CIVIL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. FRASER (Peterborough West):: I would like to ask the Minister of Munitions and Supply why work has not been rushed on the women's hostel in Ottawa. This morning's Ottawa Journal says:
Certainly no construction records are being broken in this project, which was launched by the government last summer, many months after the urgent need for such a hostel had been apparent to everybody else.


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: I will refer that inquiry to the Minister of Public Works.


Hon. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Minister of Public Works):: If my hon. friend will let his question stand as a notice, I will give an answer to-morrow.


Mr. LOCKHART:: May I ask that the Minister of Public Works, in replying to the specific question of the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser), include any recommendations that may have been made with respect to hostel accommodation at other points-that is, make a general report so as to cover the whole matter?


Alphonse Fournier: The only hostel coming within the jurisdiction of the Department of Public Works is the hostel in Ottawa. The others were put up by the Department of Munitions and Supply.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Then may I ask that that information, whether obtained from the Department of Munitions and Supply or elsewhere, be included at the time the report is made?



SOCLAL SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: I would ask the Prime Minister a question of which I have given him notice. Would he be good enough to consider, in connection with social security and the Beveridge report, following the practice of the mother of parliaments, where a committee was appointed but where they had a two-days' debate in the house before the committee met? On the govern-

Social Security
ment benches here there are splendid men who have come up from the municipalities and who are well qualified to discuss this question. I think it would be well to do what was done in Great Britain and give members of the house an opportunity to express their opinions in a non-political debate which might form a chart for the course to be taken by the committee.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, my hon.
friend sent me a communication indicating that he intended raising this question. I must say that the more I have considered it the more I feel that it would not be advisable to act upon the suggestion of my hon. friend to have a debate upon the Beveridge report in this house before the matter of social security is referred to a special committee. My hon. friend has just said that the mother of parliaments has followed a certain course. That course, as I take it, was to discuss at Westminster a report which related to the conditions in the United Kingdom. That would be quite proper. But the Beveridge report does not relate, except so far as general principles are involved, to conditions as they exist in this country. In Great Britain most of the matters which are referred to in the Beveridge report come before only one government. In Canada social security is a matter controlled in part by the federal government, in part by the provincial governments. I think it would be wholly advisable that a committee of this house should have the opportunity of considering that aspect of the broad question of social security before we begin a debate on any one particular report.
May I draw my hon. friend's attention to the fact that, in the notice I have given for the appointment of a committee on social security, I expressly request the house to permit the committee to examine and study social insurance policies of other countries. Social insurance policies of other countries will include the Beveridge report. I would think it would be preferable that a discussion of the Beveridge report, so far as it is desirable to have it in this house, would come after members of the committee had had an opportunity of familiarizing themselves with the report.
But there is an even stronger objection to proceeding along the lines which my hon. friend has indicated. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) is anxious to proceed as soon as may be possible with the war appropriation for the coming year. The minister is also anxious to place before the
country, as soon as he can, the budget, so that the people of Canada may have an appreciation of what is involved in the recommendations which the minister will have later to make to the house with respect to the ways and means of raising the revenues required. To proceed with a debate on the Beveridge report before these all-important war measures-because the budget will be that in considerable part as well-are considered by the house would, I think, place an entirely wrong emphasis on the importance of the matters which should be considered at this time, or first of all in this parliament.
I want to take advantage of this moment to say to my hon. friend and to the house-
I said it before, and I wish to repeat iU- that there is a great danger of hon. members of the house and of people throughout the country getting the impression that this war is going to be won in the course of this year, and that what we have most to be concerned about at the present time is what is going to happen after the war, rather than before the war itself is won.
I do not believe it is possible to emphasize too strongly with respect to the progress of the war, the serious situation which exists at this moment, and which lies ahead. As yet there has been no invasion of Europe by armed forces of the allied powers, and up to now Germany continues to control the countries which she has already conquered. She is being driven back at the present time by Russia; but apart from that, the whole problem of the war, as to when and how the axis powers are to be defeated, still remains something which is completely unsolved. It is going to take all the efforts that all the allied powers can make to win the war in the course of a very considerable time. I believe that the more we impress that upon the people of this country, the better it will be for the good of all. If this house begins to take up at the beginning of a session discussions of a post-war matter, before we have even had an opportunity to discuss our war measures, I am sure we would be setting a wholly false example and would be conveying a wholly wrong impression to the country.


Thomas Langton Church: The only thing I would say is that probably the select committee will [DOT] not present its report until the dying hours of the session-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh, no; there is every desire-


Thomas Langton Church: -and no action will be taken this session, as happened last session with some of these select committees.
The Address-Mr. Blanchette


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sure
the committee will use all the expedition possible. The committee will be appointed within the course of another few days. I think there is every reason to believe that its report will be made in time for a discussion of the matter at this session.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, February 17, 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. J. A. BLANCHETTE (Compton):: In taking part in this debate at this late stage, my intention is not to take up the time of the house except to make comments which I feel it is my duty to make upon two or three points only.
I shall attempt to be as brief as possible in dealing with three summary outlines, namely, the matter of controls, man-power as affecting agriculture and lumbering, and the social legislation proposed, in comparison to what some of the other countries have already done along this line.
There is no doubt that the various controls which we have set up have been severely criticized by the press and the people of this country, the intensity of this criticism being at times directly proportionate to the curbing of our activities in a given field, industrial, commercial, or again in our habits of life.
We have been so long accustomed to doing things in a democratic way that we resent being told what to do and what not to do. However, no government, not even one which perchance my hon. friend the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Graydon) might lead, could successfully carry out the activities looking to the winning of this war, unless these various controls were resorted to. There is no country at war to-day that has not these controls in its legislation, so that, after all, we Canadians are just doing what every other country is doing to win the war. The men placed at the head of these control boards are for the most part leaders in their respective fields, and I believe that if all of us would be prone to cooperate with them rather than to criticize them, and if we had in view not the one field of a given control as a perspective, but rather, the wider perspective of the whole war picture, perhaps

we would then be contributing a certain unconscious war effort which we at present are not doing.
Perhaps one of the reasons why Canadians have not taken well to some phases of this control is that they have not been sufficiently informed of the reasons why controls of this and that have been established, and perhaps the publicity divisions of our various departments have not explained as fully as they should have done the whys and wherefores for this or that commodity being controlled. Again, some of the newspapers of the country have made a point of criticizing, perhaps too harshly, some of these rationings. I know that there is an enormous difference in the way that these controls are accepted by Canadians and Americans. Living near the border states of New Hampshire, Maine and Vermont, I have occasion to go to border towns quite often throughout the year, and a thought that strikes me on each of my trips thereto is that the Americans, once the government establishes a control or rationing, hardly offer any further criticism. There is hardly any more criticism of that control or rationing by the residents.
To mention one instance of the criticism of rationing, a criticism which we have heard in this house since the beginning, take butter. It might be interesting to know that the present fat ration per capita in Canada is, roughly speaking, 41 pounds per year, consisting of a butter ration of 26 pounds and 15 pounds of other fats. The United States has at present a fat ration of 41 pounds also, but it consists of 17 pounds only of butter, and 24 pounds of other fats. Great Britain has a ration in fats of 26 pounds only, consisting of 6i pounds of butter per year and 13 pounds of vegetable fats, with 6^ pounds of cooking fats. So that after all, although there is a rationing of butter here, our 26 pounds per year per capita is much more than the 17 pounds per year which the American receives, and greater by four times than the 6| pounds which the Briton is getting on his table every year.
There is a further thought which I should like to give to the house and the country. On the first of January last, the total butter stock on hand in the United States was
42.000. 000 pounds for a population of
130.000.	000. We in Canada had in our warehouses at the same time 22,000,000 pounds for a population of roughly a little over
11.000. 000. In spite of the fact that the United States had only a butter reserve of
42.000.	000 pounds on the first of January last, towards the end of 1942 the United States

The Address-Mr. Blanchette
sent 17,000,000 pounds to relieve conditions in Russia, leaving only 25,000,000 pounds of butter to feed a population of 130,000,000. Here is a blunt fact that we should keep in mind when we attempt to criticize too severely the butter rationing of this country.
Of course the Americans have oleomargarine which they can fall back on, and there has been some agitation in this country, in the press and elsewhere, that we too in Canada should have recourse to oleomargarine to supplement our butter ration. If we do this, then there are only two places where we can get the vegetable oil needed for it, and that is the United States and Great Britain; and once the facts are known, and when we take into consideration also our present Canadian fat allotment of 41 pounds, the same as the allotment in the United States, is there any organization, governmental, commercial or individual, that would have the courage to go to the United States and ask for a share of their vegetable oil, in order that we in Canada might make oleomargarine also? Is there any one in this country who would like to ask Great Britain for a portion of their vegetable oil, with their total quota of 26 pounds of fat, in order that we in Canada might be able to increase our total fats above the 41 pounds which we get at present? I believe, however, that it may be possible for us in Canada to increase our butter production if the wartime prices and trade board would encourage the dairy farmers to produce butter on a larger scale than in the past.
We have heard and are still going to hear a great deal about man-powrer, and I intend to deal with the question as it affects agriculture and lumbering respectively. All the members of this house and the press of the country as well as farming organizations in Canada recognize that there is a shortage of men on the farms. That fact is patent to all who are well versed in the situation, and this beyond any fear or hope of contradiction. If this shortage of man-power on the farms continues, there is no question but that our war effort will be greatly hampered in producing quotas set for the coming year. Agriculture is a primary war industry, equal in importance to the making of munitions and other weapons and engines of war. One is the complement of the other. No country can win a war with munitions alone; both food and munitions are needed for victory.
I have seen it stated editorially in Le Soleil that to-day some 25,000 agricultural workers are in the military camps, and surely these should be returned to the farm, where they belong, in order that the ranks of agricultural workers may be replenished. Recent directions given by the national selective service to the mobilization boards with reference to agricultural workers will greatly help, I hope, not only to maintain on the farms those who remain there, but also to bring back to the farms those who have been taken from them.
In connection with the man-power question, again, some criticism has been made about the permits granted to lumbermen to work across the American border. True it is that last spring some 7,500 men were allowed to go to the United States to work in the lumber-camps near the border, but these permits were gradually cut down periodically. At the time the first permits were granted there was not the shortage of men in the lumber camps that developed later on in the season. Some of the lumber operations to be completed go in cycles, spring and summer, fall and winter, and once we had granted a permit in the spring, it was only logical, as I see it, and in the spirit of the good neighbour, that we should allow these men in limited numbers thereafter, if you wish, to continue to have access to the American lumber camps to complete the lumbering operations in order that the timber cut in the spring and summer would not have to remain and rot in the woods.
Furthermore these men brought badly needed United States exchange to this country, and this on a rather larger scale, since some of the men received $10 to $12 a day for their labour across the border.
I was glad to hear the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) say the other day that the war labour boards had reconsidered 8,500 cases for increase of wages and that as a result 385,000 workers had received in added salary a total of $3,250,000 per month or an annual increase of some $40,000,000. I suggest to him along the same lines a revision of pay for the lumbermen, who are receiving far less than they should. Not everyone can be improvised into a lumberman; it is a trade in itself, one of the most essential in our war effort as well as in peace time, particularly in the reconstruction period to follow the war. All who are cognizant of the situation believe that these men should be paid more for their work. In the province of Quebec I believe the basic rate is $52 a month. Immediately this rate is stated we ask ourselves whether we are doing justice to workers of this class, whose work is seasonal and at times demands endurance of hard conditions of living and hazards and requires courage and skill which should be much better remunerated. And at the same time might it not be advisable to inquire into the price that is being paid for pulp^ in Canada-$13 or $14 for peeled pulp, as compared with $18 and $19 in United

The Address-Mr. Blanchette

States funds for the same product at some of the United States mills of the same hauling distance?
So far as my section is concerned some of these lumber cutting operations consisted in the cutting of veneer logs in the virgin forests, for manufacture of veneers so greatly needed by Great Britain for aircraft production. In allowing these men to cross the border for veneer cutting it was not so much a case of Canada helping the United States as it was the other way round, that the United States were favouring Canada in allowing A-l veneer logs to be cut by Canadians, hauled to Canada, processed in Canadian mills and sent to Britain where there is such dire need for this material. We are receiving neighbourly treatment from the United States in some phases of our war effort, and, as the Minister of Labour put it, we must give some consideration for the favours which we receive.
I have previously stated that some 25,000 agricultural workers are in military camps. I believe that the shortage of men in lumber camps in 1942 was occasioned more by their being called for military service than by the permits granted to work in the lumber camps of the United States. So far as our district of the eastern townships is concerned, when one says agricultural workers one says at the same time labourers for the forests, because these occupations go hand in hand. I have been wondering at times whether it would not be advisable to form a civilian forestry corps composed of workers on the farms, who could very well be employed in the lumber camps during the less active season on the farms. This would at least greatly relieve the shortage of men in the lumber camps.
I now wish to touch upon the matter of social legislation, referred to in' the speech from the throne. I would commend the government in that regard. This government is proceeding in its social legislation in the same manner as the British parliament is approaching the matter, and also to a certain extent the United States government, in that first of all a committee is to be set up to study the measures proposed, after which parliament will be duly seized of the subject and prepared to implement the committee's recommendations. No more far-reaching effect upon this country for many years to come can be had than by the thoroughness and sincerity and activity which the committee created to study this question shall put into its work and agenda and deliberations.
Social legislation is always the most important legislation, and especially is it important at this stage when principles of a

new order have been predicated by the leaders of practically all democratic countries. On June 10, 1941, Right Hon. Arthur Greenwood, minister without portfolio in the British government, announced in the House of Commons that he had arranged with all departments concerned for a comprehensive survey of existing schemes of social insurance and allied services which would be considered in due course by the committee on reconstruction problems of which he was chairman, and that Sir William Beveridge had accepted his invitation to become chairman of an interdepartmental committee which would conduct the survey, giving consideration to representations from representative organizations and persons connected wfith the problem involved.
This report was submitted on November 20, 1942. Social security-the expression used in the Beveridge report-means assurance of a certain income. The plan for social security set out in the report is a plan to win freedom from want by maintaining incomes. But sufficiency of income is not sufficient of itself; freedom from want is only one of the essential freedoms of mankind, and any plan for social security in the narrow sense assumes a concerted social policy in many fields. The plan proposed involves three particular assumptions, namely:	(1) children's allowances; (2) comprehensive health and rehabilitation services; (3) maintenance of employment.
Last session it was my privilege to introduce in this house a resolution based on the principle of family allowances. Like other resolutions of private members it was not called for debate in the house, but it was discussed in some sections of the country and in the press. One of our local papers in an editorial summed up their view in the phrase, "Where is the money to come from?"
At present we are fighting a war unprecedented in the history of the world. Let us make no mistake; we must have recourse to reconstruction, rehabilitation and social reform in a like unprecedented manner after the war. We are spending fabulous sums of money to kill; we must find1 hereafter vast sums to live and let live after the war. The people of the democratic countries are fighting for this very thing at the moment, and will expect nothing less after the war.
In my humble opinion, outstanding as the very keystone of social legislation and reform is the matter of family allowances. This principle was recognized by the British parliament on June 23 last, when the following resolution was proposed and agreed to:

The Address-Mr. White
Resolved, that this house, having regard to the supreme importance of further safeguarding the health and well-being of the rising generation, commends for the immediate consideration of the government the institution of a national scheme of allowances for dependent children as an important contribution to this vital object.
The British House of Commons therefore has recognized that parenthood is both a privilege to the individual and a service to the state.
The case for family allowances rests on the necessity of dealing with three aspects of our national life: first, that we already are within sight of the beginning of a decline in our population; second, that the greatest single factor in poverty is the size of the family; third, the power of the home market to consume the products of industry in the post-war period. When one comes to consider the cost of family allowances it is essential to consider also what will be the cost of going without family allowances. It is not only good social ethics, but looking at it on a lower plane, if you will, it is good business to pay family allowances as has been recommended in the memorandum on reconstruction issued by the Federation of British Industries. A scheme of family allowances is the most efficient single method so far suggested for dealing with social security and poverty, mentioned in the Atlantic charter; by its very nature it offers a master key to social security. Let us not be alarmed by its cost after the war. As a result of the great inventiveness called forth by the war our productive capacity will probably increase rather than diminish when the war is over; for there is a continual increase in the wealth of the country, and it will be frustrated only if we allow men to rot in idleness instead of being absorbed in productive work and in the reconstruction which will be our task after the war.
Should such a scheme be favourably looked upon by the government, and I do not see why it should not, having regard to the favourable outlook in some other countries, I believe we shall be taking a proper step in the right direction of social legislation. By this single measure of family allowances we can solve the most complicated problems of social security and at the same time help along some of the other freedoms which will be the major problems of all governments in the post-war period. Our valiant soldiers are fighting, along with those of our allies, for freedom for themselves and their loved ones, and at the same time for a bill of rights for their children which might be stated as follows: first, the right to healthy childhood; second, the right to education; third, the right to
72537-33J
understand and observe his religious and national heritage; finally, the right to grow up in a world free from the fear of unemployment, insecurity and war.


