life. I say to the rest of them that they would do well to emulate the frankness and honesty of their late leader, Jim Woods-worth, and his son-in-law, the hon. member for Vancouver East, who has just spoken.
This is not my main purpose in speaking to-day, but as I said there is a number of subjects that are intriguing. One is the "Prog-Cons" party which has lately been the subject of comment. The Conservatives came to my city and had a wonderful time, but unfortunately I was not there. For a time the public of Canada has been under the impression that they chose a leader in Winnipeg, but it now develops that what they did was to choose a kind of travelling organizer who will pose as
a leader. They needed an organizer because the one they had was too busy following affairs in this house to carry on his other business. He is doing much better now as house leader. All and sundry should take notice of the fact that this new party has been perfectly frank in throwing off its mask of nonpartisanship and has come right out into the field of partisanship. The party has no leader although it had a convention, but while it has no leader in the country, at least it has an organizer. This organizer should come in here and be a leader, I suppose, but as the Journal of this city has said, Mr. Bracken has decided to "by-pass" parliament. No doubt that is his method of showing respect for the institutions of this country, the institution of parliament. Such form of leadership is an intriguing subject which might be followed a little further; and also the manner of the nomination being sought and accepted; the seeking after Mr. Bracken, and all that sort of thing. But for the moment I shall pass that up.
I wish to present views which I hope will get to the proper advisers of his excellency with respect to one reform, and one reform only, which can be instituted now, without delay; a reform which will bring happiness to a large number of people now, immediately, and not merely at some time in the future. Let me preface my remarks with this observation. I think that since the war started this is the most hopeful of session openings. The throne speech this year offers more hope than any for some years. It is remarkable, you know, how much pleasure is obtained in life through hope. So that many of our pleasures are anticipatory. A great many of us, I have no doubt, are every day anticipating pleasures, and the very anticipation is pleasant. Sometimes the pleasures anticipated do not come about, but even then we have had the fun of thinking about them. There is a great deal of anticipatory pleasure to be obtained by reading the speech from the throne and visualizing all that will be done. In this case, of course, the pleasures, anticipatory to-day, will all come to be realized.
That part of the speech which deals with state medicine or some form of medical assistance by the state-I do not care what name is used for it-is one of the important parts of the government's programme. I should like to pause long enough to say that the father of this ameliorative legislation in Canada is a man from my own province. I believe that the first time this question was carefully presented to this house was when it was done by the then member for St. Boniface, and the present member for St.
The Address-Mr. Maybank

Boniface (Mr. Howden). It just so happens that during the last week I have had four or five letters from friends, four of whom were men and one was a woman, people whom I did not know but who knew him and who all remarked on the value of his work, and now I take pleasure in drawing to the attention of the house that the commencement of this reform in Canada is very largely as a result of the work of the present member for St. Boniface. I am very glad that he is not in his place at the present moment. As a matter of fact, I know him so well and he knows me so well that I probably would not be saying this if he were, and when he reads it in Hansard he probably will not believe I said it. My regard for him is such that it is a pleasure to speak these just words of testimony to him and his pioneering in this field.
Another reform which I am very glad to see coming in is pensions for widows of veterans. I can see all the difficulties that lay in the way of this reform coming in sooner; but I have felt the delay. I welcome this reform particularly at this time. I assume the pension will follow somewhat the course of the burnt-out soldier's pension which in its nature is an old age pension. I imagine that under all the circumstances that is about the best type of legislation of this sort that we could have at this time. I know hundreds of cases of widows who certainly should be getting that pension, whose husbands certainly died by reason of war disabilities or war strain, although their disabilities could not be definitely tied up as attributable to the war. Many and many a woman in Canada to-day has become a widow much sooner than would have been the case had her husband not suffered from the strain of war. This is legislation that we can certainly welcome, which I am sure all Canada will welcome, and for which this government will have due thanks and great reward.
There is a very great present value-not future value-in all these social security measures and preparations. As an illustration of this value let me say I have read in numerous journals of the important effect upon the psychology of the axis peoples of such a report as the Beveridge report. You see, the democracies are held up all over the axis dominated countries as bloated plutocracies. We have no great access to the people under the German heel, and propaganda goes out steadily that with a victory by the axis a new order is possible which will be sort of new heaven and new earth, a brave new world, but that with a victory for the bloated plutocracies, miscalled democracies, there is no hope of change. Therefore journalists are