Mr. G. S. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join with many of the previous speakers in this debate who have expressed great satisfaction and pleasure in the turn of the tide in the fortunes of the allied nations, in that they are now passing from the defensive and assuming the offensive. I should like also to compliment the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Booth) on his able and instructive address, which was listened to with great interest by all hon. members, in which he dealt with the work, training and activities of the Canadian troops overseas. In the course of his remarks he paid a fitting and proper tribute to the high esteem in which the officers and men of the Canadian corps are held in Great Britain.
I should like to join also in the regret expressed by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) that there was no mention in the speech from the throne of the heroism and sacrifice of the Canadian boys who went through the Dieppe engagement. In his remarks during the course of this debate the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) stated that in his opinion proper tribute had not been paid in this house to the Canadian boys who fought at Hong Kong. While we in this house may have our differences of opinion as to the sufficiency of the training and equipment of the boys who went to Hong Kong; while there may be some differences of opinion with regard to the Dieppe affair, I am sure there will be no question of division among the people of Canada as to the fighting qualities of and the magnificent battle put up by our boys both at Hong Kong and at Dieppe. These two names will long be remembered in Canada. When one considers the almost impossible odds against which our boys battled at Hong Kong; when one considers the enemy, vastly superior in numbers, highly trained and. fully equipped, one can ' only feel a great thrill of pride at the achievements of the Canadian boys, followed by a grim resolve that those boys must and will be avenged. And who among us here can picture the beachhead at Dieppe on that summer morning when the Canadian troops stormed ashore against the hail of death that was hurled upon them? Yet all the press dispatches and articles written by men who were there indicate that not a single man faltered in his task. The boys who made up those contingents at Dieppe and Hong Kong came from communities right across this
The Address-Mr. White

whole dominion, and I am sure that tomorrow, when the historian records with unprejudiced pen the events of these historic days, the names of Hong Kong and Dieppe, together with the names of the officers and men who fought there, will be placed high on the Canadian scroll of honour.
Previous speakers have dealt with certain matters relating to lumbering and farming in various parts of Canada, and I should like to deal briefly with these same subjects, because they concern the part of Ontario in which I reside. In the counties of Peterborough and Hastings there are almost inexhaustible supplies of wood and a certain quantity of timber. For many years the wood and lumber industry has provided a livelihood for a large number of persons. During the winter of 1941-42 many wood operators, both individuals and companies, took out large quantities of fuel wood for sale during the fall of 1942 and this present winter. At that time there was no price ceiling on wood. On August 8, 1942, however, a price ceiling was imposed, providing a certain price at roadside and a certain price for the delivered dry wood. Owing to a scarcity of other fuels throughout the dominion this large supply of wood was soon sold at ceiling prices. The price set by the fuel administrator resulted in a loss, in many instances, for the individual or wood operator.
After, the wood was sold, after there had been many complaints and after the wood controller discovered that he had set the price of wood too low, early in January 1943 the price was increased by $2 a cord. This increase to the wood operator just meant the difference between operating at a loss and breaking even or having a fair profit. Hon. members would be interested to know who advised the fuel administrator when he set the price on fuel wood, because I am sure any hon. member who lives in a district in which there are dealings in wood must agree with me when I say that the price of fuel wood, either at roadside or delivered, as set by the fuel controller in his order of August, 1942, was too low. While the price was raised, the increase was made too late in the season. January of this year was too late for any wood operator or company to make contracts or arrangements to take out wood during the present winter. Up to that date they were faced with a low fixed price. The wood operator had to make a bargain with the owner of the wood lot. He had to make provision for the cutting of the wood, for the trucking of it from the wood lot to the roadside, and the piling at that point. He had to arrange with the trucker who would pick up the wood at the roadside and make 
deliveries to consumers in towns, villages or cities. Naturally any man who owned a wood lot wanted a fair price for his wood; the workman wanted a fair price, the trucker wanted a fair price-they all wanted a fair price, and they were entitled to it. The result has been that this winter in the counties of Hastings and Peterborough no one is taking out any wood or making provision for the sale of wood during the next winter season. This situation will become more serious, because these counties supply not only many small towns and villages, but also several large cities in the immediate vicinity.
Next comes the question of labour. No provision has yet been made under which the lumber or wood dealer can obtain a proper supply of labour to carry out his operations. The same condition applies to the lumber industry in my district. Lumber operators in the counties of Hastings and Peterborough might properly be classed as small operators, because they take out a cut of only half a million to two million feet a year. In addition they supply poles, ties and material of the kind.
During the summer of 1942 I had occasion to apply to the divisional registrar for the exemption from or postponement of service of a young man who was a lumber sawyer. This young man had been called for military service, and had been granted one or two exemptions, following which he had received his final notice to report. As the calling of sawyers and other key men in the lumber industry affected many in the counties of Hastings and Peterborough, I prepared a short brief dealing with the labour and lumber situation as it applied in my community, and I attended with the young man before the board at Kingston. After consulting with the board, however, the registrar advised me that as I was a lawyer I could not appear before the board or submit my brief. I then asked the registrar if I could appear as a member of parliament, and after a second consultation with the board he advised me I could not. However the young man was allowed to appear and state his case before the board, at which there was present an officer in uniform. He was refused any further exemption; but the registrar did mention one thing to me, namely that the small lumber operator for whom this sawyer was working did not have any government contract. That was true; very few small lumber operators have government contracts. But the fact remains that practically all the lumber, poles, timber and ties they take out are sold to industrial plants which are working on

The Address-Mr. White
government contracts. The operator in question had a large contract to supply lumber to the cement company at Pointe Anne, and he was supplying all the timber he could get of a certain kind to the shipyards at Kingston.
Just a few days after my visit to Kingston I received from the timber controller a long document dated September 1, 1942, which, I believe, all hon. members received. This document, addressed to Canada's lumber industry, states in the first paragraph:
The paramount thing at the present time in the national interest is the maximum production of logs and lumber. We must accomplish this, even with our present difficulties of labour shortage,-
And so on.
Then follows a long list of districts in which lumbering is carried on. I wrote the timber controller and Mr. Little, who was then in charge of selective service, setting out the case of the wood and lumber operators in my counties. As usual I received a courteous reply from the director of national selective service, and a similar letter from the timber controller. In their letters they both pointed out that the matter of exemption of key men in the lumber industry had been brought to their attention before, that something was going to be worked out, that it was necessary that lumber be produced-and all the rest of it,-and that I would be advised in due course of what further action would be taken. That was the last I heard of the matter.
In closing this part of my observations may I point out that while these lumber operators are small, they have fairly large investments in equipment and machinery. They are all ready to operate. The government is urging that our lumber production be increased. With a set-up like this it seems most unfortunate that key men in the industry should be called for military service, and it is also unfortunate that the lumber operators are not permitted to obtain adequate labour to carry on this most important industry.
With respect to farm labour in my constituency I would point out that in 1942 the county of Hastings held the record for the largest cheese and pork products production in Ontario. The farmers have been asked to increase their pork production in 1943 by twenty per cent, and to increase further their cheese production, which is already at a record. There are in addition in these two counties many creameries which make anywhere from 200,000 to 700,000 pounds or more of butter a year. They also raise large quantities of beef, lamb, poultry, honey and other farm products. These two counties are
ideally suited for mixed farming. I know all members will agree with me when I say that the farmer is just as willing and anxious as anyone else to produce the maximum amount for the war effort, but like the lumber dealer or the wood operator he is faced with a shortage of help. Large numbers of men in these two counties have enlisted in the armed forces, and large numbers of men and women have gone into the industrial centres. Many of our young men also have been called for military service. The result is that to-day on many farms you will find a farmer with only his wife to assist him in operating a farm which in normal times would have at least two or three men. If the farmer is to increase his production as he has been asked to do in 1943 he must be able to plan at least one season ahead; for he must increase his stock and arrange to cultivate a larger area in order to grow more feed.
As hon. members know, there is no such thing under the war service regulations as a permanent exemption. Postponements are granted which are renewable from time to time, or a man may receive a postponement until further notice. I know many young men in my district who received their callup notice together with a transport warrant and instructions to report at the district depot in a matter of three or four days. It was a sorry spectacle last fall, Mr. Speaker, to see many crops of hay and grain left to rot in the snow simply because of the shortage of farm help. I would point out to the minister that the notices that are sent out to the young men by registered mail, enclosing a transport warrant and instructions to report at a depot, reach the young men in the country only two or three days before they are directed to report at the district depot. A sufficient time is not allowed to them to make application for .postponement. I have been told that when the young man goes to the district depot and has been medically examined and accepted he is then allowed to apply for a postponement, but there is nothing in the call-up notice itself to indicate that he is entitled to apply for postponement at the district depot. The result has been that many of our young men from the farms, once they got to the district depot and passed the medical officer, soon found themselves in uniform.
The average farmer engaged in mixed farming, like the lumber or wood operator, for instance, has a large investment in his operations, and when his farm help is taken away he has no alternative but to reduce his stock and to cut down the number of acres he has under cultivation.
The Address-Mr. White

In the booklet, "Canada at War" No. 19, for December, 1942, it is stated at page 3 that in the army in Canada there are approximately
210.000	troops on active service, in addition to 200,000 men in the reserve army. It does not state in the book whether the figure of
210.000	troops on active service in Canada includes young men who have been called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act. I trust that when the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) speaks he will inform the house how this figure of 210,000 is made up, and whether it includes the "R" recruits. On the next page of the book it is stated that there are overseas upwards of
180.000	men, comprising five divisions.
Other members in referring to the troops
overseas have brought up the important question whether adequate reinforcements have been provided. I would ask the Minister of National Defence, when he speaks on this important question of reinforcements, not to confine himself to simply stating that there are "adequate" reinforcements or some adjective of the kind. I ask him to tell us what percentage of reinforcements are needed, what percentage basis has been worked out. If the percentage basis is five, ten, twenty, or fifty per cent, I for one should like to know. I have inquired of many officers and I have never yet been able to find out the basis of what are considered adequate reinforcements. As was pointed out very forcefully by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) yesterday, at Dieppe our casualties were some sixty-seven per cent. It is most important that the minister should tell us frankly the percentage basis of our reinforcements. I hope that he will be able to assure the house that no matter what type of action the Canadian forces may be engaged in overseas, provision has been made for supplying them with the necessary reinforcements to maintain the army as constituted at present.
In the next issue of "Canada at War", for January, an interesting table is given on page 20, showing the enlistments in the three branches of -the armed forces. This table has been reproduced in the press and has caused much comment in various editorials. The table clearly shows that some sections of the country are supplying many more recruits than other sections. The table also shows the number of recruits who enlisted in the war of 1914-18, but whoever prepared the table neglected to show the approximate population of Canada in 1914 and its approximate population in 1939; nor does this table show the approximate number of discharges or casualties to date.

The book also states that there are 200,000 men in our reserve army. I would ask the Minister of National Defence when he speaks to say whether that 200,000 is only a paper estimate, and to tell us how many men in the reserve army are actually training. The minister might further explain why it is necessary to keep an army of 210,000 men in Canada, because under recent regulations married men between certain ages are being called for military training, and regulations were recently passed providing that boys of seventeen years of age can be accepted in the armed forces. I ask the Minister of National Defence how he can possibly justify the accepting of boys seventeen years of age in the armed forces; because if a lad of that age takes the basic training, it lasts only two months; if he takes his advanced training, that is a further two months; and if he takes a course at a trade school, for instance, I understand it requires not more than seven to nine months, so that he still has some eleven months to put in before he can proceed overseas.
Perhaps this calling up of the married men and the accepting in the army of boys of seventeen is just another example of the effort to swell enlistment figures; or is it another example of trying to dodge the issue or delay the day when compulsory selective service for anywhere in the world will be put into effect? I for one would like to have the Minister of National Defence, when he speaks, explain fully why it is necessary to take boys of seventeen years of age into the armed forces.
The Prime Minister, as reported in Hansard, page 46, made this remark:	*
Little if any account has been taken of the fact that unless there had been very careful planning at the outset, all the rest might likely have been a muddle. I claim for the present administration that we have planned carefully from the start.
Let me review briefly the "careful planning" which has taken place in regard to obtaining recruits for the armed forces.
In 1940 there was passed, with a great blare of trumpets, the National Resources Mobilization Act. But after parliament went home, regulations were passed by order in council which restricted the training to thirty days. Public opinion soon realized what a farce this thirty-day training was, and demanded a change, and it was changed to four months. Public opinion developed further, and it was then changed to "service for the duration", but subject always to the restriction that these men could1 not serve outside Canada. Again public opinion forced the government to take some action, and we had the second farce of the plebiscite which caused months

The Address-Mr. White
of further delay. After the plebiscite, which resulted in a large vote in favour of releasing the government from its promise, we had an amendment to the act, but this was nullified by the fact that it was not .put into force, and is still not in operation. Does the Prime Minister pretend to claim that there was careful planning in regard to this matter? Can, he dispute the fact that the whole operation of the act has been a muddle all the way through?
Then we have the question of the very large number of notices sent out, totalling some 750,611, requiring young men to report. Of this number, 146,276 were classed as delinquents or otherwise unaccounted for, some 96,830 notices were not delivered, and after it was all boiled down the mobilization machinery only got into the army some 14-3 per cent of the men who were called up. Does that look like careful planning to prevent a muddle?
Then we have the Hong Kong affair. Does anybody pretend to say that it was carefully planned and that there was no muddle? One has only to read the many dispatches in the press as to the training of the boys and the nature of the equipment they had at Dieppe, and compare that with the nature of the training and the equipment the boys had at Hong Kong, to see whether or not there was any kind of muddle.
Does the Prime Minister think there was very careful planning in the man-power situation which was so well reviewed yesterday by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), in which he set out the different changes, the new regulations which were passed every two or three months? Even during this debate, practically every speaker, irrespective of the party to which he belongs, has pointed out the very serious man-power situation. I wonder whether the Prime Minister thinks there was very careful planning in regard to that.
The Minister of Labour is not in his seat, but I wonder what he would say to this statement. Does he think there was very careful planning and no muddle as regards his labour policy? Is not the labour policy of this government responsible for the present unrest in labour and for the very recent steel and other strikes?
Then we have the question of cost of living bonuses for members of the armed forces. Was there any muddle about that? They are the one class of men and women who should have been the very first to receive the cost of living bonus, but instead of being the first they were the last, and they received it only after the greatest public pressure.
There is also the question of the various registrations which have taken place in this country, commencing with the national registration of 1940 and continuing down to date. Has that been a muddle? It has been a muddle from the very start, and I am advised that it is going to be necessary to have another registration before it can be straightened out.
Time does not permit me to deal with the social security legislation, but I should like to mention and to concur in a remark made by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Mayhew), on February 15, when, speaking of returned soldiers, he said.-Hansard, page 441:
I think we have reached the time when the onus of proving that a man's health has been impaired, that he has contracted tuberculosis on account of service overseas, should be the other way around; that the government should have to prove to the soldier that he did not contract the disease while away.
The hon. member who made that statement has put his finger on one of the most objectionable features of the whole pensions administration. Why should it be necessary for any soldier to have to go to his member of parliament, or to his mayor, or to a lawyer or anybody else to take up his case with the pensions board? Why should any private soldier have to fight the endless red tape of the pensions board? I know the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) will probably dispute that; but after some twenty years' experience in handling cases before the pensions board I have a pretty good idea of how tough they are to deal with. As I said once before in this house, if they would have on the administration boards of the pensions commission a few men who actually served overseas as privates, much of the present hardship would disappear.
Much has been said about the treatment handed out to the soldier who has been discharged in this war. If this government cannot ensure freedom from want to the small number of soldiers who have been discharged, how in the world do they expect to bring in a programme which will care for hundreds of thousands of persons after the war? The citizens of Canada do not want ex-service men cast aside with a small pension and obliged to tramp the streets looking for work. In my opinion the rehabilitation and care of the exservice men is the most important job facing this parliament and the people of Canada. There should be proper plans and programmes of care for them, to see that they obtain gainful employment as soon as they are able to go to work.
The Address-Mr. White

In conclusion, there are several points which I should like to emphasize and lay before the government:
1.	That the government consider the appointment of a minister to deal solely with soldiers' problems.
2.	That the government produce to parliament the complete report of the Hong Kong investigation.
3.	That a proper adjustment be made in farm prices.
4.	That proper provision be made for the supply of adequate labour for farmers, wood and lumber dealers.
5.	That the amendment to the National Resources Mobilization Act passed at the last session be brought into force at once so that all members of the armed forces will be available for service anywhere in the world.
6.	That the government arrange in the near future for a secret session of this house when the Prime Minister may give the members a complete report of the Casablanca conference, and a complete report on the political situation in North Africa; that the Minister of National Defence may give a complete statement on our forces overseas and the matter of reinforcements; that private members may have the opportunity of asking the three defence ministers questions relating to the armed forces that cannot be asked in the house at a public sitting; and that the Minister of National Defence make a statement on the Dieppe operation.
7.	That the government consider the granting of commissions to all aircrew overseas.
8.	That the government introduce at this session, legislation along the lines of the Sparkman Act and the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act as passed by the United States congress to cover the following in regard to members of the armed forces:
(a)	No eviction of families of those in service.
(b)	No foreclosure of mortgage during period of service or for a reasonable period after the end of the war.
(c)	No seizure or foreclosure of property for taxes.
(d)	No forfeiture of instalment contracts except where things purchased are of a wasting character.
(e)	Protection of life insurance policies against cancellation for non-payment of premiums.
(f)	Protection against judgment or other legal proceedings for debts incurred before enlistment or call.


Mr. ANTHONY HLYNKA (Vegreville):: The speech from the throne of this session contains a statement concerning our improved position in the war, but at the same time it cautions us not to become overoptimistic lest we slacken in our war effort. Rather it suggests that we should increase our effort to attain our objective more quickly and with complete decisiveness. Among other things, the speech also provides a basis for the discussion of post-war reconstruction. So far in this debate many aspects of this latter item have already been dealt with by hon. members on both sides of the house. Speakers have particularly emphasized certain phases of social and economic problems. I should like, therefore, to add to this discussion by considering what I believe to be other important phases of the subject of post-war reconstruction, namely, Canada's relationship to the British commonwealth of nations, and Canada's nationhood in the post-war world.
I believe it will be generally conceded that the present struggle is more of a revolution than merely a war. It is definitely a struggle of ideologies. It is a struggle of philosophies of life. It is a struggle of peoples and powers. But more definitely than that, it is a struggle of the sovereignty of the individual within a sovereign nation as against the onrush of totalitarianism in one form or another.
There are, in my opinion, two main features of this revolutionary war. The one is that of its global or international character; the other is that of a domestic or national character. On the international scale it touches the structures upon which is based the relationship of many peoples and many powers to one another, while on the national scale it embraces the underlying principles of our social, economic and political aspects of life. This titanic eruption is the natural outcome of the unnatural shape of things of pre-war days. We realize now that we are forced to fight not only the axis powers, but also many evils of our own creation-our own mistakes, and our own blunders. We also know that we are paying a high price for these mistakes, in human life and in suffering. Therefore we dare not repeat them in the future.	_
Again, our present position may be likened to that of a ship on a stormy sea. On our hazardous journey we find ourselves in the midst of cross-currents and undercurrents of fascism, nazism, federal unionism and many other forms of "isms" which are out to destroy sovereignty-the very basis of democracy- the ideal which stands for the maximum amount of individual and national freedom.

The Address-Mr. Hlynka
In view of this fact we must guard against the possibility of being swept away by some of these currents and finding ourselves after the war with an ideology totally foreign to our Canadian way of life. Therefore it is imperative that we apply ourselves most vigorously to the task of liquidating the many obstacles which have stood between the people and their social, economic and political security. But at the same time we must exercise great care not to lose the positive accomplishments which we have evolved over the centuries. Among these accomplishments I list Canada's position within the British commonwealth of nations. This I wish to discuss now.
To me the British crown is the heart and symbol of the British commonwealth of free and sovereign peoples. To me the British crown is the symbol of unity and the heritage of British ideals of more than a thousand years. More than that, we should prize our position within the commonwealth because we are the benefactors in all and everything that has been achieved over centuries of progress. For instance, should it not occur to us that we are equal partners in a unique association of free sovereign nations, created by an orderly process of evolution in practical statecraft? Let me point out the underlying principle of our British democratic system. It is simply this, that the extent and the power of the British commonwealth of nations are consistent with the maximum of individual freedom, the maximum of local and provincial autonomy, and the maximum of sovereignty of each unit-nation, fitting into the pattern of the commonwealth. This philosophy of statecraft has been built on practical experience, and it is opposed to other philosophies which are supported by many, and which include the surrender of our national sovereignty in favour of some superstate. It will further be apparent from this comparison that the philosophy of the British people is diametrically opposite to that of totalitarianism in whatever form it appears.
In addition to what I have already said about the British commonwealth of nations we should also keep constantly in mind the fact that it was the British commonwealth of nations, and particularly the heroic British, who stood alone after the fall of France and single-handed saved the world from totalitarianism while others hesitatingly speculated. Therefore irrespective of what victories the allies have won so far and irrespective of what victories we shall win in the future, the credit for the greatest role in our total victory should undoubtedly go to the British. It is my 72537-34
definite conviction that democracy' will live so long as the British commonwealth of nations lives, and that Canada will remain Canada so long as we share our heritage and our responsibilities with the British commonwealth of nations. Therefore I repeat that however close our association and our cooperation with other nations shall be in the future, the road of Canada is the road of the British commonwealth of nations.
So far I have dealt briefly with only a few of the outstanding features of our British heritage which we must retain from the past and the present and which must be projected into the future of post-war reconstruction. In addition we have acquired an equally priceless heritage in our own national life. The experiences of our forefathers which crystallized into self-government must not now be discarded, under the terrific impact of events, in favour of some system based on the surrender of our national sovereignty. The integrity of Canada's nationhood must forever remain our guiding principle. Therefore I should like now to (Jiscuss briefly our nationhood.
Speaking before the Canadian Institute of International Affairs in October, 1937, Lord Tweedsmuir, a great Britisher and an equally great Canadian, made the following statement:
She (Canada) is a sovereign nation and cannot take her attitude to the world docilely from Britain or from the United States or from anybody else. A Canadian's first loyalty is not to the British commonwealth of nations, but to Canada and to Canada's king, and those who deny this are doing, to my mind, a great disservice to the commonwealth.
This statement, sir, expresses my sentiments on the subject. Therefore keeping in mind what I said in the first part of my address, that I do not care to subscribe to any "isms" of a social or political order, I wish to say, however, that I am a strong believer in one "ism" and that is Canadianism. It is my sincere conviction that if Canada is to make her utmost contribution to the winning of the war, and if she is to take her rightful place in the council of the nations, she must assume the role of a fully self-governing nation both in national and in international affairs.
Constitutionally Canada is now a sovereign nation, and also a self-governing nation. At the same time she is an equal partner in the commonwealth. This status was conferred upon Canada by the statute of Westminster, passed in 1931. Therefore Canada, having acquired this national maturity, now stands on the threshold of a new era.
While it must be admitted that certain changes and certain adjustments of a constitutional or legal nature must still be made, the

The Address-Mr. Hlynka

chief obstacles in the way of realization of our full nationhood lie, in the main, in the cultural and economic spheres. Although we have drawn upon Great Britain for much of what we possess in the way of culture, traditions, history, our way of life, our institutions, and centuries of experience in practical statecraft, nevertheless we have now arrived at a stage where we must begin to develop our own distinctive character.
I have already made reference to the constitutional and political framework of our nation. We also have a territory broad in extent and rich in natural resources. The third important element in the making of a nation is its people. We have drawn for our citizenship upon people of many nationalities, with rich and varied backgrounds. This diversity should by no means be a source of weakness; rather it should be a source of strength and potential cultural wealth. Here again is a task for the government, to bring about a harmonious coordination of these varied cultures into our common Canadian mosaic. Polite tolerance toward citizens of varied ethnic backgrounds is not enough; we must oifer them something more positive. We must once and for all time realize that Johnson and Ivanyshyn are equally genuine Canadian names; for they mean one and the same thing. After all, the casualty lists of Dieppe did not draw any such distinctions.
So that when we undertake the task of postwar reconstruction in Canada we must do more than attain an outward unity; this unity must find expression in a common Canadian culture and a common Canadian spirit. While we are undertaking this whole development of our Canadian nationhood we must also keep in mind the fact that this development is necessarily based on the degree of economic welfare of our people. This should not be an obstacle in Canada's way, because we are the owners of one of the richest territories in the world. We have the capacity to produce more than we need, and of all sorts of commodities for all our people. . One of our main obstacles in the past has been our inability to distribute our products and the unwillingness of governments to tackle this problem in a modern, scientific manner. I believe, however, that the time is not too far distant when it will be considered criminal mismanagement of the affairs of the people to permit goods and services to lie dormant while people starve in need of them.
I have made only a brief statement, Mr. Speaker, in approaching this great problem. I have tried to point out at least a few of the things that we must retain from our way of

life, and at the same time I have made an endeavour to indicate some of the things which must be added. Should we fail in this task, as we failed in the past, we will be exposing ourselves, on the home front, to the danger of losing ground to totalitarianism in spite of our victories on the field of battle.


Mr. A. R. ADAMSON (York West):: Mr. Speaker, there is a tendency in Canada today, and even in this house, to consider that the war is already won. I think this is deplorable. It is, however, the natural consequence of the government's policy of easing us gently into total war. For us in Canada it may reasonably be said that the decisive fighting still lies ahead. Because it is dangerous to look upon the war as already won there is no reason why we should not consider briefly the methods of winning it and the pattern of hostilities from now until the collapse of Germany.
I think it is reasonable to assume that we will be attacking Hitler's so-called fortress of Europe with our land forces in the reasonably near future. That the Canadian army will fight with the traditional heroism and fortitude of the Canadian expeditionary force of the last war goes without saying. It is unfortunate but also inevitable that casualties will be suffered at a rate even greater than during the first world war. I do not wish to take Dieppe as an example, but it must be remembered that there we suffered casualties amounting to almost seventy per cent of our effectives in a period of a little over nine hours. There is no military operation so hazardous as attacking, over a considerable body of water, a well-fortified shore base.
I have made these statements and brought out these unpleasant facts merely to lead up to the man-power situation in Canada. I do not know precisely the situation with regard to our trained reinforcements overseas. I believe, however, that they are insufficient to maintain the Canadian army at striking-force, shock-troop efficiency for an intensive campaign of even medium duration. It is therefore probable that the powers given to the government in the plebiscite may have to be invoked, and that soldiers in the home defence army may have to be sent outside of Canada as reinforcements for our troops fighting against Hitler. In mentioning this I make the plea to the government that when this decision has to be taken they do not call a snap election in order to obtain further authority from the people. To call an election during these intensive operations would be nothing short of infamous.

The Address-Mr. Adamson
The other night the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) quoted at length the message from General McNaughton to the troops on New Year's day, 1943. Dealing with the arrival of the first Canadian contingent overseas General McNaughton said:
At that time our numbers of trained soldiers and experienced officers were very few indeed and our equipment consisted of little more than the rifles we carried and the clothing we wore.
I should like to compare that statement with a speech made by the then Minister of Finance, the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) at Kingston on March 8, 1940, during the heat of an election campaign. I quote from the Ottawa Evening Citizen of March 9, 1940; these are the headlines:
Ralston Says Canadians Went Over With Own Artillery, Machine Guns. Finance Minister Says Full Equipment Carried. Makes Known for First Time that Contingents Well Armed Before Proceeding Overseas.
The whole trend of the article gives the impression that the first Canadian division landed in England well equipped and ready for action. If a snap election is called, this is the sort of thing we may expect. With every day and every hour of vital importance we will see ministers going around the country campaigning, while the whole business of government will be aborted. The government now has all the authority in connection with man-power it can possibly need. It must be prepared to use it.
I come now, Mr. Speaker, to a subject second only in importance to that of the war; namely, the definite danger of inflation. What I am about to say will no doubt be unpopular with certain sections of the people, since there is no drug, no stimulating intoxicant, as wholly delightful as inflation in its early stages. It is easy to make sectional appeals and invite strife in both primary and secondary industries which would tend to break the price ceiling. In many cases the fantastic stupidity of controllers has caused derision and bungling. The regulations frequently defeat their own ends. They are ill-advised, hurriedly built bits of legislation which, because the government does not trust this house, have been imposed upon the Canadian people. Notwithstanding what I have said, however, I believe we must do everything we can to maintain the price structure on as even a keel as possible.
There is no reason for those who would like to see inflation to worry. No matter what controls either this government or the government of the United States imposes we are in an inflationary cycle which may, unless we are extremely careful, bring disaster. I see by the 72537-34J
press to-day that we are spending at the rate of over five billion dollars a year. We are raising by taxation a little over two billions. The United States is spending close to eight billion dollars a month, and raising by taxation approximately two billions. That should give us sufficient warning. At present, particularly in the United States, reliance is placed on the desire of the people to invest or hoard their money. If this tendency shows signs of decreasing the strain on the price level of basic commodities may result in a fearsomely quick spiral of inflation.
As an illustration of what I mean when I speak of a condition where there is no control let me give a few examples of prices in England. These figures are for uncontrolled articles, or articles which in some cases may be considered luxuries. They do however give some indication of what people will pay, and what can happen to a price structure if the control is broken. These are not black market prices, but prices I saw for myself in London in the fall of 1942, just a few months ago. Here are a few of them: An ear of corn, 75 cents; a peach, $2.10; a bunch of grapes, $6; a bottle of brandy-purchased at an auction sale at Christie's-$48, a dozen oysters. $7.50. I could give a longer list, but were I to do so I might have to use proprietary names, and I would rather avoid doing that.
Our present situation is illustrated by an incident I observed when I was overseas. A Focke-Wulf 190 had come over, making a hit-and-run raid on a town in the southeast of England. As in many of such raids, it tackled the biggest thing it saw, which on that occasion happened to be the town gasometer-a large round tank about eighty feet high, full of coal gas for domestic purposes. It shot the gas holder full of holes, both with cannon and with machine guns. From each of the holes little spurts of flame were shooting into the air. On the top of the gas holder two employees of the gas company were courageously running around with sand bags, and every time a spurt of flame appeared it would be covered by a sand bag. Meantime other sand bags were being hauled up from the ground. I happened to be passing by with an air force officer, and I said to him, " What a terrific spectacle it would be if the thing went up." He said to me, " Yes, but neither you nor I would be here to see it." Incidentally, I might add that subsequently both the employees to whom I have referred were decorated for valour.
This incident is to me a symbol of what is happening in Canada to-day. We have certain necessary controls on price structure. People -unthinkingly, I believe-are doing every-
The Address-Mr. Adamson

thing they can to break them wherever they can. I believe we should do everything in our power to assist the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) in his very difficult job of maintaining the country on an even economic balance.
For a time I lived in a country in South America where, in a period of a little less than three months the value of the currency decreased by sixty-five per cent. This, of course, was not the wild inflation of Germany; but I have not forgotten the scenes of hardship suffered by the native population. May I suggest in passing that hon. members who are interested in the subject would do well to read an article by Doctor Palyi, who was an official of the Reichsbank. This article appeared in the Northern Miner of February 4. I believe that completes all I have to say on the subject of inflation.
1 now come to what might be called shelter, because to grace the present living conditions in many parts of our urban centres with the term housing would be wrong. We must look closely and dispassionately on the conditions which now exist, and also on the contributory causes which made those conditions. Furthermore we must be fearless in our approach to the subject, and prescribe and carry out the cure. Naturally it is impossible for a layman like myself adequately to cover so vast a subject. There are people in Canada who are experts and who, I hope, will be called before the committee on reconstruction at this session.
Let us, however, look very generally at the situation as it exists. Before the war the average yearly construction of new houses was 15,000. The need was 65,000. It has been estimated that there was a backlog of needed houses amounting to 150,000, across Canada,
110,000	of which existed in urban communities of over 30,000 population. It is obvious that the situation has become much more acute during the war years-and this despite all the efforts of Wartime Housing Limited. It has further been estimated in Washington, officially, by Frederick M. Babcock, that Canada must build in the ten-year period subsequent to the war between 750,000 and a million houses, in order to maintain a reasonable standard of living. Under the Canadian economy before the war sixty per cent of the population were unable to buy what the market afforded. This is based on the established theory that twenty per cent of the gross income of a family should go for shelter. The cost of production per house by private enterprise is too high to satisfy the needs of sixty per cent of the population. When I refer to housing I mean decent
IMr. Adamson.]
houses-not the substandard dwelling so common in our urban communities. It has been estimated that the income of fifty per cent of our population is less than $1,000 a year, and ten per cent have actually less than $600 a year. On the basis of twenty per cent of their income for shelter they could afford to pay only $10 to $17 a month for rent. It is obvious they cannot get shelter for anything like this sum, so that they pay more and go without their full quota of one or other of the essentials of life, such as proper food, clothing or medical care.
There is material available to show the effect that slums produced by these conditions have on Canadians. There is infinitely more material available concerning such conditions in the United States. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall quote briefly from a few typical reports, and first from a report submitted to the Toronto board of control by a committee on housing in that city. The report was submitted in November, 1942, and this is what it has to say in the first paragraph about health:
Many people are living under conditions which are injurious to health.
This is 1942, remember! It goes on:
In certain areas men, women and children are existing in basements designed for vegetable or other storage; others are housed in damp, cold, draughty and vermin-infested quarters; as many as eight persons are living, eating and sleeping in one room. Evictions and threats of eviction are putting a heavy strain on the physical and moral reserves of soldiers' dependents, war workers and persons in the low income group, in fact on all who are unable to purchase houses or to find suitable rentable accommodation.
It goes on to give figures comparing the health standards in two areas of the city, Yorkville and Moss Park, but these figures have been quoted so frequently that I shall not put them on Hansard. They can be found in the brief submitted by the federation of agriculture, in Health, and in many other publications.
I should like to quote from the Journal of the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada, from a report on housing made by Professor E. R. Arthur, of the university of Toronto, in September, 1942. Professor Arthur says- I shall quote just two paragraphs:
The lieutenant-governor's report on housing conditions in Toronto published in 1934 first drew the attention of the general public to the fact that a Canadian city housed a large section of its citizens in conditions not much higher than would be demanded for animals. Of 1,339 dwellings examined, 43 per cent were without cellars, 82 per cent had no method of heating other than stoves, 58 per cent were damp and 20 per cent subject to flood; 55 per cent were verminous, 59 per cent were without baths and

The Address-Mr. Adamson
20 per cent had outside toilets subject to freezing. The houses examined are in a great slum area which we still have. Since 1934 a committee of civil officials has condemned some houses and enforced the repairs and improvements of others. The condemnation of houses has aggravated congestion in an area, where in 1934, 57 per cent averaged more than one person per room and 16 per cent averaged two or more persons per room. "Improvement" has kept the inhabitants of some dwellings dry, but the congestion remains the same or worse, and the environment grows progressively undesirable. The lieutenant-governor's report caused a mild stir and had the effect of bandaging a gangrenous sore where an operation of a major character was necessary.


Mr. COLD WELL:: What city is that?


Agar Rodney Adamson: Toronto. He goes on,
in the next paragraph :
I mention the case of Toronto because the report is an excellent one and was as complete as the funds allotted would permit and time would allow. A similar investigation in Montreal, Hamilton or Winnipeg would reveal equally ghastly housing conditions and an equally callous disregard for human life. In the intervening years, government, press and public have been alike apathetic. Even labour, which in every democratic country including Great Britain, the United States, Sweden, Holland and pre-Hitler Germany, had been the driving force in housing reform, made no serious representations to government. Since housing for the lower income groups can only be financed by the federal
Government, the municipalities cannot be blamed or the fact that our slums still exist, and that the low wage-earner cannot find a house suited to the needs of his family in a district that is not sub-standard in regard to all the decencies of life.
That, I think, speaks for itself. I should like to quote from one more document, the official Document of the United States government, prepared by the federal emergency administration of public works. This will show that good housing is good business. I quote:
Aside from any question of need for additional accommodations and their provision for the needy, is the problem of the slum with its cost in dollars and cents, and in human life and misery. The eradication of the evils adherent to blighted areas is a prime factor in any general housing programme.
The staggering cost to the public for the maintenance of slum areas has only recently been learned.
During 1932, in a certain slum area in Cleveland, where 2-47 per cent of the population of the city dwelt on 0-73 per cent of the land area, the tax income was $225,035, whereas the total cost of maintaining the section was $1,972,437, or a net loss of $1,747,402. Likewise in Indianapolis, in those areas of greatest economic drain, it has been found that taxpayers are spending each year for the maintenance of each person $27.29, as against $4 per person in other areas; 26 per cent of the taxes spent for police, fire, health, and sanitary services are maintaining only 10 per cent of the city's population. Thirty per cent of the
city hospital service in 1932 went into this area of 10 per cent of the population. More than 33 per cent of the public relief and 36 per cent of the city expenditure for arrests, trials and imprisonments were likewise absorbed by these 11 census tracts. Again during 1933, a study of a sub-standard area in South Boston of 769 families indicates an income of $27,093.23 and expenses of $275,113.74 or an excess of expenses over income of $248,020.51. These figures, astounding as they may be, are typical in a general way of every city in America where there are slums, and this means practically every one.
What are the remedies for this situation? First let me say that many countries have tackled this problem, but I would stress this point, that because a certain scheme works well elsewhere it does not necessarily follow that it would be satisfactory in Canada. There is, however, information available to show in broad outline what general principles may be followed. In very general terms, therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will look at the remedies.
First, we could raise all wages and income to a level where the people could afford to pay for housing at its present cost. But this would defeat its own end because it would immediately increase the cost of houses. Up would go the price of building materials; up would go the price of labour; up would go the price of the finished house; and it would be the starting point of the spiral of inflation.
Second, we could lower the cost of building. But under present building and financing methods this is impossible. The overhead which the small speculative builder has to carry in order to finance a house may run as high as thirty per cent. His operations are of necessity on a small scale, and he is forced to sub-contract for many items such as the foundation, plumbing and electrical work, flooring, lath and plastering, et cetera. All this adds to the cost. A number of these small speculative builders have told me that they could not make a reasonable profit on a house costing less than four thousand dollars and that they would much prefer to build for six thousand dollars and above.
Third, government help. It is, I believe, established in the United States that private enterprise under existing conditions cannot solve the housing problem of the low income groups. Government assistance has been absolutely necessary in England and elsewhere. There is no reason to believe that Canada will be different. Government help must be given in a number of different ways. The three principal ones may be summarized as follows:
(a)	The government builds the houses and rents them to low income groups.
The Address-Mr. Adamson