almost unanimous in saying that there is a real psychological value in what I might term, to coin a word, "Beveridgism" now, in these very days.
There is a great value, too, in our own country right at the present time. We are concerned here, above all else, in maintaining the morale of our people. As long as the morale of Anglo-Saxondom does not crack, there is no question about the result of our efforts. That has always been clear; and, of course, there never has been any danger of the morale of Anglo-Saxondom cracking. One of the ways of keeping up our morale is to let our people understand that although we are down in the valley to-day it is absolutely certain, as Lloyd George said some years ago, that we shall again see the sunlight on the hills, and stronger, more beneficent sunlight than before. Accordingly I say that for the purpose of maintaining morale the institution of social security legislation is of the highest importance.
To follow that up for a moment, let me quote from a bank letter which came to me, giving a description of the Beveridge report. This is how it is described:
Quoting social surveys as authority, the report states that from three-quarters to five-sixths of all want results from interruption or loss of earning power, due to such emergencies and vicissitudes as unemployment, sickness, and old age. Practically all of the remaining want is due to income being too small in relation to size of the family. The Beveridge plan aims to provide benefits and allowances adequate to maintain at least a subsistence standard of living under such conditions.
That is the bank's description of what I believe we propose to see instituted in this country. With such information abroad in Germany as to the sort of thing that Britain is now doing, I wonder how Doctor Goebbels can explain to his people that under the regime of the bloated plutocracies, as he would call them, or as they are more properly called, the decent democracies, far-reaching changes are impossible. When they come to know about a Beveridge report in Britain and other social security plans in other countries, the people of the axis countries will realize the untruthfulness of all that has been told them. Therefore the present value of social security plans, both here in Canada because of morale, and abroad because it breaks down lying propaganda, can be appreciated.
We are referring the subject of social security to a committee. It will go to the committee; the question will be well considered; there is a wealth of material for it; and the result of the deliberations of that committee, indeed the mere fact of its being appointed,

The Address-Mr. Maybank
will be enheartening to all Canada. But what I wish to urge to-day as a practical measure is that justice in respect of old age pensions should be done now, without waiting for any committee. There is a great deal of study necessary of a subject like health insurance; its ramifications are very great, particularly in a federal country such as ours. Contributory systems in respect of a general plan of old age pensions warrant a great deal of study, and there is sound reason for its reference to a committee. Similarly with other social service measures. There are constitutional as well as financial problems involved; in fact I believe the constitutional problems may be the greater. But as to the justice of increasing the old age pension and lowering the age at which it may be paid there can be no question whatever and no need of further study; now is the appointed time to institute that reform. The need is, of course, great. The measure under which old age pensions have been paid was introduced in 1926. I do not know the exact year when the first agreement with a province was made. I suppose it was a year or two after the bill was passed. My recollection is that British Columbia was the first.


Thomas Reid: Right.


Ralph Maybank: I thank my hon. friend- and that Manitoba was the second to take advantage of the new act, though I may be wrong about that; evidently I am not wrong in regard to British Columbia.
Well, I was saying that the need is very great. Now, to be quite honest about it, if one looks at the index of wholesale prices from 1926 onward it will be seen that there has been nothing in the nature of a price rise. Perhaps wholesale prices for foods are not an accurate or sufficient guide to determine the cost of living. I think it will be agreed that they are a pretty fair indication of price tendencies over a period of time, although at any given time they will not be an exact measure of the cost of living. I glance at the latest publication which comes to me from the Bank of Canada, and I note under the heading of "wholesale prices" that in 1926, when the Old Age Pensions Act came into force, food prices stood at the index figure of 100, and that it so remained until 1929. And now I let my eyes travel down the page to the end of 1942. In that year the index figure is not any higher; in fact it is a couple of points lower, namely 98-3. So that there is a fair case to be made out, if oue looks only at that much, for the proposition that living costs have not increased over the period since the act came
into force. However, I think one should look at the period in between in order to get a proper picture of the situation. During most of the period from 1926 onward, prices which made up the chief living costs to old age pensioners were very much lower than they are to-day. It is true that prior to 1929 there was no change, but thereafter the change downward was very rapid. In 1937, for instance, the figure is 81; and 77 is the index figure of the next year. The lowest point appears to have been reached in 1932, when it was 61-5. In other words, in 1932 the old age pensioner could buy for 61 cents what to-day costs him 98 cents. Over most of the period during which old age pensions have been paid, living costs have undoubtedly been very much less than they are now.
I have referred only to foods, for the reason that a man or woman receiving only twenty dollars a month spends almost all of it on food; indeed very little money can be allowed for anything else. When one estimates living costs for people on such an extremely small income, one should think principally of food.