(b)	The government subsidizes private enterprise and gives them the differential between the rent they must ask and the price the people can afford to pay.
(c)	The government gives loans to cooperative organizations or large scale building operators at a low rate of interest to build houses on mass production methods. This leaves the private builder the field of five thousand dollars and above.
I should like briefly to mention here that it has been found in the United States and in Europe that the cheapest method and that having the greatest social benefits is for the municipal government to own and operate the houses.
In the foregoing I have made no attempt to differentiate between municipal, provincial and federal government agencies, but it is my opinion that the federal government will have to undertake the major part of the financing. It is essential that the municipality have and make a firm commitment to carry out a comprehensive scheme of town planning. If this is not done the investment by the federal government will not be safeguarded.
Various methods of financing have been made elsewhere in the world, and the relations between the federal and municipal authorities with regard to a just sharing of the tax burden have been worked out. I do not propose to go into this matter in detail now. It is sufficient to say that the financing is not a serious obstacle.
Opposition to public housing frequently comes from private interests who believe they will be adversely affected by government operations. This has never been found to be true. In fact, United States experience shows that private interests stand tremendously to gain by any comprehensive state housing scheme.
The sociological benefits of proper housing cannot possibly be overestimated. A number of people approached me with the "coal in the bath" story. Here again United States experience has shown that less than two per cent of the poorest people moved into modern surroundings do not immediately appreciate the improved environment. After a few years this percentage becomes infinitesimal. If it could be produced, the relation between the soldiers discharged from the Canadian army for ill health and their previous housing conditions would be most interesting.
I regard the housing of Canada to be of paramount importance. We are the only civilized nation in the world that has not tackled this problem. It has been estimated that to house properly the people of Canada would give employment for 200,000 men for

ten years, and this figure is, I believe, an understatement. I know the government are interested and are working along these lines, but I would urge on them that the time is short and that the experts who understand town planning and construction, as well as the bright scientists in our present war factories, be consulted and brought to Ottawa to check with the house committee on reconstruction. Plans take much thought and time. Now is the time they should be being formulated, not after the million and a half workers in our war industries and the six hundred thousand in our armed forces are clamouring for work.
The subject about which I have been speaking is a vital necessity in my riding. I returned from England, where even in the midst of aerial attack they are providing better emergency shelter than most Canadians have to put up with as permanent homes.
I believe that in York West I represent the largest diversified industrial riding in Canada, but I am extremely happy to say that in the entire period of the war there has not been one industrial dispute; as far as I am aware, there has been no strike of any kind in my riding. We must see that these people who have worked so steadfastly to win this war are properly housed1, and we must do everything in our power to ensure that the matter is tackled without delay. Naturally the same applies to our fighting forces when they return to civilian life.
There is one group of workers, however, to which I wish to pay a special tribute. I refer to the railway workers. In York West we have two of the largest freight yards not only in Canada, but, for volume of traffic, in the entire north American continent. I refer to the Mimico yards of the Canadian National railway and the Lambton yards of the Canadian Pacific railway. These key arteries of our war effort have accomplished things which in short are astounding. This work has been carried on under the rigours of our climate at a constant pressure far greater than that which exists in most factories. The work is of necessity hazardous and exacting, yet at no time have I heard any grumbling or complaints of any kind on account of the pressure of work. I believe that these railway men belong to the strongest trade union on the north American continent, and I should like to pay them this tribute, as an example of what trade unionism can do and will do for the good of the country. We have both in peace and in war a magnificent group of workers in these yards. They deserve the very best we can provide in the way of housing.
52T

The Address-Mr. Cruickshank


Mr. G. A. CRUICKSHANK (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to you, I am sorry I was not in the position of the previous speaker. I should like to have had the privilege of speaking when the hon. member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. Mayhew) was in the Chair, and I know of no hon. gentleman as well equipped to follow as speaker on the other side, as the hon. member for Victoria, B.C. It has been my good fortune, every time I have had the privilege of speaking in this house, to listen to a thesis being read by an hon. member from Toronto; on each occasion I seem to follow him.
I know that my good friends the mover (Mr. Harris) and the seconder (Mr. Halle) of the address will pardon me if I offer no apologies for not complimenting them upon their work. I have no time to waste in compliments to them, because it is going to take me all my time to compliment the acting assistant leader of the Conservative party. I am not sure whether it is called the Conservative party. Since I have been in politics it has had about ten different names. First, it was the "Conservative" party, and then the "Liberal Conservative" party; then the "National Conservative" party, and now I understand it is the "Progressive Conservative" party.
I wish to congratulate the Liberal party and sympathize with the Conservative party. The opposition had a golden opportunity, with two excellent young lawyers, both returned men who would have appealed to the returning soldier vote, available for the leadership, and they did not take advantage of it. I could have told my good friend the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) that he never had a chance because the east will never let us run this country. I might have been leader myself had it not been that I was snowed in and I did not get back in time. I do not know whether it was a compliment to me or not, but I have been given a medal. Goering has many medals and I have an extra medal myself. Probably I should put it on before I start to speak, but it bears the inscription, "National Conservative convention, Winnipeg, December 9, 10, 11, 1942." I do not know who presented it to me, but somebody did.
It might have saved much of the time of the house if the suggestion I am; going to make had been adopted. I understand that the vote is to be taken to-night, and that is why the Liberal party saved me for the last, so that I cannot discuss the foolish amendments that have been offered. But I do suggest that they might have saved time if, by the unanimous consent of the house, we had put on the Votes and Proceedings the report
of the Winnipeg convention. Had that been done, every one who has spoken, who is interested in- that report, would not have put it on Hansard. Platforms adopted at conventions are, to me, very much like the barber's pole. There is only one ring on it that means anything; the rest is for show. That is the way with their programme. I cannot agree with the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. I was not here, as I say; I was snowbound in the wilds of Saskatchewan-it is wild out there anyway-but I cannot agree with that party when they do-not approve of members of the armed forces having the privilege of having members represent them here.


Thomas Miller Bell: Nobody said that.


George Alexander Cruickshank: According to Hansard, that is the way I read it.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Quote it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: You have plenty
of time; I have only until six o'clock. My roommate happens to be overseas, where he has been serving for two years, and another friend of mine from Nanaimo has been serving for two years. I believe, therefore, that the armed forces have every right to have members of parliament represent them here. I cannot agree with my hon. friends to the left, including that party which has not even a name or a leader, because they had an ideal chance to offer criticism and they passed it up. Instead, they are talking twaddle about rents of houses or something else. Why do they not go after these boards? I do not agree with everything that the government has done, but I am glad that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has come back into the chamber, because I am interested in agriculture.


Mr. GARDINER:: I came back to listen
to my hon. friend.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Much as I disagree with some of the policy of the Minister of Agriculture, there is, in my opinion, not another member of this parliament sitting here to-day who could replace him. He is the first Minister of Agriculture who-


Mr. PERLEY:: Is the minister not glad
he came in?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I will come to
dollar wheat before I have finished my remarks. I may have to ask for extra time at six o'clock if there are any other interruptions. I was going to say, the hon. gentleman is the first federal Minister of Agriculture who, when he came to my riding, did not come to meet any of the members of his own
The Address-Mr. Cruickshank

party or to meet the representative, who happens at present to be myself. Instead, he came to meet delegations of farmers, the actual producers, and they told him their own story. What they had to say was not stated through the member of parliament; they told their own story, and we are entirely satisfied that we obtained some results out of his visit. This does not say that I agree with all that the minister has said, but I think we would get far better results in agriculture if the minister, instead of boards, actually had something to do with running it. I disagree with my leader, who said that we should not criticize some of these boards. I expressed my opinion of these boards the first week I was here, and I hope I shall express the same opinion when I go-and let me say that I shall be here when many of the rest of my hon. friends have gone. I had the privilege of meeting Mr. Donald Gordon. I knew that he was a being, like the rest of us, but I am still more or less inclined to believe that he is not exactly a human being. He sets prices of farm products about which he knows absolutely nothing. I am not depreciating his work, because I think he is doing a good job in a hard position, but it is up to the Minister of Agriculture to see that we have practical agricultural men advising him and not a bunch of lawyers or bankers from the Bank of Canada telling him what prices of farm products are.
I wish to quote a few figures in connection with dairying, a subject in which I am particularly interested, as far as my riding is concerned. We have a good deal of diversified farming, but dairying is our principal form of agriculture. There is one point on which I agree with the opposition, and that is that so far the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Labour have not offered any solution of the farm problem. They have offered absolutely no solution as far as farm labour is concerned. Although we have plenty now, and I do not think that rationing is needed at the moment in connection with any farm commodity in Canada, nevertheless there is going to be a tremendous shortage in farm produce. I do not think labour armies of boys and girls or women will solve the farm labour problem. The only solution is to be found in paying the farmer an adequate price so that he can compete in the labour market with other industries, and the government must assume the responsibility in that regard. Two years ago my friends in the new Progressive Conservative party offered, as their sole solution of the world's evils, the conscription of men for overseas. They wanted to send every man, woman and dog overseas, and yet I have heard any number of them now saying that

we have sent too many men and that we have not enough to run the farms. Well, you cannot have your cake and eat it. Probably I am unique as a member, as far as this question is concerned, but I have not yet recommended that the son of any farmer be given postponement. I have refused to do so, because I do not think a politician has any right to make recommendations or to interfere in this matter. In British Columbia we are fortunate in having a most excellent judge in charge of the board and he is absolutely fair. I have not agreed with some of his decisions, but I say that it is up to the Department of Agriculture to see that we get sufficient help for the farms in order to produce, so that we can compete in the open market.
In British Columbia, taking 2,260 dairymen last year, we averaged $4 a day from milch cows. Out of that $4, or $123 a month, we have to pay taxes, maintain our herds, keep up our machinery and buildings in as good repair as we can, and support a family. Any boy can make more 'than that in any job he wants to fill in British Columbia. As far as I am concerned, the Department of Agriculture must take the responsibility. There is no use in passing the buck to the boards, because, if they are to run agriculture, we may as well close down agriculture in the dominion. Just a short time ago they gave a bonus or subsidy of two cents a quart on milk. In Vancouver, the third city of Canada, where men are making more money than they have ever made before, in spite of the working conditions that prevail, they are getting milk at nine cents a quart. Is that any solution of the problem? The consumer is getting a bonus of eighty cents a can, while the average bonus to the farmer in British Columbia is nineteen cents a can. Is there any rhyme or reason in that? If the government can bonus the consumer eighty cents a can on milk, what justification have they for giving the farmer a bonus of nineteen cents for 100 pounds? Yet we are asked to increase production at all times.
In the area which I represent, and in part of the other riding in Fraser Valley, there is a milk-shed that produces forty per cent of the milk produced in British Columbia. That district is about 30 miles wide and 110 miles long. Last year we produced 200,000,000 pounds of milk, which, as I say, was forty per cent of the provincial production. One point which I wish to make and to impress upon the department, the government and some Ontario members is this. The average farm taxes in that milk shed were over $3 an acre. I know one dairy farm, excellent land, fifteen minutes by car from the centre of Toronto,

The Address-Mr. Cruickshank
about eighty-six acres, that pays $216 a year in taxes. In the municipality from which I come, for eighty-six acres one would pay $380 in taxes. That is one of the things we have to contend with in British Columbia; our municipal and school taxes are far higher than those in any part with which we compete. Yet boards come along, and instead of paying a subsidy as we think it should be set, namely, a general subsidy on butter-fat produced, it is paid on the fluid milk. In Canada only about thirty per cent of the milk goes into the fluid milk market. We think that subsidy should be on the total butter-fat. It makes a tremendous difference. We are now penalizing the farmer who is not immediately adjacent to the large industrial centres where the fluid milk market is. That is one thing the department should take up.
I wish to quote a few figures. In the Fraser Valley we have been getting the following prices for milk:
Production Average price
Year	(pounds)	(cents)1930	
5,000,000	54-11931	
6,000,000	36-71932 (nearly) .	7,000,000	28
The price in 1930 was five cents below the average of 1921-29. The average for 1931 to 1940 was thirty-four cents a pound butter-fat. It is not necessary to point out that farmers cannot exist on such prices other than as peasants, and surely it is not the policy of the government or the people of Canada that the farmer should be forced to become a peasant. But he cannot exist on thirty-four cents a pound for butter-fat. Yet the solution offered by these boards is to subsidize the consumer eighty cents a can and the farmer nineteen cents.
Let me give some actual figures. On two thousand farms the average income over a ten-year period on the farm was $850, or $2.35 a day. On such a return, can a man pay these high taxes, support his family and keep up repairs? When I hear these Saskatchewan farmers talk about wheat it makes me wonder what they would ever do if they had to live on a dairy farm.
I turn to selective service. As far as British Columbia is concerned, selective service has fallen down. One thing that may be a minor matter, but to which I strenuously object, is the way people are dealt with in the offices. There is no privacy. When a man or woman goes in there they are not going with their hat in their hand; they go as Canadian citizens, entitled to all consideration. They are not going for relief; they are merely fulfilling what the law requires.
Another point is this. I do not know who is to blame, whether it is the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) or the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie), who should not have such things, coming from such a fine province and riding; but unquestionably men coming back from this war are not being properly treated. That complaint comes from all parts of the house and there can be no dispute about it. One thing that is wrong is this. Many of these men who are being discharged as medically unfit were service station operators or clerks or men in different kinds of business, put out of action by war conditions, and they are not in physical condition to work in shipyards or at logging or other hard labour. In Vancouver and right in my own riding some are actually destitute, and that is not to the credit of this government or this parliament. Naturally I am all in favour of social security. But these conditions are not evidence of our good faith in our talk of social security, nor is the fact that we are still paying $20 a month in old age pensions.
There is one reform I could suggest to the government, and I know where the money could come from. I mention this because I know that most of the members are afraid to say it on the floor of the house for fear it will appear in Hansard and thus get back to their ridings, but I do not care. The government could make a little saving in the way I am about to suggest and allow some expense money to hon. members instead of imposing the income tax. I well remember the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. McGeer), when he ran in my riding, speaking on this subject. We thought the problem would be solved in two weeks when he got back, but unfortunately he did not get back. I speak of reform of the senate. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) was criticized for talking politics when he talked senate reform. I did not say I was in favour of senate reform for the simple reason that I forgot, or I would have done so. I know I shall never get into that political museum, a useless bunch of old men sitting there talking, the only thing they do-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. The hon. gentleman is not entitled to use those expressions.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker. But if the other place were to be abolished it would save a great amount of money and save the morals of some of the members; about all they do in an entire year is to listen to a few key-hole divorce cases.
The Address-Mr. Cruickshank

In connection with selective service I suggest-


Thomas Vien: Order. Was the hon.
gentleman referring to members of parliament listening at keyholes?


George Alexander Cruickshank: No.


Thomas Vien: What was the expression used by the hon. gentleman?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I was not referring to parliament at all, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member was
referring to members of parliament?


George Alexander Cruickshank: No, Mr. Speaker. If I did I withdraw it; I certainly did not intend to. I had better leave the other place alone; I am getting into trouble. I should like to suggest to the Minister of Labour that the selective service regulations be modified, particularly concerning men coming back from the army, and elderly men. A tremendous number of people are not old enough for old age pensions and are not entirely medically unfit; yet in order to get employment they must conform to the regulations as laid down under the selective service. Under present conditions I think the regulations should be amended to give those people a free hand to seek employment where they can get it. This should also apply to returned soldiers.
I wish to say something in connection with the air force. In my opinion the best-conducted branch of the entire government is that of the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power); I say that with all respect for other ministers. He has done a magnificent job and has never been criticized in this house. But there is one thing which to me is utter nonsense:	Two boys, one a sergeant-pilot,
and the other a pilot officer, fly over Berlin. Every one of those aircrew men should have commissioned rank. It is unreasonable that when they come back one should have to go to a different mess from that to which the other who flew with him goes.
Another- branch that I consider has been neglected is that of the radio technician. They are still serving as privates in the Royal Canadian Air Force attached to the Royal Air Force, overseas, and to me this seems absolutely unfair. They are highly skilled men; they had to take intensive courses; yet they get no further than the rank corresponding to private, which I believe is leading aircraftsman. That does not seem reasonable to me, and I think the minister should take this matter into consideration.
I am very proud of the fact that in my riding we have the best airport in Canada,

and I would invite any investigation into the price paid for the land. There was no cost-plus arrangement with regard to this airport, and an excellent job has been done. I noticed an inquiry by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) as to the price paid for land in another instance. Just what he is fishing for I do not know, but I can assure him that the price paid in connection with the airport in my constituency was nothing like the price paid for the land around Winnipeg. In my case there was no criticism at all, and would not have been even from the C.C.F., though there are no C.C.F. voters in my riding; they all vote for Cruickshank.
I know hon. members would be surprised if I did not say something about the Japanese in British Columbia. I cannot agree with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) that the commission set up to deal with the Japanese made a good job of handling the problem. I think they made a terrible job of it, but we have got rid of a great many Japanese, and I wish to commend the government for proceeding to sell the land out there which was owned by the Japanese. There is no reason why it should not be sold, if their boats and other possessions can be treated in that way, and it is also good business. In the Fraser valley at the present time there are some two thousand acres of land formerly owned by the Japanese which have not been cultivated, and now that we are short of food this seems criminal to me. The Department of Agriculture should give consideration to the advisability of making some sort of grant to the farmers who have taken over that land in order to keep it in production. In all fairness to the security commission I think I should say that I have not heard of any great extravagance in handling the Japanese. I have here some pictures of the houses which were built to accommodate two families, at a cost of $145 each, which I consider was a pretty reasonable amount to pay.
I im very much interested in the soldier problem. It has been said before, but I want to say again that I believe it is unfair thut officers on duty on our coasts, who are on active service just as much as they would be in Tunisia, should be required to pay income tax. I do not want to pay any more income tax than I have to, but I think the Minister of Finance might, if necessary, tax some of the rest of us a little more and not tax those officers who are eligible for service anywhere.
On one point I agree with the apposition to a certain extent. We and the people of

The Address-Mr. Cruickshank
Canada are entitled to know whether or not we have sufficient trained and equipped men to reinforce our army overseas, though of course I realize that the minister cannot give that information publicly. I am one of those who believe that Canada never should have tried to handle five divisions overseas. If we can equip and maintain four divisions over there we are doing very well indeed. Some opportunity should be found, if necessary in secret session, to tell us just where we stand as far as reinforcements are concerned. If we have sufficient, that is fine. I hope we have, and personally I believe we have; I am sure the minister would attend to that. But in order that any doubts which may exist across Canada may be allayed, we should be fully informed upon that point. I am not a military strategist like the hon. member for Vancouver South. I do not know just how we are going to defend our coasts, and I do not think he does, either. Last year he was going to send our army to Australia; the other day he was going to send it to Japan. If I understood the hon. gentleman correctly the other evening, he wanted them to be sent to the jungle to get their experience. That is strange, in view of the fact that before the Conservative returned soldier organization in Vancouver he objected to them being sent to Africa.


Mr. GREEN:: Oh, no, I did not.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Then I am mistaken.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is not strange.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Certainly some of those who were at the meeting of the Canadian corps association, which is nothing but a Conservative military organization, made the statement that they objected to our soldiers going to Africa to get experience, and the hon. member for Vancouver South was at the meeting.


Howard Charles Green: That does not say I made the statement.


George Alexander Cruickshank: No, and I withdraw the remark, but the hon. member was in bad company and he must put up with the consequences. I have great respect for the hon. member for Vancouver South. He is a good friend of mine, and I do not altogether blame him for fainting at Winnipeg. I would faint, too, if I thought I was going to be selected as leader of that party. In British Columbia we have a beautiful and ornamental fern. I do not know if it is common to the rest of Canada, but we have it in abundance in my province, and it makes one of the finest decorations one could hope to see. A strange thing about
it, though, is that if it is transplanted or moved in any way it withers and dies; yet in its own element it gets on very well. We call it the bracken, and I think the same result will follow in another instance. I intend no disrespect at all to the gentleman who I understand some day may be the leader of the opposition. I have never had the privilege of meeting that gentleman, but as a matter of fact right now I do not know, and no one else knows, who is leading the Progressive Conservatives. They do not know themselves.
In conclusion, I should like to urge that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) who has, as I see it, not yet tackled the problem of food production in Canada, and I make that statement while repeating that in my opinion there is no man in this house who could fill his shoes. I do not think he realizes as yet how serious the food situation is, because, if he did, with all his ability I am sure he would see that some action was taken. Let him fire all these boards; let him take over the problem himself and go to work immediately, together with the Minister of Labour. I am sure that together they can solve the labour problem on our farms.
I want to add that in my opinion the Liberal party has had bad luck occasionally, just as the Conservative party has. I believe if some years ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) had used all his powers of persuasion to induce the present Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) to take a seat in this house, it would have been a grand thing for Canada, because he has been a great asset since he came here. That is my opinion of the minister; I think he is a wonderful asset to this house, and I am sorry he did not come sooner.
I should like to say a word in connection with the Prime Minister. I for one, as a Liberal member, as a returned soldier and as a farmer, am sick and tired of hearing criticism of our Prime Minister.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why?


George Alexander Cruickshank: It is all very well for my hon. friends to the left to talk. They know they will never get into power. I will admit that they have many good ideas, but they will never come to power in Canada, and they know it perfectly well. If any hon. member would be fair about it; if he would sit down and talk it over, off the record if necessary, I would defy him to name any man in parliament or anywhere else in Canada capable of leading Canada as Mackenzie King has led it. It is very easy to criticize-


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: All the secretary jobs are filled.
The Address-Mr. Cruickshank
-COMMONS


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: There are vacancies in the senate.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Perhaps all the secretary jobs are filled, but with material of the calibre we have in our party they will be properly filled no matter who takes them.
It is time that we as Canadians, instead of belittling the leader of our country, should try to help him. I do not expect everyone to agree with his decisions at all times. I do not always agree with them, and I am a member of his party. But I do not think it is worthy of my hon. friends as Canadians at all times to give lip-service in the House of Commons, saying, "We will cooperate with the government; we will do this; we will do that," and then to telephone to that little committee of two hundred in Toronto, ask their instructions, and do everything possible ' to knock the efforts of the Prime Minister of Canada.
I sympathize with the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon). He must have a tremendous long-distance telephone bill. I understand he has a committee meeting every day at two o'clock to find out what he is to say and what he is to do. I admit that our Prime Minister falls down in that regard, because he does not call me in very often.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: The hon. member was not acquainted with his leader in the last war.


George Alexander Cruickshank: No, I was not, for the simple reason that I was not old enough to be a member of parliament. If I had been I would have been here then.


James Arthur Ross: The hon. member would not have found him here.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Listen; I have
made many speeches in this House of Commons. In them I have criticized the present leader of the government; I have criticized the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson), and I criticized Mr. Meighen when he wanted to become leader of the government; but no remark I made respecting any member of the house has been at all personal, no matter to what party a person has belonged, and I do not intend to start now.
Mr. Speaker, my time has almost expired. The only reason why the party asked me to continue talking until six o'clock was that we were afraid we might hear more nonsense from the left. I do not think I need tell the house how I am going to vote. However I do understand that the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) is going to vote with the government, because I promised him-and I should not have made such a promise-that

if he would, not only would we pay him for ploughing all his farm again this year, but we would put water into all the little holes he has around his farm.
In conclusion, and in all seriousness, I wish to impress upon the hon. member who is now leading the house, and through him the government, that we now have an ideal opportunity of doing something worth while. I do not think there is a member in the house who would not in every way possible assist the government in bringing about some form of social security. Certainly no hon. member knows what that solution would be. No one can foretell what the future may bring. But we, as a parliament, and you, as a government, have an ideal chance within the next month or two to show our sincerity in bringing about a token of social security by increasing the old age pension.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. EDOUARD LACROIX (Beauce) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, this 1943 speech from the throne differs very little from that of 1942, save for its veiled terms instead of a clear statement of the government's intention of increasing the war expenditures without regard for the position in which the inhabitants of this country have already been put, of also increasing contributions in the form of gifts for the allied countries, principally for Great Britain. A better understanding of this requires connecting the speech from the throne with the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mackenzie King) own speech.
You must therefore be advised, Mr. Speaker, that we have seen the day-a day now gone by-when an exhausted Canada has become a country where the people are destined to live in slavery for a century to come.
Is there no one in this country in a position to figure and count? As there surely must exist some such men, is it not possible for our government to use their services?
Where are the financial experts who ip. 1939 advised the government to the effect that Canada could participate in the conflict up to 750 million dollars yearly, maybe up to one billion, but not beyond, without jeopardizing her economic structure? Where are the experts who, in 1939, never stopped saying that it would be the height of folly for Canada to go to Europe every twenty years in order to police the world?
In the single year of 1942, we have spent in Canada-including the gift of $1,000,000,000

The Address-Mr. Lacroix (Beauce)
to England-for the administration of the country and the cost of war, a sum of 84,758,000,000,' divided as follows: estimates for 1942, 83,900,000,000; supplementary estimates voted this week, $858,000,000, making a total of $4,758,00,000, or $413 per capita.
What does a sum of $413 mean for each one of us? In my province, where the average number of children is six, so that with the father and mother there are eight persons in each family, it means that the expenditures of 1941-42 for war and for the administration of the country have reached the tidy sum of $3,304 for each Quebec family; in other words, within a single year, Canada has spent the entire property of those whose assessment is only $3,000.
And because we ask the right hon. the Prime Minister what has become of his moderate war, and are then compelled to leave him in protest, he says we are people without honour. I wish to quote what he said on February 1, as reported on page 47 of Hansard:
Yet at this critical time, of all times, hon. gentlemen in the far corner opposite find it necessary to separate themselves from colleagues in their province in order to support an isolationist view with regard to the war effort of Canada. Their action does credit neither to themselves, nor to their province or to our country.
First, I answer with all possible frankness: "How, Mr. Speaker, am I disgracing my family, my province, my country?" I came to this side of the house to remain consistent with myself, faithful to the lessons imparted to me by the Prime Minister, from 1921 to 1939.
Let us consider his own statements. In 1939: I quote the words of the Prime Minister on conscription as printed on page 2426 of Hansard for March 30, 1939 session, vol. 3:
The present government believes that conscription of men for overseas service would not be a necessary or effective step. Let me say that so long as this government may be in power, no such measure will be enacted.
And what had the minister stated in the preceding paragraph?
One strategic fact is clear: the days of great expeditionary forces of infantry crossing the oceans are not likely to recur. Two years ago, I expressed in this house the view that it was extremely doubtful if any of the British dominions would ever send another expeditionary force to Europe.
And then on page 2419, what are the words of the Prime Minister? I quote them verbatim:
We have tremendous tasks to do at home, in housing the people, in caring for the aged and helpless, in relieving drought and unemployment, in building roads, in meeting our heavy burden of debt, in making provision for Canada's defence, and in bringing our standards of living and civilization to the levels our knowledge now makes possible. There is no great margin of realizable wealth for this purpose; we must, to a greater or less extent, choose between keeping our own house in order, and trying to save Europe and Asia. The idea that every twenty years this country should automatically and as a matter of course take part in a war overseas for democracy or self-determination of other small nations, that a country which has all it can do to run itself should feel called upon to save, periodically, a continent that cannot run itself, and to these ends risk the lives of its people, risk bankruptcy and political disunion, seems to many a nightmare and sheer madness.
I am not the one who said these words, Mr. Speaker, I am not the one who professed that doctrine. But in opposition to these teachings, the leader of the Liberal government caused the house in 1939 to vote for participation in the war. Assurance was then given by him that such participation was to be moderate, proportionate to the means of the country. It was to be a voluntary participation-I need not here repeat the statements of the Prime Minister-but everything was to be on a voluntary basis and limited to the financial capacity of the country.
To be consistent with my past attitude, I voted against our participation in 1939. I then said what I repeat to-night, that to my mind it was the path leading to ruin, the road leading to compulsory military service, that is, to conscription.
I believe our present effort is exaggerated for a population of 11,500,000 inhabitants.
Canada has a male population of 5,900,000. Of this number, 1,900,000 are either too young or too old to work or are medically unfit, leaving some 4,000,000 able-bodied men. Of this number, 700,000 are to-day in the armed forces, and, according to the latest figures,
1,100,000	are employed in the war industries or in the shipyards, making a total of 1,800,000 men either in the army or engaged in the construction of weapons of war. This means that on the day of the armistice, one Canadian out of every two will find himself out of work.
In what position will we be as a result of a participation so out of proportion with our population?
This situation will become intolerable immediately after the war and will expose our people to lose the peace as a result of a thoughtless administration, an exaggerated participation which, in 1940, was to be moderate and, to-day, has become an all-out participation, to the last dollar and the last man, directly in opposition to the policy outlined by the present government during the 1940 electoral campaign.
534	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Lacroix (Beauce)
In 1941, the government mobilized our young men for the defence of Canada in Canada.
What did the government leader have to say on this subject in his radio address of February 2, 1941? I quote some excerpts from his book "Le Canada et la guerre," page 232, and from "Canada at Britains' Side," page 203. First, why does this book bear different titles in the French and the English editions, since they both contain extracts from the same addresses? Here are the two books. The binding is better on the one than on the other, that is the only difference between them. The contents are exactly the same. Everyone knows that the translation of "Le Canada et la guerre" is "Canada at War"; and that the English title "Canada at Britain's Side" should be translated by "Le Canada aux cotes de l'Angleterre." One type of policy is expounded to the French Canadians and another to the English-speaking Canadians.
It is nothing but a political expedient! "Le Canada et la guerre," in the author's mind, is less objectionable to the French Canadians, and, on the other hand, "Canada at Britain's Side" sounds better to another group of Canadians.
I therefore read an extract from page 204 of the English edition:
Total effort can be achieved in two ways. It can be compelled by dictatorial force-that is the enemy's way. It can be obtained by the free-will offering of a free people-that is our way, and the way we must strive to preserve. We are a free people, and every day since the war began, there has been proof of the growing willingness of our people to spare no effort or sacrifice, that the needs of the war demand.
Yet to-day the right hon. the prime minister says that we are not honourable, we who sit in this corner of the house, quite near the exit. I represent a fairly populous constituency and I am convinced that my electors will keep me in the House of Commons for many years to come.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to quote some excerpts from an article by Morton Smith which appeared on page 6 of the May 12, 1942, issue of the American magazine PIC. The article is entitled "What is an honest politician?" and it begins with these words:
To be honest is to be great.
Here is what I read in the third column of the article:
It is worth stressing again and again about Franklin D. Roosevelt as President that he has never in any major issue tried to fool or doublecross the people. . . .
And further on:
Roosevelt's record of square dealing is remarkable for showing few instances of important compromises on political personalities and almost

none on principles. As far as he could he has kept his administration free of the double dealers and opportunists.
In his book the prime minister also tells us about the voluntary service of a free people.
At first, mobilization entailed one month's training; later, four months' military service was required; still later, a year's training was decreed and, finally, men were drafted for the duration of the war. And to-day, by order in council, these draftees are being sent outside the country. A scarcely honourable method, a roundabout means. But, after all, the entire set up of the war machine is along that line. The book I hold in hand is one example of it.
May I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that in my experience I have been given lessons in honour from two sources. The first one, in my youth, came from my mother-a memory which will ever abide with me. Her words were these: "Never do unto others as you would not have others do unto you and guard scrupulously over property entrusted to your care."
The second contribution to my education up to 1939 came from my political leader, the Right Hon. Mackenzie King. He taught me a political doctrine in which I believed and in which I still believe. If his conception of honour allows him to forget his past, my mother's teachings, as far as I am concerned, do not allow me to do so.
In conscience does he blame me? I think not.
And to-day the leader of the Liberal government is doing exactly what he judged ridiculous in 1939. The lives of our soldiers are threatened, financial bankruptcy in this country is an accomplished fact and all through the fault of a government who were warning the people against such a catastrophe.
That policy goes to such extremes that no limits are set anywhere. Let us consider, for instance, the navy item. Is is not astounding that, according to the publication "Canada at war", No. 21, page 7, whereas in 1939 we had 1,717 men serving in the navy we now have 52,000? In 1939, we had fifteen warships, whereas to-day, according to that publication, we have over 500.
If the predecessor of the right hon. the Prime Minister were here, what blame he could level against the present government! What a contrast between the three small ships of Laurier in 1911 and the 500 ships we have to-day 1
That is not all. Here is what is said on page 8 of that publication:

The Address-Mr. Lacroix (Beauce)
The Canadian navy now has nearly one-half the number of men the Royal Navy had at the outbreak of war.
And on page 9:
The Canadian navy is rapidly increasing, as a result of the production of Canadian and British shipyards.
Canada, which formerly was so peaceful and whose policy was so moderate in 1939 is now building as many ships as possible. Moreover, Canada is having built in England as many ships as she can obtain for the present war.
Why should a government go to such extremes? For, after all, England, twenty times wealthier than Canada, can use all her resources to build ships. Why should England build ships for us? Such a policy is extreme and short-sighted.
I have said enough. Those who in 1940 were supposedly supporting a moderate participation have reached the point where they are building the largest possible number of ships in Canada and are having ships built in British yards for Canada.
Mr. Speaker, what is the reason for this participation, and this exaggerated effort, which is out of proportion with the size of our population and financial means?
It is the act of thoughtless men, they show revealing panic among our leaders. We are on the road to perdition and slipping fast. The Liberal government and the Conservative party are allied in the prosecution of an extremist and imperialistic policy.
Yet, to-day, the Prime Minister is surprised that men such as I find it necessary to forsake his party.
Mr. Speaker, I have been a follower of the Prime Minister from 1921 to 1939. I have thoroughly understood his teachings. I have contributed much of my own money and effort in support of his truly Canadian policy. I put my faith in him, convinced as I was at that time of his sincerity; I supported him loyally until September 9, 1939. Then, I realized that the Liberal leader was turning his back on the political principles which he had upheld until then, and, from 1939 to this day, I have been an astounded witness to the means employed by his government, blind extremists that they are, to ensure our present limitless contribution to the war.
The propaganda resorted to from 1939 to this day is an exact replica of that used from 1914 to 1918, except that it is more hypocritical.
Government experts and astute lawyers tell us that conscription is not in force in Canada, in the Canada Gazette of February 9 was published a proclamation calling up all the
young men born in 1924, that is, 19 years of age. Why are young men of 19 needed in the army at the present time if not to release those already mobilized for service overseas? Why go to such extremes?
We have a shortage of farm labour. Large quantities of wheat were left standing under the snow in western Canada. The mixed1 farmer can hardly supply the Canadian population with the necessary quantity of butter; the live-stock producer will be far from meeting the consumer demand. Beef is about to be rationed. There is a scarcity of wool- hundreds and hundreds of soldiers carry on their military training dressed in civilian clothes. There is a scarcity of fat and potatoes in certain parts of the country. Our pulp mills are short of wood for lack of labour. Lumber is scarce for the same reason. It is a shame to see young girls, young children of fifteen, showing signs of poor health, forced to work at night in industrial establishments of the province of Quebec.
And then our young men of nineteen are mobilized for military training. We are even told that from the 1st of March all single men between nineteen and forty-five and all married men between nineteen and twenty-five will be called up for medical examination. This happens at a time when we have already
700,000	men in the armed forces.
Is it not true, according to the words of the Prime Minister himself, that Canada's war effort is greater in proportion to its population than that of any other country? In my opinion we have in this country a group of leaders whose zeal exceeds in every particular what may be found in other lands.
The most solemn pledges count for little or nothing; we seem to be under the most rigid dictatorship known in any of the allied nations at war; the Canadian gestapo plagues our people.
Has not society been completely disorganized in this country? Not the slightest consideration is being shown for the common people.
Boards have been established whose members are not responsible to the people, men who are paid by their regular employers and who give their services for one dollar a year- and in many instances in the interest of their respective businesses.
The trust in certain lines of business is represented by some of these dollar-a-year men by whom personal liberty is being sabotaged.
The trade of the country general merchant is being sabotaged. Restrictions imposed are often unfair. Butter rationing is fixed at five ounces a week, alcohol at forty ounces.