Thomas Reid: And the majority have not twenty dollars a month.


Ralph Maybank: That is true. A considerable number do not receive so much; but I believe in the generality of cases where the pension is less, it is so because they have some small income from some other source. In other words, the fact of having some small income is what usually reduces the pension allowance below twenty dollars. It is not always so, but it happens very often. At any rate we can be sure of this, that whether a person's pension is $14 a month because he has another income, or whether it is $20 a month because he has not another income, no old age pensioner has very much, and none has as much as he should have in these difficult times.
There is another reason why these people are in difficulties to-day. Some of them have relied upon and have received help from sons or daughters or other members of the family. But as every person knows, under the difficulties which everyone is experiencing today, people who have been accustomed to support others are less able to do so to-day than they were some years ago. It is not an answer to that statement to say that wages were never higher than they are now. True, the totality of income was never so great, but the Minister of Finance quite properly exacts a very great part of the increased income. In fact there are very many young married people to-day whose income as they write it down in the first instance is fairly large and
The Address-Mr. Maybank


Thomas Vien: I have to inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


Ralph Maybank: May I request the indulgence of the house for just a few minutes?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Ralph Maybank: I wish to add only that it seems to me that in a democracy governments should be responsive to public opinion. I would not advocate that government should answer to every wind and every cross-wind that blows, but it is the essence of democracy that government should be responsive to steady and uniform public opinion. I submit that public opinion with respect to this matter is steady and uniform in support of the proposal I have made this afternoon. I am sure all hon. members know that there have been
FEBRUARY 12, 1943	3&
The Address-Mr. Stirling
circulated practically everywhere in Canada petitions in favour of a reform such as I have advocated. They have been widely signed. As far as Winnipeg is concerned I do not think there was a church or institution of any kind but had these petitions there and people never walked by without signing them, unless of course they had signed before. People did not pass them up; they were largely signed.
Then if we look at the press, it is I believe uniformly in favour of this reform and in favour of it at this time; not at some future time; but right now. To be in line with public opinion as reflected in the press it appears to me that it is the government's duty to improve the lot of these pensioners now. Listen to or read the words that come from various pulpits all over Canada; preachers and priests have inveighed against the treatment that the old-age pensioners have been getting, and have advocated an improvement in that regard.
I would not have anyone think that we are treating our aged people as the Eskimos treat theirs, where they keep them as long as they have teeth for the purpose of chewing moccasins to keep them soft, and when finally they have no teeth left, they are driven out into the cold as being no longer of any use to the tribe. But we are not doing that which we should do and which we can do. It is true to say at least that "chill penury" does repress the "noble rage" of our people, to borrow words from a poet. Life is dull and drab and mean for these people. It is not in our favour; it is not something of which we should be proud, that in this day when this reform is so badly needed we hold it back for reference to any committee or for any other purpose. The time when we should do justice to our elderly people in our own country is now, without reference to any committee whatsoever.
I thank you, sir, and the house for the indulgence granted me.


Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Yale):: Mr. Speaker, I gladly subscribe to the expressions of congratulation which have been extended by most of the hon. members who have preceded me to those two honourable and gallant members of this house, to use the phraseology of Westminster, who were chosen by the government to move and second the motion for an address in reply to the speech from the throne. When they made their speeches they wore the king's uniform, and I think it is true that in choosing those two hon. members for the task the government paid a tribute to the fighting services of which they are
members, and also did honour to the two hon. members themselves. I listened with unusual attention to what they said, because it appears to me that such men must of necessity have their sayings brightened by the breadth of their experience, they having offered themselves in this struggle on our behalf; and I feel sure that the whole house will wish them great success in what lies ahead.
Since the house last met, the party to which I belong has held a most important convention. It received the resignation of a leader; it chose his successor; it added a word to the name of the party, and it brought the policy of the party up to date in conformity with the trend of public opinion throughout the world. It is not unusual that the Conservative party should thus review its policy from time to time, because a study of history will, I think, show all people with open minds that in the past it has been the Conservative party that has marched along the road of progress in this country. In choosing our new leader we have selected a man who has not been closely associated in the past with any political party. He is a man of vision, a man not given to phraseology or to evasion. What he says he means; what he means he says, and I believe he is understood by the common people. Perhaps he subscribes to the view which I have held for a considerable time with regard to partisanship. Under our democratic system of government a political party is a most valuable instrument, and as long as it is used as an instrument and kept in the position of a servant it is not only useful but almost a necessity in our form of government. But it must never become the master, for if it does it has a sway which is so dominating that it has an evil effect upon the policies adopted by the party. It will not be at all difficult for me to give allegiance to our new leader, and I note with considerable interest the acclaim with which his choice has been received throughout Canada among those who subscribe to the party to which I belong.
The amendment which we of the official opposition have drawn to the attention of the house is threefold. It deals with man-power, with the policy in regard to labour, and with agriculture. We maintain that criticism is due the government on account of the lack of success attending their efforts in these three directions. Labour is the thread that runs . through all three, and we certainly have not arrived at that degree of success which we had anticipated after the national selective service scheme was put into operation. There is in this country a given quantity of labour available for the many purposes to which it must
The Address-Mr. Stirling

be put. But under national selective service labour has not found its way under proper allocation into these various channels. In the part of British Columbia from which I come the principal interest is agriculture in its most varied forms, and there is also mining. Along with both these industries, however, are the various secondary industries which attach themselves to any main industry; and in all these walks of life we have been looking on during a period of considerable difficulty as a result of lack of labour. It is common to all parts of Canada. It is a difficulty which must be foreseen and which has been foreseen, and it is a difficulty which must be met. In the first place it must be met by the ingenuity of those who are concerned in the industries using that labour, but over and above that, after they have used all the ingenuity within their power, there must be direction at the top or there will be failure.
With regard to matters other than the particular industries involved in this question, I should imagine that right across Canada, and certainly in British Columbia, a very grave difficulty exists at the present time in connection with the matter of fuel. The supply of coal has been intermittent. Coal, however, is not the principal fuel used by those whom I represent. They use wood in various forms, whether in cord-wood or in sawdust; and because during the past year or two those who customarily put in their winter cutting wood and storing it for future use have not been available for this work, such stores of fuel have become used up. Unfortunately, during the bitter weather we had recently, our people had to warm themselves and to cook with green lumber; and hon. members who have attempted to cook with green lumber will know the difficulties which have been experienced in almost every home in British Columbia. The situation is bad enough in the rural areas, but in the cities it has reached the point of endangering life. I do not suggest that this is a matter with regard to which the dominion government can just step in and provide a remedy, but what I do suggest is that the fuel administrator must go far more deeply into this question of the people's fuel in order that plans may be evolved which will overcome the difficulty; for we must not forget that if we have completely run out of dry fuel, next winter must be planned for long before next winter arrives.
I should like to draw to the attention of the house two matters, both either directly or indirectly concerning labour. In the south of the constituency of Yale and along the United States border is the country in which Douk-