The Address

Mr. Lacroix (Beauce)
The dressmaker is short of needles, of hair pins, etc., etc., but we pay over to Great Britain $200,000,000 for her war machinery in Canada, machinery which will be worth the price of scrap metal less than one year after the end of war, providing our government at that time does not, to our undoing, dispose of it in favour of unscrupulous dealers who will resell it to our enemies that they may the better lay us low twenty years later.
What a government! What a Battel! And we hear boastings of good administration.
Subsidies equivalent to 65 million dollars are being granted to a company with American subscribed capital, on the basis of a sufficient allowance for depreciation over a period of two years, so that financing is thereby assured for the construction of hydro electric plants with a total capacity of one and one-half million horsepower.
Why so much protection for these groups? And to meet such prodigalities, the people are taxed to a point where they can no longer meet their obligations. Private initiative is being completely ruined.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal party, the present government, have made their own the extremist programme of the Conservative party. We have heard them singing each other's praise. The other day, the Prime Minister spent fifteen minutes complimenting the former leader of the opposition and congratulating him on his achievements during recent years.
AVas not the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) one of the group who deprived the right hon. the Prime Minister of his seat in 1926? When I then offered my own seat to the Prime Minister, was it perchance my first dishonourable gesture?
Mr. Speaker, what a striking contrast between the praises addressed to his opponents and the blame cast upon his friends of twenty-five years' standing! I may say that 1 am not ashamed of having crossed to this side of the house as a member of "the bloc populaire eanadien".
I have been identified for twenty-five years with the Quebec "bloc". During those years that "bloc" has almost continuously given sixty members to this government. I am remaining a member of that "bloc", that is all. The Quebec "bloc" will remain. This time it is the government that have parted from the Quebec "bloc" which had been of so much help to them. The government's policy is so imperialistic and extreme that Quebec is compelled to dissociate itself from them.


Mr. FAUTEUX:: Not Quebec; three members only.


Édouard Lacroix: The people of the province of Quebec are Canadian first. Have they not shown it at every opportunity? But they do and will always remember how they have been deceived.
From a participation "by free collaboration" to a dictatorial participation by order in council, the Prime Minister has launched us into extreme participation in the war.
What is the use of compelling our small population of eleven million and a half to throw itself between Germany and Russia? We all know that Russia has a population of nearly two hundred million people and we know that her natural increase is five million people a year; we know that she can wage war for a century without decreasing her population.
What is the use of our sparsely populated country throwing 200,000, 300,000 or 500,000 men between China and Japan? China has a population of five hundred million people, with a natural increase of twelve million and a half a year and she can wage war during an indefinite period without decreasing her population.
How sound was the reasoning of our Prime Minister previous to 1939? It is too bad that he has not remained consistent with himself. Those countries must be fed. Why should we not supply them with our wheat and all other foodstuffs?
No doubt our all-out war effort seems ridiculous to the populations of Sweden, Turkey, Ireland, India, Spain, Portugal and South America.
For 1942, our exaggerated war expenditures amount to almost 5 billion dollars, compared to 50 billions in the United States, and for 1943 they will exceed 8 billions. In a comparison with the United States some will say that we are no more than they are. Let us not forget that the United States are spending the gold which they have accumulated, while we are mortgaging the property of our descendants. When this war is over, if the United States have increased their public debt by 200 billions, they will be in a position to issue immediately currency for that amount on the international basis of 25 per cent gold coverage and they still will have the soundest currency in the world. They will be able to write off their debt any day they choose. On the other hand, lacking the same reserves in proportion to the population, such a course will not be possible for us in this country. In my opinion, the United States are spending what they hold in reserve in Fort Knox, while

The Address-Mr. Jackman
we are spending what we do not possess. We are mortgaging the credit of future generations, and as our country borders on the United States those who will follow us will have to live in a state of slavery in order to survive.
The comparison is a very simple one. Here are two neighbours; one has a family of 26 and has a bank account of $200,000 of which he spends $150,000 during the war. At the close of hostilities, he still owns $50,000. The other family is thirteen times smaller, counting only two members; during the war this man spend $12,000 and, in order to do that, he must mortgage his property and pay interest. At the end of the war, he is bankrupt; he loses his property or goes into bankruptcy, while his neighbour is still a wealthy man. This example, to my mind, is a fair illustration of Canada's situation as compared to that of the United States.
Much is said, in Canada, about inflation. In government circles, it is claimed that inflation is being checked. Has any government ever done so much as the present administration to provoke inflation of debts in the country? No limit is set on the increase of the national debt. We are governed through inflation of orders in council. Trusts are resorting to inflation of their control on trade. Inflation is checked among our people by preventing them, through a pyramiding of laws and orders in council, from paying their debts and from realizing profits that would allow them to carry on.
Has there been, since confederation, any government who have inflated taxes to the same extent as the present one. To-day, personal taxes have reached an aggregate average of 37J per cent of the individual incomes.
Mr. Speaker, I could pursue this subject indefinitely, but I believe my time has expired.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Jean):: I
must inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


Édouard Lacroix: I repeat: in order to be consistent with myself, I shall vote against the address, against the amendment and against the amendment to the amendment.
Mr. HARRY R. JACKMAN (Rosedale): Mr. Speaker, may I first offer my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Harris) and the seconder (Mr. Halle) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. These honourable and gallant members did honour to themselves and to the armed forces which they represent. While it is true that as yet the
Canadian army has seen little of actual conflict, they stand on. guard for us; and to no one has the long period of training and preparation- been more trying than to the soldiers themselves. Seldom do I enter this chamber without observing in the hallway the statue of Lieutenant-Colonel Baker, who made the supreme sacrifice during the last war. It would indeed be a strange commentary on our democratic institutions if members of this house were forbidden to offer themselves in the highest form of all service, namely the armed service of their country in time of war. Indeed, the constituency whose representative wears the king's uniform is doubly honoured.
One statement contained in the speech from the throne is particularly comforting at this time; that is, that as members of this house and citizens of this country we could be heartened by the improved position of the united nations. We can take comfort from the fact that the course of the war is now more favourable to the cause of freedom than it has been in the past. There is satisfaction to be gained from the fact that we are now approaching the hill from which victory may be seen in the distance, though still a long way off. We realize that great sacrifices still must be made, but if we are even a little nearer victory than before it means that many lives which otherwise would have been sacrificed will be saved to us and the other united nations. We have advanced far along the road. In the beginning we were totally unprepared, and for two years we were almost overcome by the enemy attacks and reeled from their blows, wherever they cared to strike. We have won the battle of Britain, and by so doing we have given civilization and our democratic way of life a chance to save itself from barbarism. We have now a victorious Russia, a hard-fighting United States and thirty other united nations on our side. We are definitely on the offensive. We have equality or superiority in arms, and we never doubted the quality of our seamen, our soldiers and our airmen. Their spirit of sacrifice is an inspiration to us all, though sometimes we forget it. The road ahead is still long and hard, but we will put our shoulders to the wheel and see this conflict through to the victorious end.
We are proud of the leaders of the united nations, of Prime Minister Churchill and President Roosevelt; we are proud of the achievements of Stalin and the Russian people. We are proud to be associated with Churchill and Roosevelt in the planning of the grand strategy of this war, even though our connection is only by remote control and absentee representation. It is obvious that all the
The Address-Mr. Jackman

united nations could not be represented at Casablanca, but there is a feeling on the part of many Canadians that closer and better cooperation could be achieved through direct representation on an imperial war council, or British commonwealth council, if you like, in London. Particularly is this so because our army is being held in Great Britain as a spearhead pointed at the heart of Berlin. Perhaps I should use the term "united nations council," on which we should seek representation, because it is almost inevitable that United States troops will form part of the attacking forces. Many people in this country believe that high ministerial representation' should be sought on a supreme war council. Not a week passes without some utterance which affects Canada coming from one or another of the allied leaders, and one wonders exactly how instructions are given or consent is signified by this country. In 1916, in reference to an imperial war cabinet, Sir Robert Borden said:
It can hardly be expected that we shall put
400,000	or 500,000 men in the field and willingly accept the position of having no more voice and receiving no more consideration than if we were toy automata. Any person cherishing such expectation cherishes an unfortunate and even dangerous delusion.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said recently that the agencies of communication have greatly improved since the last war. At that time, however, we had almost instantaneous communication by cable, and I doubt very much if even to-day secret messages can be sent over the radio. It is true that aeroplane transportation makes documentary dispatch easier, but the mechanical means of transportation were almost as perfect in the last war as they are to-day, and there is no closer communication now than there was at that time. It is not enough for those who have charge of government in this country to know what is in the minds of those who are directing the conduct of this war. Are our ministers and those responsible for our military commitments always to be on the receiving end? Can they only reply to the suggestions of others? Can they never volunteer information or military help? Can they never initiate proposals? Must they always act as a brake on the wheels of progress? One might almost as well suggest that parliament be not convened, that the members remain at home in their constituencies and rely on the endless press releases and official documents which are sent to them. The purpose of parliament, like the purpose of a war council, is to represent our constituencies, exchange our views and find a common ground of national action. Our war contribution promises to be very great. We

should seek the position of an equal, not that of a helpful appendage. Many things are not asked of us because the ideas must originate with us. Can we possibly have a proper understanding of all the facts bearing on the various matters which come up if we are not part and parcel of the planning council?
The Prime Minister has stated that every day the government receives not one; but at least a dozen dispatches, if not more, direct from the government of Britain, in relation to matters immediately affecting the war. What innumerable problems must be the subject-matter of these dispatches? How many of them require definite and striking leadership? Mere consultation between the government of this country and the governments of the other united nations is not sufficient. The whole life of our nation at the present time is directed to the supreme effort of winning this war, and there is no place where direct and continuous representation is more needed than on a war council.
Where the supreme control of war planning lies is not clear. I doubt if any hon. member can tell me exactly where the grand board of strategy is. In his speech the other week the Prime Minister said:
Our chiefs of staff in this city are in constant touch with the combined chiefs of staff having their headquarters at Washington. The war committee of the cabinet is informed of the discussions taking place there from day to day. We have a permanent liaison officer, an official of the government, who is there at the present time, and is there also throughout the year. We are entitled to follow the discussions and to be heard respecting any aspect of the war situation we may wish to present. Canada's interests in all these matters are placed fully before these boards that are continuously sitting and dealing with these matters.
May I again remind the house of what Sir Robert Borden said in 1916:
Let us be done with liaison officers, and have direct participation. Let us put off our swaddling clothes, and put on the raiment of nationhood.
May I ask the Prime Minister if consultation is to be the measure of Canada's participation in the peace conference, to which we are all looking forward, a conference which we trust will bring peace and prosperity not only to our children, but to our children's children. Is Canada to have a liaison officer permitted to attend that momentous conference? What consideration shall this country receive at the council or committee which will implement the provisions of the Atlantic charter, and on all the great economic conferences which are bound to follow this war? Are we merely to have liaison officers attached to these very important conferences?

The Address-Mr. Jackman
Is the Prime Minister, also, the only minister who can be sent to attend these conferences, wherever they may be held? He has said that his place is in the House of Commons and in this country. From a political point of view the Prime Minister is leader of a political party; but, if so little national unity, and so little unity of purpose have been achieved, that his presence is required nere, then surely . some other Canadian statesman can be substituted for him to attend these conferences. Inasmuch as one must cut one's coat according to one's cloth, I offer the name of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston).
In a volume entitled "Speeches and Documents on the British Dominions, 1918-1931," which has as a subtitle "From self-government to national sovereignty," edited by Arthur Berriedale Keith, we find this:
Common effort and sacrifice in war have inevitably led to the recognition of equality of status between the responsible governments of the empire. This equality has long been acknowledged in principle and found its adequate expression in 1917 in the creation, or rather the natural coming into being, of the imperial war cabinet, as an instrument for evolving a common imperial policy in the conduct of the war.
The deliberations of the imperial war cabinet covered the whole field of empire policy, and also many aspects of foreign policy, and the war aims for which the British commonwealth was then fighting. If Canada does not take part in such a council, then surely it is follow [DOT] ing a retrogressive step. It has failed to assume and discharge its rightful duty, namely, to share in the joint administration of the war.
This war has differed very much from the last in the quietitude of its early stages, then the unexpected successes of the enemy in May, 1940, and then the unparalleled success of Russia in the winter of 1942-43. The relative quiet and building up, and the making of preparations on the European front now induce a feeling that the present method of consultation and partnership is quite adequate. But, sir, I do not believe that it will be adequate for the time when stresses and strains are greatly increased. Then the need will come. Then will be the utmost urgency. Then will be the need for consultation and cooperation which will not be present.
Hon. members who are intimate with the history of the imperial war cabinet will recall that that cabinet solved many problems which might have grown into matters of substantial friction. For instance, Sir Arthur Currie found that he did not receive the cooperation to which he felt he was entitled, and which was necessary, from the British officers. It was a
matter of great importance, and finally the command of the Canadian soldiers was put entirely under General Currie. In this war we have benefited from our experiences in the last, and we have started off on the right foot.
If we are to interpret and carry out the policies necessary for the winning of this war, it may be that the Prime Minister must remain in Canada. These policies undoubtedly are difficult to apply; but we should obtain representation of a high political character on the board which does the planning of the grand strategy in this war.
While the Prime Minister has said that his place is in this country, we find proofs to the contrary in his acts, rather than in his words. Not only has he himself found it necessary to visit Great Britain, but many of his chief ministers, together with their staffs, have gone to Britain-not once, but several times-in order to learn and to contribute at first hand. Despite the means of communication these visits were entailed only by the greatest necessity. Nothing could indicate better than these visits the necessity for representation on an imperial cabinet. In the last war there were benefits, other than the chief one of joint direction and cooperation in the war, to be derived from the imperial war cabinet. At that time there was a difficult problem in connection with India and the empire. Some of the dominions-and I think Canada was one-did not welcome the immigration of East Indians into their respective countries. This was an offending matter to India. But the difficulty was solved around a common roundtable by pointing out to India that if she chose she, too, could exclude the nationals of other British commonwealth countries.
It is possible that if we had a British commonwealth round-table sitting at the present time we might find a solution of the perplexing problem of dominion status for India. We might be able to make a contribution which would help to solve the problem of a recalcitrant Eire. We find a certain difference of opinion on the part of Prime Minister Curtin of Australia as to where the most important theatre of war is at the present time. It is possible that if Mr. Curtin were at a round-table conference he would see, not an immediate danger to Australia, but rather the ultimate and inevitable danger to our sister commonwealth if we pursued a course different from that which we are pursuing. As the volume of dispatches and correspondence received by our Prime Minister indicates, there is great usefulness to be served by a common-discussion
The Address-Mr. Jackman

table. Indeed, its usefulness cannot even be conjectured, much less measured. The opinion of Mr. Churchill given only last Thursday in the British House of Commons concerning the value of face-to-face consultations between allied leaders is well worth quoting in support of my contention. I quote Mr. Churchill:
When you have half-a-dozen important theatres of war open in various parts of the globe there are bound to be divergencies of views when the problem is studied from different angles. There have been many divergencies of views before we came together and it is for that reason I pressed for many months a meeting of as many of our great allies as possible. These divergencies are on emphasis and priority rather than principle. They can only be removed by prolonged association of consenting and instructed minds.
Another matter I should like to mention is that of the incredible bravery of our forces at Dieppe and the winning of the Victoria Cross by Lieutenant-Colonel Merritt. The action of our troops calls forth the highest praise of our people, and similarly those of our men who patrol the seas are entitled to our highest praise. The intrepid exploits of the men of the Royal Canadian Air Force and the Royal Air Force are the pride of Canada and are our greatest fighting contribution to the cause of freedom. It was with interest, then that I learned from the speech from the throne that Canada is to assume increased responsibility for the maintenance of Canada's airmen and Canadian air squadrons serving abroad. I wonder if the Canadian people know that our government pays not one cent for the upkeep of our No. 1 ace, Flying Officer Beurling, D.S.O., D.F.C., D.F.M., and bar, who was rejected by the Royal Canadian Air Force several times and accepted by the Royal Air Force? Do the Canadian people know that our boys in the Royal Canadian Air Force overseas are largely paid and maintained by the British government, which also pays for their equipment? Who pays for what in this war is not important, but when we boast about giving a billion dollar credit to Great Britain, we should look facts in the face and be given as true a picture as is possible. As the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) stated last year in this house: It would take a generation of accountants to figure out the tangle of accounts as between Canada and Great Britain. While the balance may be upon our side, the people of Canada should know that the Royal Canadian Air Force personnel is paid by Great Britain once it leaves our shores, and that we are vesponsible only for paying the difference berMr. Jackman.]
tween the Royal Air Force rate of pay and the rate for the Royal Canadian Air Force. In the meantime, may I join with the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) in paying a high tribute to the administration of the Department of National Defence for Air. The British commonwealth air training plan is our greatest contribution to this war.
Another matter which I wish to bring to the attention of the house and which I feel I would be remiss in my duty if I did not mention before this debate closes is in regard to the rightful hopes and expectations of the people of Canada in reference to the application of the Ruml plan to this dominion. It would indeed be hard to find a single Canadian who does not favour the adoption of this plan to the situation as it exists in Canada. Just as it would not be true to say that the Canadian public do not want to pay or are unwilling to pay their rightful taxes, provided that the money is well spent, so it would be unfair to say that the taxpayers this year or any year are unwilling to provide the financial sinews which are necessary to the winning of victory.
In the time which is at my disposal I shall not be able to go into this subject at length, but I wish to sketch it out briefly so that it will at least be on the record before this house is threatened with a bill which will be cut-and-dried reflecting not the will of the people of Canada, but the will only of those who are in the Department of Finance. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) should be informed of the desires of the electors of this country. The government is merely the agent, not the master, of the people in the matter of tax collection; and if a more equitable method can be devised which will not result in loss to the treasury, then it is the duty of the treasury to adopt that method. It was not many years ago that income tax did not exist at all upon incomes in the lower brackets, and even the taxes on the higher-bracket incomes were relatively easy to pay. The following figures cover a four-year period, 1938-1942, and indicate the rapidity of taxation growth in this country. In no other country has taxation grown at the rate at which it has in this country. In Great Britain they were accustomed to a high income tax before the war. It was not just a tax to meet the needs of government but was in effect a redistribution of the national income. Not only have we in Canada met the rates of taxation, in many brackets which they have in England, but in some brackets we have exceeded their rates, and on top of that we have corporation

The Address-Mr. Jackman
taxes which even on the amount of pre-war profits amount to a minimum of forty per cent. To show the house how fast the rate of taxation has grown in this country I quote the following figures which are applicable to Ontario, and they would probably be very similar for any other province.
A married man with two children paid in 1938 and in 1942 respectively the following amounts of income tax:
Irtcome	Income
Taxation paid Taxation paid
Income	in 1938	in 1942$ 2,000	
nil	$ 214 805,000	
$118 00	1,662 0010,000	
668 21	4,546 00
It is the pace, not the race, that kills. It was customary and feasible for every citizen to pay a previous year's taxes out of a succeeding year's income. Indeed, the government seldom announced the rate of taxation until the end of the first or second quarter of the year following that in which the income was earned. But taxation has now become such a large proportion of even very low incomes that it is impossible to pay taxes on last year's income and at the same time save sufficient in order to pay the tax on the income currently being earned. The result is that every tax-paying individual in Canada is faced with a burden of debt which in most instances he will be totally unable to discharge. When he will be able to do so it is impossible to say, because he can never catch up with the income tax the way it is at the present time, and because of the history of its progressive increases. If the income decreases or ceases with retirement, accident, sickness, unemployment or death, the taxpayer not having as great an income, or having no income, is faced with a burden of tax debt which cannot be met.
How does the adoption of the Ruml plan for Canada cope with this problem of lessening the tax burden for a man when he no longer has as much income or perhaps any income out of which to pay the tax? The adoption of the plan would free the individual from an overwhelming burden of worry and uncertainty which fear of a never-to-be discharged debt causes in the mind of the ordinary prudent citizen. Under the plan the desired result would be accomplished by the taxpayer paying this year and every year to the maximum of his current earning capacity according to the needs of the treasury and the laws of the land. But at the same time he would at the end of the year be free from an overhanging burden of debt. The method to be adopted would be as follows: the taxes paid in this year would
apply to the 1943 assessment, and not to the 1942 assessment as is the case to a large extent at the present time. The incomes of the year 1942 are now spent and gone, and the moving forward of the base from 1942 to 1943 is precisely the same as the adoption of daylight saving: the hand of the clock is moved forward one hour; nothing is changed, but seven o'clock now becomes eight o'clock.


Mr. HOMUTH:: Leaving the government in the dark.


Mr. JACKMAN:: The government is not cheated out of an hour, and God is not asked to forgive us for not accounting for one hour of our life on earth. Under the present system, for which the government is as much or more responsible than the individual, the taxpayer is always a year late. With the adoption of the Ruml plan by Canada the citizen will be taxed as he earns his income; he will pay as he goes.
Like Tennyson's brook, men may come and men may go, but the government goes on for
ever.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Not this one.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: There will be no year when the government will be without its full tax revenue. Ministers of finance, the present one and those preceding him, have endeavoured to have the government proceed on a pay-as-you-go basis. The adoption of this plan in Canada will make it possible for the taxpayer to be put on a pay-as-you-go basis also.
Under the plan the government gives up nothing; indeed, it will probably gain, inasmuch as there will be a greater national income to be taxed in 1943 than in 1942. Moreover, the government, by the adoption of this plan, will be in a better position to collect more adequately from the 1943 crop of new workers than it is under the existing system. As it is, taxes on the new workers are to some extent not payable until 1944. The government has levied and will levy taxes according to our capacity to pay, this year and next year and as long as this is necessary to the winning of the war. The individual will pay as long as he earns income, and will be currently taxed, but at the end of the year he will be free from any overhanging burden of debt. In a year in which the taxpayer has less income through death, retirement, sickness, accident or partial unemployment, he will be taxed according to his then income, not according to an income which is spent and gone.
The Address-Mr. Jackman

Inasmuch as the government will tax all it can, it is fruitless for it to suggest that in addition to paying the 1943 taxes in full as we go, we shall also pay the .1942 taxes spread over a number of years on the instalment plan, because the taxes this year will undoubtedly be, as they were last year, as heavy as the Canadian people can bear without the system breaking down entirely. The theory of collecting 1942 taxes in addition, even on the instalment plan, is both fallacious and illusory. The government will take all it can, as it has done during the last few years.
While the implications of the Rural plan may not be fully understood by all the people of Canada, its adoption is desired by approximately 100 per cent of the people. Indeed, the government is fortunate to have this opportunity of being able to institute the collection of virtually all taxes at the source of the income instead of having to wait until the income is in many instances spent and gone, and the taxes irretrievably lost. Indeed, as we are proceeding at the present time, if even partial unemployment obtains after the war, during a period of switching-over from war-time to peace-time activity, there will be many workers who will owe for the previous year's taxes but who will be unable with a reduced income to meet them and we shall find a disrespect for law similar to that which obtained in the prohibition era.
The adoption of the Ruml plan without modification will cost the government nothing. It will relieve the individual from the psychological and real fear of constant and perpetual indebtedness. While it will not relieve the Canadian people of one dollar of taxes, it will relieve each and every individual taxpayer of a tax burden which he cannot and will not in the majority of instances be able to meet when his income is no longer existent.
Except in those instances where the income tax operates as a capital levy, the government is already facing an eventual impossibility of collection of taxes on incomes spent and gone. The situation exists; it should be recognized, and a pay-as-you-go policy should be adopted immediately.
At the end of last year some taxpayers had paid thirty per cent of their 1942 taxes and some had paid more. A few had not paid even back taxes. There will be administrative problems to solve, and I urge that the government adopt the democratic way of referring the matter to a special committee or use the banking and commerce committee in order to put this country's tax collection on a sound basis, so that the will of the people will be reflected and that we shall have a pay-as-you-go system for all our people.


Mr. PIERRE GAUTHIER (Portneuf):: Notwithstanding the pleasant remark of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) the other day, with reference to my two colleagues, the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Lacroix), and the hon. member for Beauharnois-La-prairie (Mr. Raymond), and myself, I am not ashamed to address this house from an opposition bench. For the first time after having attended sixteen sessions of parliament I am opposing a government. Had the Liberal party fulfilled its engagement and honoured its word, I would not be here. The delegation of Quebec has been sworn in, especially during the provincial election of 1939, before the people of the province, that "no one would support any government, be it Liberal or Conservative, and every one would oppose any government that would vote for conscription for overseas, or apply it". This was our oath. No one should forget it now that conscription has been voted by a Liberal government and, whatever can be said, is applied. No one here should be surprised to see us on this side of the house. The present conscription differs in its application from the conscription of 1917, but it is working perfectly.
May I be permitted to give a few examples. Take, for instance, a member of this house giving a recommendation in favour of a married man, let us say, thirty years of age, with a wife and three children. This man cannot be appointed as postmaster if he is of military age, and if he has no discharge from military service. The result is this: no discharge, no position; no position, no meals, no clothing. A man thirty-seven years of age with a wife and seven children applied for a position as blacksmith in the marine department in Quebec. The first question was, Since you are of military age. have you been discharged from the army? The result is: no discharge from the army, no job. Since these two men could not enlist voluntarily for home defence, but could enlist voluntarily only in the active forces, because they were not called up in accordance with the National Resources Mobilization Act, they are free to enlist for overseas or to remain without a job. No job, no meals, no clothing, no living. Let us examine the case of a young doctor, single or married, but without children, aged twenty-five. Under the act, he is called up for military service. He enjoys perfect freedom with respect to military service. If he wants to serve as a medical man in the army, he must enlist in the active forces to serve anywhere in the world; otherwise he must serve as a private in home defence. A wonderful voluntary system! Take the case of a young student in one of the last two years of his

The Address-Mr. Gauthier
classical course. Success does not always smile on the most brilliant pupils, and if this young man is unfortunate enough to fail, he is not given another chance to go through. The road is wide open before him to the army. A consoling voluntary system!
As a resume of all this, I would say, as one of my * friends said one day, this is a real voluntary system: you do not want to enlist but the government wants you to, and there you are. These are a few cases of the newly patented voluntary system for the recruiting of Canadian soldiers for overseas in the second world war.
Under the authority of order in council P.C. 11159, Canadian soldiers have been sent to Newfoundland, Alaska and Labrador. Another step further. The next is overseas; and if there is another delay between the promised order in council and the divulging of it, our soldiers will have time to write to their parents and receive an answer before the government has decided to make the order in council public. A very open and frank policy! The coating used by the politicians of the two old political parties of this country has become too thin, so thin that the people taste the pill and refuse to swallow it. The policy ends at the same spot; the ways of application differ.
The war effort was too inadequate, the government) too slow for our Conservative friends, and by studied and well organized pressure they have forced the Liberals to come across. These promises of a moderate and voluntary effort to win the provincial elections of 1939 in Quebec have volatilized under the warm rays of the imperial sun and the cacophonic brass band of the two hundred. An identical offensive on the plebiscite put into action the old see-saw policy invented to conciliate finance, the politicians and the claims of the people.
We witnessed in this house strongly opposed members voting in favour of the plebiscite, and it has been admitted by members sitting in this house and by many newspapers that an important percentage of the population did not exactly know whether this "yes" or "no" vote was connected with conscription. It had been so clearly put before the people! However, one thing certain is that the "no" vote in Quebec was against conscription and, if it has changed, it is toward an increase in the negative vote. It was then that a new word was bom, a word that is now used freely with reference to those who are opposing the old political parties in this country-"isolationist." What a handy word! For a few years the word "communist" had been stewed on every occasion where the old political parties wanted
to stigmatize their opponents, especially those strongly advocating reforms on social and economic grounds, and in accordance with a true Canadian policy. Now, however, that Mr. Buck and his partisans, members of a party which has not yet been legalized, can spread vigorous propaganda everywhere in the country; now that help to Russia has become a duty among the united nations; now that Russia itself has balanced the fortunes of war in our favour, the word "communist" does not fit any longer. "Isolationist" is the new blend.
But if one examines very carefully the general selective service, the food and war material rationing, if one scrutinizes the whole system which is now held in honour within the boundaries of our country, he cannot help seeing the great analogy with the policy which has been developed in Russia since Lenin, and especially after the accession of Stalin to power. I should like very much to know the names of the men responsible for this general economic policy, their connections in the world and their racial origin. Shall I be called isolationist if I ask the government to be very careful in the choice of its financial and economic experts, in order that this dominion will not be confronted with a system which will be in the hands of men not giving a thought to the country in which they operate, ignoring national boundaries, and ignoring the boundaries of nations, whether they be enemies or allies. This war will come to and end some day, and there will be another peace treaty written. The government then in power, with its experts, will suffer another Casablanca if these experts are not real Canadians having in mind the specific interests of Canada. Shall I be called isolationist if I point out that Canada will have to act as a nation of America before acting as a colony? The rate at which we are spending should cause us to have a system of collection toward the nations, especially those which might have in mind sooner or later the erasing of the war debts.
Shall I be called isolationist if I ask the government to stop and think for a moment that our agriculture is doomed if the farmers' sons are not sent back to the land? It is all very well for the government and its numerous propagandists to flash periodically the exemption of farmers' sons, but it is not so pleasant for the farmer to spend days and weeks begging the authorities to grant postponement, which is often granted after the boy has spent from four to six months in camp and is turned back to the land after the work is partly done or, in many instances, after the crop is lost. It is all very well for the provincial friends of the government to say,
The Address-Mr. Gauthier

we will have to be careful about the training of farmers' sons and farm help, but it would be better for those gentlemen to help those who have been urging the government to agree upon a specific policy toward agriculture in connection with military training. Why not exempt farmers' sons and farm help once and for all, and stop that flow of farmers to the commission? Let them work instead; and if they give to the cutting of wood fuel the time they are forced to spend in these trips to obtain delays from the military authorities, we should not have any shortage of this material. Let the government stop its policy of zig-zag. The farmers' sons have registered; why call them up at all?
I suppose I shall be called isolationist and opposed to the war effort if I tell this house that the work of women in war industries, especially where certain chemical products are used, is a crime against the families of this country? It is destroying a generation. What is more, if it is not stopped the next generation will be still-born. I am not the first one to give that warning to the government; a prominent doctor in Toronto gave a severe warning months ago.
That is the situation of this country, built up entirely by those who call us isolationists, to hide their real failure toward the true Canadian policy. If Canada is the granary for the united nations, it would have been wiser on the part of the administration to leave on the land those who by their patient and constant work can provide our allies with the necessary food. If, moreover, Canada is the arsenal of the allies, it would have been more prudent to organize the labour within the country than to cry out loud when hundreds of thousands of men are overseas. The trouble is that the small population of Canada was not taken into consideration. Only one thing mattered-to send men overseas. In the meantime the disorganization was increasing rapidly.
In 1939 we warned the government not to go too far and too fast. The answer was: moderate and voluntary effort. A year afterwards, one of our statesmen said in this house, "How can we participate in a war moderately?"
The war effort was changed into a total war effort. Conscription for Canada gave place to a disguised conscription for overseas service. Then, after the plebiscite, conscription was voted in this parliament under the pressure of the same men who just a few years ago were advocating a policy of no participation in any external war. And because we believe that this policy of no participation or of a moderate and voluntary effort should have been the real

Canadian policy, the same men disdainfully call us isolationists. What a transformation! They were first called isolationists by their Conservative friends, and after their secret marriage they found it an appropriate term by which to characterize those among their supporters who refuse to participate in the comedy built up by those who forsook the Canadian cause. I think that at the next election the people of this country are going to isolate some of these people from power.
It is no pleasure to be isolated. I had the experience of forty-four days of isolation at the citadel in Quebec. We were nine altogether under close arrest. Some of them are not yet out. Four men were still in the "clink" the day before yesterday, nearly four months after their arrest. Two of them are married, their families living on fresh water and public charity.
I do not question the respectability of the members of that public court-martial which opened in Quebec on November 22, 1942-I do not mean the final judgment; I do not discuss that-and none of the accused officers and men had any complaints against them. What has been unbearable for us and our families, for the medical profession and for our race is the pitiful lack of judgment leading to the decision to make the court-martial public. Since it was open to the public I shall make use of my privilege to say a few words about it.
The trial clearly proved that these men had not broken their oath either as soldiers or as medical men. They sold no blue papers-I mean discharges from the army-and did not give benevolent classification to any recruit to the active forces. These men have been under close arrest nearly all the time since the end of October for the non-commissioned officers and from November 2 for the medical officers. Three of the officers are free now and have resumed their duty in the army. One private was handcuffed for eleven days, day and night, and the three others for four days, day and night. When one realizes the hygienic conditions of the "clink" in the citadel, he can imagine the intolerable conditions which these men endured. Except for the exclusive privilege of being gently balanced at the end of a rope, or of enjoying the last moments of their lives while cosily seated in an electric chair, even killers do not undergo worse treatment.
The officers were under close arrest nearly all the time at the officers' quarters, each enjoying the steady presence of an escort. These were dangerous people facing that public trial! There was no bail for them.

The Address-Mr. Gauthier
For weeks and months they fed the newspaper chronicles and formed part of the radio journal, especially that of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation network. I was sorry for my prison mates to have been with them, because I immediately realized that it would be impossible for certain newspapers of my own and other provinces to resist the temptation to announce that a Quebec member of parliament was facing trial, that he was garbed in civilian clothes, and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation announcer even went so far as to say that I was wearing a brown suit, though he omitted to state the colour of my necktie. It was said that I was one of the lieutenants of Mr. Maxime Raymond, chief of the bloc populaire Canadien, the newly appointed organizer for the Quebec district, and so forth. Look at. the size of the type in the headlines. But I must be fair to the Ottawa Journal; when I was acquitted they gave me two good columns, with my picture-not the best I have, but, just the same, my picture.
What a start for a new movement; the organizer in gaol! What an advertisement for the Quebec medical profession; five of its members in gaol! What a good piece of French Canadian for some people to chew on! Why a public court martial in that case? To serve as an example; hobbling explanation. Apart from the thousands of other courts-martial that could have been held publicly in other districts in order to make examples, if that was the purpose, one was held in the same building at the same time, but it was held privately. Apparently it would not have been interesting to the public; the man was not from Quebec. I would not for a moment dare to think it was done for reasons of secrecy. The Quebec medical profession has no reason to envy the medical profession of any other province, or any other profession, and that public court-martial was an insult to the medical profession.
In a democracy the accused is innocent as long as the court has not found him guilty. The judges we have appointed have always respected this democratic principle. The way in which we were treated clearly proved that we were found guilty before the trial by those whose lack of judgment, be they in Ottawa or the advisers of the national defence department in the Quebec district, whose unfitness for the positions they hold in the medical corps or at headquarters made them the conscious or unconscious persecutors of respectable families and the slanderers of the medical profession and of French Canadians. I shall pass over the little war of nerves designed to bring the officers and men to a 72537-35
plea of guilty. That would have been such a nice feather in the caps of those who had smelled a big scandal and who, after the inquiry commenced, were obliged to put up a show to hide their incompetence from the courts and from their superiors. Let me quote Le Semaine Religieuse of Montreal, under date of January 20, 1943:
A Regrettable Court-Martial
(Translation): The court-martial of a group of medical men of Quebec has come to an end. Those hoping that something scandalous nature would come out of it were disappointed. The charges were light and in most cases definitely false. But the rumours which preceded this action and the publicity given to the charges have poisoned the minds from one end of the country to the other. Such doings can only hamper the national cause. It is regrettable that they occur.
I said a few moments ago that the people are tired, and I will add that in Quebec they are tired of being treated differently. There is a legal way of democratic election which they will use freely. The mention of the bloc populaire Canadien may bring a smile to someone's lips, but that smile will change into a grin when the youth of this country turns its back to its forsakers.