hobors live, and they run over into the neighbouring riding of Kootenay West. As this house well knows, they have been a constant source of difficulty to governments in Canada. When the registration measure of 1940 was instituted, Doukhobors, of course, were subservient to it, as were all of us. Some of the Doukhobors filled in the necessary forms, while others did not. Those who did not were not permitted, under the terms of the registration, to hire themselves out for work, nor might anyone employ such unregistered persons. Throughout that southern country, however, where a great deal of lumbering is carried on, and where the contracts undertaken by the lumber operators have largely been government orders, there has been a considerable shortage of labour. There has been a tendency for the lumber mills to employ unregistered Doukhobors. This applies not only to the lumber mills, but to other industries including the section gangs of the transportation companies.
Obviously the law has not been enforced with regard to these unregistered Doukhobors, with the natural consequence that Canadian residents in those parts look upon this as unfair treatment of them and their sons. As a result of the registration their sons are called up; they go to training camps and carry out the duties of young Canadians. But the Doukhobors do not. Ever since their ancestors arrived in 1898, they have been treated differently. Although they have not been placed in training camps, they have not been used in any other work. This is resented all through the country in which the Doukhobors live.
Last summer I was speaking about the matter to a police officer, and he said, "Look at the position in which we are placed. If we go out and demand registration cards, taking action if they are not produced, we are informed by our senior officers that it would be advisable not to be too stiff. If we do not take action, then the public will say, 'You are not putting the Doukhobors under the penalties of the registration regulations, but you are bringing the same penalties to bear upon us and our sons'." Is it any wonder that strong resentment exists in that part of the country?
Late last summer I paid a visit to Grand Forks, and heard resentment expressed . wherever I went. I wrote the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) a letter describing what I had found and, on the basis of the statements of people I had met, I made the suggestion that the minister send an official of his department through that southern

The Address-Mr. Stirling
country to investigate on the minister's behalf, to hear what the inhabitants had to say, and to listen to any suggestions which responsible citizens who have been experiencing this trouble for a long time might make. I suggested that in that way the minister could inform himself at first hand from his official, and that a possible solution of the difficulty might be worked out. The minister was good enough to accept my suggestion and to say that such an official would be sent in. I wanted, not a commission, but rather a departmental official who could move around among the people, see conditions for himself, and listen to any suggestions.
We cannot go on year after year looking upon this Doukhobor question as something which cannot be solved. That would merely bring the law into disrepute. May I read two or three paragraphs from my letter to the minister:
Young Canadians by their age classes go to camp for military training and subsequent service. The Doukhobors do not. Is it any wonder that the inhabitants are angry or that the Doukhobors are laughing at us? Over the years my hope has been that time would solve the difficulty. I am sorry to say that the people in Grand Forks now tell me that the younger Doukhobors, with minds somewhat expanded, are taking the view that it is quite unnecessary to submit to regulation, because the government does not know what to do with them, and so it will continue to do nothing.
Then I made reference to the suggestion I have already outlined, namely, that an official be sent in to make inquiries on the spot. I concluded with this paragraph:
I am well aware that labour is short, that Doukhobors are employed, and that if they were discharged badly wanted produce would suffer. But the effect on the inhabitants of winking at breaches of the law by a Doukhobor, a law which is enforced on others, is very bad indeed.
A lumber operator said to me, "I must not employ unregistered Doukhobors; but if I see that my competitors are doing so, and if the section gangs on the railways use these men, what am I to do? I also have government contracts to fill." What he wanted, and what I request, is that the law be enforced on one as well as on the other; otherwise this Doukhobor question will go on, and become worse and worse.
The other question to which I should like to refer has to do with the Japanese. After the treachery of Japan, which precipitated us into war with that country, the anxiety on the Pacific coast and the danger of the situation induced the government to proclaim a protected area of varying width from the United States boundary to Alaska. The boundary of this area almost touches the southwest 72537-25
corner of the constituency of Yale which I have the honour to represent. We are therefore not in the protected area.
After the protected area had been so proclaimed, and after the government had intimated its policy of evacuating the Japanese from within that area, some of the Japanese did not wait to be evacuated, but trekked by day and night, by train and by car and, as soon as they crossed the line of delimitation, began to settle. My constituency was the first and possibly the most desirable piece of country in which they could settle, and as a result many of them stopped there.
Before this difficulty we had from 800 to 1,000 Japanese men, women and children who had been resident in. that area. I must say for them that they were good citizens and subscribed to the law. There was seldom any trouble from them, and they certainly worked. The houses and shacks of those inhabitants became the settling point of the Japanese trekking from the protected area. The result was that we saw many more oriental faces on the streets, in the stores, on the roads and in cars. They were not wanted immigrants. When the British Columbia security commission was first set up it appeared to be more interested in the evacuation of the Japanese from the protected area than in their destination. Strong protestations were made by those living to the east of that protected area that those Japanese must not be allowed to squat among them. Eventually the commission instituted a permit system, and without a permit a Japanese could not move from the protected area.
A committee was set up to cover the interior from Kamloops to the boundary, 200 miles away, whose purpose it was to reflect public opinion on this matter and deal with the security commission. The representations of the committee were not always received with evident pleasure by the commission, but they were received and in some instances they were * acted upon. When the labour difficulties of last year arose, when the thinning of the fruit, the weeding of vegetables and the eventual harvesting and picking were upon us, it was found to be extremely hard to save that valuable crop. But the inhabitants of the interior, both the farmers and the townfolk, worked admirably together, and there is nothing but praise to be said of those business men of the towns who closed their stores for one or two days a week in order that those working in the stores could go out and help the farmers with their harvest.
There were other districts, principally toward the northern end of the fruit and vegetable