Mr. W. R. AYLESWORTH (Frontenae-Addington):: Mr. Speaker, I represent a rural riding in this house. The people of Frontenac-Addington are among the finest people in this land, but they are not wealthy. They are good, honest, patriotic Canadian farmers who earn their living by hard work and the grace of God. Their standard of living depends upon the prices they receive for their products, and a few cents here or there may mean the difference between fair living and poor living. Thus they have felt grave concern over the treatment they have received since the beginning of this great struggle. They have not complained unduly; they have done their best to produce to their utmost in order to assist in the task of feeding our armed forces, our allies and our home population, but, as we all know, times before the war were not too good to them. Their farms had suffered and needed repairs, which could not be made. They had begged for parity prices, but to no avail; and then, when it seemed that their dream would be realized through the increased demand created by the war, ceilings were placed upon the prices of their products. This was not just. The ceilings should have been so adjusted that parity prices would prevail.
Parity prices to the farmer mean only one thing, namely, that he receives for his products the cost of production plus a reasonable profit. That is what industry is getting; that is what the farmer should get. Can he go on producing to the maximum without assistance in

The Address-Mr. Aylesworth

gome form? I do not think he can. He is growing older, and cannot work as hard. He has lost his sons and hired help to industry and the armed forces. His machinery is wearing out, and must be replaced if possible.
The farmer is in a position very much different from that of industry. Industry buys its raw materials, fabricates its products and fulfils its sales contracts in a matter of days or a few weeks. Production is not started until satisfactory sales arrangements have been completed. Delivery is then made before there is any general change in production costs.
That is not so, however, with the .farmer. His only guarantee of even the cost of production is his faith in the weather, God and the future-which in too many instances does not satisfy his banker. What is the prospect of meeting our food requirements in 1943? I should say it is hopeless unless something is done immediately to help the farmer. The year 1942 was, from a climatic point of view as nearly perfect as could be imagined. Although our supply of farm labour dwindled rapidly in 1942, yet during most of the year the longer hours on the farm, combined with increased work by men, women and children, resulted in the greatest production of food we have ever had. This was the condition, despite the fact that nearly 300,000 persons have been withdrawn from the farm labour supply since the beginning of 1940. Fuel supplies for trucks, tractors and other farm vehicles were not curtailed.
We do not know what Providence will give us by way of weather in the coming year, but we do know that in every other respect the capacity of the farmer to produce will be seriously curtailed if present policies are followed. Fuel will be scarce; the production of farm machinery is limited, and labour is much scarcer than last year. The men, women and children on the farms cannot work longer hours or do more than they did last year.
Then, farmers are also confronted with uncertainty as to whether, they will be able to secure prices which will enable them to meet the cost of production. Expenses of farm operation are constantly increasing. Wages are double. Prices of second-hand machinery are high. Taxes and other costs are increasing. We are confronted with the fact, too, that many farm units devoted to the production of most essential foods such as meats and dairy products have gone out of existence.
In addition to all these handicaps, many farmers are sincerely and honestly afraid to plan for their future farming operations for the simple reason that they do not know what further restrictions may be imposed. All hon.

members realize that while many untrained people can be very helpful in supplying labour on the farms, to meet the seasonal demands, still the maximum production requires the work of men of experience, men who are skilled in the art of producing and feeding live stock and poultry, men who are trained in respect of dairy production, crop production and the handling of modern machinery and equipment.
The practice of paying subsidies to avoid raising prices to the consumer cannot be fairly considered as preventing inflation, because the same total amount is paid, whether the consumer pays it all, or pays only part of it and the taxpayer the balance. I am utterly opposed to the use of subsidies in lieu of fair prices on the market place, particularly at a time when consumers are fully able to pay fair prices. Subsidies are inflationary. They conceal costs, and defeat their own purpose. They promote inefficiency, destroy initiative and undermine character. They are not the means of building an independent and self-reliant people. Subsidies are simply an expedient way of dodging a disagreeable issue. They are the means of evading a fundamental correction to an unbalanced economy. They open the way to political abuse. Once they are used, subsidies are hard to get rid of. If we employ them now, during a period of maximum income, how can we abandon them when the war is over and income falls? An empty treasury would mean that they would have to be dropped. Food prices would have to rise or the farmer would become bankrupt; this would involve rising food prices with declining purchasing power. I seek a free and self-supporting agriculture. The allocation of materials for the production of farm machinery must be also increased immediately. We need more machinery than usual to make up for labour shortages.
I should like now to discuss the beef situation. There is a price ceiling on beef, but I venture to say that most of the beef sold in Canada to-day is sold above the ceiling price. Speaking in this debate, the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Mills) referred to the black market on beef. No one knows better than he does that when he .sells his cattle for twelve cents a pound at the barn, the beef from those cattle is certainly not sold under the ceiling price. One need only look at the market report to find that good butcher cattle are selling at from 12 to 12J cents a pound live weight. These same cattle yield around fifty-six per cent in the killing. If they are sold under the price ceiling, the wholesaler would lose $25 a head or four cents a pound on the beef. For example, let us take a beef cow weighing 1,200 pounds. The wholesaler pays

The Address-Mr. Gray don
tea cents a pound, or $120 live weight. The 600 pounds of beef that he will get, at fifteen cents a pound ceiling, would net him only $90, or a loss of $30, or five cents a pound. I do not think he is taking that loss. If the government still holds to a ceiling on beef, then I suggest that it should be a fair and reasonable ceiling. The number of cattle shipped from western to eastern Canada for feeding and killing increased by 78-6 per cent in 1942; yet the number of inspected killings fell by 5-9 per cent. But there are no records of uninspected killings. Estimates place the increase in uninspected killings at 100 per cent.
On January 31, 1943, the Montreal Standard quoted the representatives of two leading packing houses in that city as saying that most Montrealers who were eating beef that week-end were eating the product of the black market. Why not raise the ceiling four or five cents a pound? The consumer would not have to pay any more than he is now paying. The spread at present between the producer and the consumer was never greater. The farmer must find it strange to have to pay high prices in the butcher shop for beef which has been sold under the ceiling.
Farmers who are feeding cattle this winter are worried. During the month of May, when the highest ceiling price will prevail, too many cattle will be placed on the market and, to my mind, this will force a drop in price. Some protection m>'st be given the cattle producer.
Butter is another product on which a ceiling might well be raised, so as to bring it on a par with cheese. Even to earn the 10-cent subsidy the butter fat must be taken to the creamery. In my constituency, with many of the roads blocked with snow, this cannot always be done, with the result that many of the farmers are letting their cows go dry this winter. Yet we are asked greatly to increase our production of milk. With money plentiful as it is to-day, most people will pay more in order to get butter, and thus another black market may spring up.
In line with the government's plan to increase food production this year, we should have the ban on new electrical connections lifted in order to permit extensions to additional farms and to allow short extensions of existing rural distribution lines to operate specified farm production equipment. It is to be expected that such extensions will among other things assist in increasing the country's supply of meats, poultry and dairy products, and in some measure relieve the farm labour shortage. It is the greatest help that could be provided to the Canadian farmer. Because too many rural people do not have what we 72537-35}
call the conveniences of life, it does not follow that they do not deserve them. Indeed, they do, and it is our job to see that the people on the land, upon whom the country relies in times of stress, are recognized according to their merits.
When this war is over, and I pray that it will be soon, we shall be called upon to help in feeding the millions of people who now have little food and will not have much for years to come on account of the scorched-earth policy and war-torn ground. It is possible to estimate that five hundred million people will be suffering from some degree of food shortage after this war and that some European countries such as Norway, Holland, France, Greece, Poland, Yugoslavia and the Baltic states will be much worse off than after the last war. Then twenty-seven million tons of food were supplied to Europe, sixteen million by the United States, and the rest by the British empire-food to the value of six billion dollars-and it will be many times greater this time. But we must furnish it. To save these millions after the war is not alone an act of compassion. It is the only road to peace.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we urgently need to determine what we can do within our strength of man-power, materials, workshops and agriculture. We need to decide which of our tasks comes first, and if we determine rightly we shall place agriculture in the first rank of the war effort, alongside planes, guns and ships.
Our imperative necessity is maximum food production. The Canadian farmer will produce to the utmost if he is given a chance. The fate of the world may depend on it.


Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I intend at this stage of the debate to be very brief and to indicate to the house the position which the Progressive Conservative party will take with respect to the amendment to the amendment which was moved by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maelnnis).
Perhaps at the beginning of my remarks I may be permitted to read to the house the precise wording of the amendment to the amendment. It is as follows:
That the motion be further amended by adding to the amendment the following words:
"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
The Address-Mr. Graydon

and financial institutions in the same manner as they are being applied to the mobilization of man-power for military service."
In dealing with this amendment to the amendment I should like to call the attention of the house particularly to its very careful and considered phraseology. It indicates that the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party takes the stand that with respect to two branches of our war effort, namely, war industry and war finance, the powers contained in the National Resources Mobilization Act should be applied. But the amendment goes further in its wording, which leaves no room for doubt. They want these powers applied "in the same manner"-and I call special attention to those four words-as these powers are being applied to the mobilization of manpower for military service.
The National Resources Mobilization Act gives wide and sweeping powers to the government to mobilize the human, material and financial resources of the nation for the purpose of waging total war. These are the broad powers, and assuming for the moment that the government has not applied these powers in the case of war industries and finance to the same extent as it might have done, consonant with the national interest in a war-time period, let us see how the proposed amendment to the amendment would assist in bringing us nearer to a total war effort than we now are.
Let us examine the results which would flow from the acceptance of the amendment to the amendment by the house. It would mean that from now on two great branches of our national war endeavour-war industry, and finance-would be mobilized "in the same manner"-mark those four words again-as is man-power for military service. In simple words, the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation expresses implied satisfaction with the application of the powers of the National Resources Mobilization Act in so far as the mobilization of man-power for military service is concerned.
The people of Canada and the Progressive Conservative party believe, and I think there is plenty of evidence to substantiate such belief, that our whole man-power policy in Canada is a mess, a misfit and a muddle. In our opinion it is not possible to separate entirely in any effective, master man-power plan the mobilization of man-power for military service from that of any other part of the master man-power plan which should be in operation. Our objection is very strong on the point that no really over-all plan relating to our man-power has been in existence since the war began, whether it be for

military service, or agriculture, or other primary enterprises, or industry. We as a party will refuse to support an amendment to the amendment such as this, where the government's present muddling man-power policy is proposed to be used as a basis for the mobilization of war industry and finance. It would imply that our party is in favour of and is satisfied with the present man-power policy of the government-which it is not.
In every instance where a further mobilization of our war industries and finance is essential to the interests of a more extensive and total war effort, let us not hesitate vigorously to take those necessary steps as a nation, let the chips fall where they may; but when we do so, let us not take as our example the muddled policy which has been ineffectively and timorously applied to another branch of the wartime mobilization.
Were this very carefully drawn amendment to the amendment to carry, let us see what it would further mean. If the powers under the National Resources Mobilization .Act were to be applied to war industries and financial institutions in the same manner as they are being applied to man-power for military service, it might easily lead to hopeless confusion. I do not think this house would dare to support such a proposal, because the application of these powers to the mobilization of man-power for military service involves many points which cannot be logically and practically applied to the case of war industry and finance; yet the words "in the same manner" indicate that this is what the draftsman of this carefully worded amendment to the amendment and its mover and seconder had in mind.
Here are some of the implications which might readily result:
1.	Two important factors entering into the call-up of man-power for military service are age and condition of health. Surely the length of time a war industry or financial institution has been in business, or the state of its economic and financial health, cannot seriously be considered in applying "in the same manner" the man-power call-up provisions to these two other branches of our war effort. Yet that is what the wording "in the same manner" in the amendment to the amendment clearly indicates.
2.	It is said that one out of every 107 of our population in Canada has been mobilized under the provisions of the National Resources Mobilization Act. Surely, if war industries and financial institutions are to be mobilized for a total war effort in Canada, this would be

The Address-Division
a very puny percentage and could scarcely be regarded as an important contribution to our war effort generally.
3. The present man-power mobilization features of the National Resources Mobilization Act as at present applied call men for service within Canada only, or the territorial waters thereof. It is difficult to see how it could seriously be proposed that our war industries shall manufacture their materials of war for use within the territorial boundaries and limits of Canada and that shipments overseas should be on a purely voluntary basis; yet that is what the four words "in the same manner" seem to imply.
The amendment to the amendment, in our opinion, provides a faulty basis for the mobilization of our war industries and our financial institutions. It impliedly endorses the present muddled man-power policy of the government. It constitutes a retrograde and half-hearted step rather than an advanced move toward total war. It leaves us wffio represent a new Progressive Conservative movement with no option but to vote against it, in view of the definite and unequivocal policy laid down at the Winnipeg convention, which states:
We believe in the effective total utilization and proper allocation for war, by compulsion where necessary, of all the resources of Canada, including agriculture, industry and finance, as well as man-power, and that our aim should be at all times to bring about so far as human means can achieve it, an equality of sacrifice.
Upon that platform and that policy we stand. The present amendment to the amendment is a weak and feeble thing when contrasted with the war policy of the Winnipeg convention, and we cannot support it.


Mr. ROY:: Before the question is puthave I the floor, Mr. Speaker?


Thomas Vien: No.


Hon. P. J. ARTHUR CARDIN (Richelieu-Vercheres):: I do not intend to make any extended remarks at this stage of the debate. The speech I delivered the other day expressed clearly enough my own views-


Joseph Sasseville Roy: I rise to a point of order. I
would call the attention of the Chair to the fact that the hon. gentleman now speaking has already spoken on the question. I read in Hansard of February 9, 1943, at page 281, this which was said by the hon. member on that date:
. . . may I say to the leader of the opposition that his amendment to the main motion is an example of those hesitating moves and vacillating attitudes which help to discredit parliament in the eyes of the people.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Vien: Order. I understand the hon. member is taking exception to the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres speaking now because he has already spoken. Am I correct?


Joseph Sasseville Roy: He has spoken on the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition.


Thomas Vien: All hon. members who
have spoken after the hon. member moved his amendment are entitled to speak now to the main amendment. The hon. member is quite in order. I might point out to the hon. member for Gaspe that if his contention were right he himself would not have the right to speak.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: Pardon me, Mr. Speaker, I
never said anything on the amendment moved by the Conservative group.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I do not intend to make any extensive remarks on the question which has been before the house for some days. The observations I made in the speech I last delivered laid down the principles and the premises upon which I propose now to base a conclusion. During all this debate it has been apparent to everyone in this house and to

everyone in the country who follows the debates of the House of Commons that we are suffering in Canada at the present time from an increasing shortage of man-power in so far as the farms are concerned, and at the same time the country is suffering from a shortage of man-power in our war industries, not to mention the fact that we are short of labour also in many other important and most essential industrial and transportation activities. Without going into any detail, I may mention rail transportation. I have been told recently by a man who is in a position to speak his own mind that they are afraid of running short of rolling stock on our railways in Canada. No one who has observed the situation has any doubt that there is a real shortage of man-power. Since the beginning of the debate, not a single member who has spoken has failed to draw the attention of the house and the country to the fact that we are short of labour in the main important fields of our activities. Therefore there can be no doubt that there is a very serious shortage of man-power. The suggestion has been made, and this indicates very well the truth of what I am now saying, that we should use prisoners of war, that we should use the Japanese, that we should use those who have been declared unfit for military service-


Mr. REID:: Not in British Columbia.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: *-that we should use them where we are short of labour on the farms and in war industries as well as other essential industries of our country. So that the fact cannot be denied that there is a shortage.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon), as I said the other day, did not suggest a real remedy for the situation. He complained about the lack of a proper policy on the part of the government to meet the situation. He blamed the government for not having adopted a proper policy, but he did not say what in his opinion was a proper policy. He complained also about the situation in regard to labour but did not indicate in any definite terms what method and what means he had in mind as a remedy for the difficult situation in which the country finds itself at present. The amendment is so framed that it could be used in support of all shades of opinion.
I was accused in mild terms by the former house leader of the official opposition (Mr. Hanson) of arguing the case of the isolationists. I am not an isolationist; and if the hon. gentleman had taken the trouble to look at the record, he would have discovered that on many occasions I went a great deal further than he did in order to bring about and maintain unity between all

The Address-Mr. Cardin
parts of Canada. As a result I found myself in difficulties which he has never experienced. I think I have gone the limit in that regard; and with the people of my province and my race I have gone much further than he has ever gone in order to explain to them the sentiments, feelings and ideas of the citizens of, other sections of Canada. To the best of my ability I have tried to interpret the opinions and sentiments of the Englishspeaking people of Canada to the French citizens of the province of Quebec. I have done all I could, and I think all that any reasonable man could expect from a public man in my position.
I have been criticized in my own province for having preached the doctrine I did preach in 1939, supporting our participation in the war and asking the people of Canada to unite behind the government, to do all they possibly could in order to support the cause of the united nations. It was not a popular case to argue before the electors of the province of Quebec, but just the same I argued it; and when the general election came in 1940 I did the very same thing. I explained in clear language, without being afraid of expressing my views, what the position was at that time.
The late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, the late Hon. Fernand Rinfret and myself did all we could to help the people of the province of Quebec understand the necessities and exigencies of the situation in which Canada found- herself at that time. We succeeded then to a certain extent in interpreting the sentiments and the opinions of the Englishspeaking citizens of Canada.
I am proud to say that during my long political life I have never been afraid to voice my thoughts, and I have always devoted my energies and the limited talents that are mine in endeavouring to bring together as closely as possible the different races composing the population of Canada. I have suffered from this politically. I am still suffering from it, because some- people do not understand the position I have taken at certain times. They do not understand even now that I was attempting to fill the breach which existed between the two races, and trying to secure mutual -concessions in order to bring them together so that they would be happy, .prosperous and at peace within Canada. My attitude has been misrepresented even in this house by certain hon. gentlemen who have never been able to understand the situation with which the government was then confronted, and the position in which I personally was placed on many occasions.
I have always tried, to the best of my ability, and even by making personal sacrifices, to bring about a better understanding between all citizens of Canada. My voice has not always been heard, nor have my views been accepted in every case, but I am very happy to have heard lately, from the province of Ontario an echo of the views I expressed not very long ago, when I tried to explain that necessarily there was a difference in sentiment between the Englishspeaking citizens of Canada and the French Canadians. But few people understood my stand at that time, and my words were misrepresented or misinterpreted.
Just a few days ago, a gentleman enjoying a very high position in politics in the province of Ontario said in a public speech that we must recognize that we cannot see things in the same way because we are descendants of different races. And he said that he was not surprised that French Canadians do not always see the racial problems in the same light as English Canadians, because he could not feel the same way toward France as he does toward Britain. This is an echo of the sentiments I expressed, and I am very happy to record it; it is indeed for me a source of comfort.
I take second place to no one in this chamber or in the country as far as love for Canada is concerned, or as far as sacrifices are concerned. My patriotism is beyond question; my love for Canada is beyond question, and I have the right, as anyone else has, to state and explain my personal views in this House of Commons, where, thank God, we still enjoy a certain amount of liberty.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, and I may say as the conclusion of the premises I laid down in the speech I delivered the other day, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Dubuc), as an amendment to the amendment:
That all the words after the word "that" in the first line of the said amendment be struck out and that the following be substituted therefor:
"This house is of the opinion that in view of the recognized shortage of farm labour, also the admitted shortage of labour in war industries and in other essential industrial and transportation activities, Your Excellency's advisers should have provided for the withholding of the operation of the National Resources Mobilization Act in regard to the raising of men for military service until, at least, a complete investigation is made by a committee of the house, to ascertain and determine by what means or methods Canada can now most effectively contribute to the winning of the w'ar, without destroying the economic, social 4nd national life of the country."
Women's Hostel


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I do not rise to speak to the motion, but I have had a word with the leaders of the other groups in the house, and I believe it is the general wish of hon. members to conclude the debate this evening, provided the discussion does not run on too long. With the consent of the house I was going to move that the house sit after eleven o'clock this day.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, as one
of those agreeing with the right hon. gentleman, may I say that in view of this important amendment which, I imagine, will be debated, I do not feel that those of us who gave our consent to prolonging the sitting of the house to-night should be held to that bargain. We should adjourn as usual at eleven o'clock.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Certainly; if
my hon. friend has changed his mind I am quite prepared not to press the motion. When I asked him I presume he had no knowledge of the amendment about to be moved.


Mr. COLDWELL:: No, none at all.
On motion of Mr. Pouliot the debate was adjourned. '


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, February 19, 1943