The Address-Mr. Stirling

belt, where such help was not available, and despite the use of high school students and any labour that could be induced to come in from outside, there was an obvious shortage in prospect. Some of the larger growers appealed to the security commission to bring in Japanese for labour, but the commission took the view that they would not agree to do that unless the municipalities concerned would give their consent. Eventually the security committee, not the commission, voicing the opinion of the public from Kamloops to the line, arrived at this formula. A grower desiring Japanese labour would be permitted to receive at his own expense that labour if it came in under police supervision, if it remained under police supervision, if it was to be returned to the place whence it came and if it was male only. The commission agreed to a certain extent to allow the fruit growers of some areas to receive such help. When it arrived, some of it was sent back immediately because it did not prove amenable, it was damaging the fruit by throwing it about and did not show any desire to work honestly. But those who remained were of great assistance in harvesting the crop.
However, only certain fruit growers in certain areas were ready to adopt this means of saving their crop. Away to the south, and dotted through the whole area, were those who would not agree on any terms whatever to more Japanese being brought into the district. Why was that? I feel certain it was because these people had a longer vision. They saw that if Japanese came into that area and settled, the tendency would be for more and more to come in; they had not forgotten the experience of people in other parts of the world, especially in the fruit valleys of California and, to a lesser extent, in the lower mainland of our own province of British Columbia, and they would not consent to these people coming in.
I would remind the house that for many years there has been a provincial government prohibition of the use of orientals in logging from crown lands as well as in connection with government contracts taken by sawmill operators. Why did the provincial government take that line, and why have they maintained it? I think it is because they had a longer vision of the result of scattering Japanese and other orientals through the interior country. Recently the dominion government approached the provincial government at Victoria to ascertain whether they would remove that prohibition because of the war and allow Japanese labour to be used in logging camps. The provincial government has declined to remove the prohibition, although it recognizes that under the
'Mr. Stirling.]
War Measures Act the dominion government could, if it chose, override this prohibition. Even with the difficulty of obtaining labour the provincial government has not seen fit to raise this prohibition.
The commission's task was not an easy one because they had to find destinations and, as far as possible, occupations for some 24,000 Japanese. These Japanese were distributed through the interior of British Columbia in road camps and other places and, besides that, agreements were entered into with Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario to receive a certain number for work of specified description. I think 2,500 went to Alberta, 1,000 to Manitoba and some 500 to Ontario. These were moved under provincial government agreements, and in addition there were smaller numbers who went to particular industries in the other provinces. I would direct the attention of the house to the fact that each of these provincial agreements contained a clause under which the dominion government must arrange to remove these Japanese from these provinces after the war, should that desire be expressed. From the utterances of the public men of Canada I have no doubt whatever that that desire will be so ' expressed. Therefore the dominion government will be under contract to remove these Japanese.
The question that many people in British Columbia are asking themselves to-day is: To what place will these Japanese be removed? It must be remembered that the fishing boats of the Japanese who used to fish on the Pacific coast have been sold by the custodian of enemy property. It must also be remembered that business premises of Japanese firms which were located in the cities on the coast and in the rural parts of the province are being disposed of. I do not think it will be thought for a moment by anyone who knows anything about the feeling of the British Columbia people on this oriental question that Japanese will be received in any part of British Columbia with anything like equanimity.
I ask the government if it does not see fit to proclaim a policy in regard to this matter and allay public opinion. I emphasize the fact that this oriental question has been debated in this house year after year for a quarter of a century. Twenty years ago it was an annual event. British Columbia considered that this was a question of greater magnitude than a provincial matter, and I was shocked last year when a minister of this government referred to it as a provincial question, as a British Columbia question, and made the statement that we in the original years of their intrusion asked them to come.

The Address-Mr. Ross (Calgary)
The opinion was faulty and the statement of fact was inaccurate. We never asked them to come. Forty years ago or thereabouts the Japanese government removed the prohibition which had existed until then upon emigration. In those days the Japanese might not leave Japan, but the Japanese government removed that prohibition. From then on. the Japanese started to come into British Columbia in, a trickle which grew into a stream. They came, but we never asked them. Although to-day we employ some of them as labour and some find their vocation in contracts with farmers for garden truck, the great majority of them are not working for wages but have set themselves up in business premises or on farms where they are their own masters. I raise this question in this house for this definite purpose, that British Columbia considers that it has long enough been allowed to carry this burden alone. The conditions of entanglement which existed in the earlier years of this century on account of the Anglo-Japanese alliance have now ended. The treachery of the Japanese has shown to us that we cannot look behind that oriental face and realize with any certainty where their patriotism lies. Have they given up their patriotism? Have they given up their original nationality? We do not know; we shall never know.
I draw further attention to this fact, that the many who have been born in Canada, and who in accordance with our law may be described as Canadian subjects, have in many instances been the more cnfficult to work with and to handle under these circumstances than have been the nationals. The really bad actors were interned immediately, but many of those men of whom nothing evil was known have been placed in camps or have been sent out under the schemes to which I have referred or have found occupation of some sort. The matter has been handled and is settled perhaps for the present. But it is the future we are thinking of, and I ask the government if it will not see fit to proclaim its policy with regard to the future, because I warn the government that if after this war comes to an end these people are allowed to -roam in British Columbia there will be trouble enough for the government.


Mr. G. H. ROSS (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to take part in this debate until I heard the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) announce a few days ago that the budget would be brought down in the course of two or three weeks. It then occurred to me that if any member had any injustices or grievances which he wished to bring to the attention of the Minister of Finance, it would 72537-251
be an opportune time to do so while he is considering his budget.
There are two matters in particular which I wish to bring to the attention of the minister. One is the excessive taxes which are imposed under the Income War Tax Act upon commissioned officers while they remain in Canada. I conceive it to be the duty of a member of this house to inform himself of any injustices under which the active forces may be labouring and to do what he can to adjust them. I suggest that for this reason. The forces have a right to complain to their commanding officers of any injustice, but they have no right, as they understand the situation, to complain to a member of this house. Their commanding officers cannot do anything toward redressing the grievance of which I am speaking, and for that reason I think it is our duty to be on the alert to bring grievances of this kind to the attention of the house.
Prior to 1940 all soldiers were taxed on their income and allowances, but in 1940 the act was amended to exempt non-commissioned officers and all other ranks in all forces from the income tax. Commissioned officers were also exempted as long as they were serving overseas, but commissioned officers serving in Canada were required under the act as then amended to pay full income tax. At the last session of the house I directed the attention of the minister and of the house to this matter because I thought it worked an injustice particularly on the lower paid officers. I pointed out at that time that these commissioned officers volunteered for service anywhere in the world, that they were ready, willing and anxious, indeed preferred, to go overseas, and yet they were heavily taxed simply because they were kept in Canada. The minister at that time promised to do something for these men. He did something for them, a little, not very much. I submit that he should have done a great deal more, and I hope that now something more will be done in this respect.
Let us consider the circumstances. A warrant officer, class 1, grade A, is not taxed. His income is $150.56 a month. The net income of a captain, a higher officer, while he is serving in Canada is only S133.67. The net income of a lieutenant is $108.58; of a second lieutenant, S96.97. A warrant officer, lower in rank than a second lieutenant, nevertheless draws $53.59 more pay after taxation is deducted, and he draws $41.98 a month more than a lieutenant, $16.89 more than a captain, and within $3.46 of the pay of a major. A staff-sergeant also receives more than a lieutenant after the tax has been deducted from the latter's pay. I am not suggesting that the

The Address-Mr. Ross (Calgary)
warrant officer or the staff-sergeant is paid too much. They are not paid too much, nor do I quarrel with the pay that is being given to a lieutenant, a second lieutenant, a captain or a major. What I do object to is that the government is paying these higher ranks more pay with one hand and then taking it away in taxes with the other. We boast that our army is the best paid, the best clothed, the best housed and the best fed army in the world. But what is the advantage in paying these commissioned officers well while they are in Canada if we take a large part of it away in taxes? The commissioned officers are taxed so highly that there is no inducement for a noncommissioned officer to seek promotion. There is no inducement for a man to rise from the ranks to the position of commissioned officer. That should not be the situation. As it is now, if he is promoted he must live on so much less.
There are other perquisites given to noncommissioned officers and others in the ranks to which the commissioned officer is not entitled. The commissioned officer must pay for his own clothing and equipment, except that when he is appointed to a commission he is allowed $150 with which to buy clothing and equipment. But it takes another $150 to $250 from his own pocket in order to buy all the necessary equipment, and he must also pay $75 to $100 a year for replacements, and another $75 a year or thereabouts for extra messing costs. These outgoings are in addition to what a non-commissioned officer or a private is required to pay.
But that is not all. The dependent's board of trustees provide special assistance to dependents of men serving in the Canadian navy, army or air force. I quote from their circular, August, 1942:
What kind of assistance?
Financial-over and above what is already received under the existing marriage or dependents' allowance regulations. . . .
Who are eligible for financial assistance?
Dependents of members of the Canadian armed forces below the rank of warrant officer class I who are in receipt of marriage or dependents' allowance and who are in special or urgent need.
These concessions do not inure to the benefit of commissioned officers.
So far I have discussed only the position of the single man with no dependents. A married man is in a much worse position. A considerable portion of his pay must 'be assigned to his wife and family for their maintenance and support. As long as he is
[Mr! G. H. Rosa.]
living in Canada he likes to have a home near where he is stationed, so that he may occasionally visit his wife and family. If he is about to be sent overseas he likes to get home during his embarkation leave, and if his family are not located near him it is very difficult for him, on his small pay, to raise the necessary money. In 1940 railway rates were such that a soldier returning home on leave could make the return trip for single fare. I regarded the charge as excessive, and on November 7, 1940, I brought the matter to the attention of the minister and of this house, and urged that concessions in the way of railway rates should be made to men in the armed forces while on leave, particularly embarkation leave. A good deal has been done in that respect, but even with the small rates which are exacted to-day it is very difficult for a commissioned officer stationed, say, at Halifax to return to Calgary on embarkation leave; the pay is so meagre that he can scarcely afford to do it.
There is another matter to which I wish to refer. When he is discharged from the army he receives a cheque for a month's pay. That is all very well, but at the same time he is told that he owes the government eight months' arrears of income tax. That is not a happy prospect for the commissioned officer. The private has no such obligation. It is not just that the officer should be subject to this requirement, and I suggest that it is a condition which should be remedied.
Furthermore, a commissioned officer is held responsible for all equipment and supplies entrusted to his command. The private has no such worries.
I hope the minister will give this matter careful consideration and do something to relieve the situation.
On motion of Mr. Ross (Calgary East) the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the
house adjourned at six p.m.
Monday, February 15, 1943