[Stage Direction]
29, 1943 to February 26, 1943
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice):	I wish to lay on the table the
return which I am required to make every four weeks while the house is in session under paragraph 3 of regulation 21 of the defence of Canada regulations with respect to the application of these regulations. There have been no persons detained during the period from January 29, 1943, to February 26, 1943. under orders made pursuant to the regulations, and there have been no cases in which the Minister of Justice has declined to follow the advice of any advisory committee.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide, inter alia,
1.	That sums not exceeding $3,890,000,000 he granted to His Majesty towards defraying any expenses or making any advances or loans that may be incurred or granted by or under the authority of the governor in council during the year ending March 31, 1944, for-
(a)	the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada;
(b)	the conduct of naval, military and air operations in or beyond Canada;
(e) promoting the continuance of trade, industry and business communications, whether by means of insurance or indemnity against war risk or in any other manner whatsoever; and
(d) the carrying out of any measures deemed necessary or advisable by the governor in council in consequence of the existence of a state of war.
2.	That the governor in council be empowered to raise by way of loan under the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, 1931, such sum or sums of money, not exceeding in the whole the sum of $3,890,000,000 as may be required for the purpose of defraying such expenses or making such advances or loans, the principal and interest of any such loan to be a charge upon and payable out of the consolidated revenue fund.
3.	That the governor in council be empowered to re-expend, advance or loan moneys that may be received by way of refund or repayment of advances, loans or expenditure under the War Appropriation acts of 1939 (second session), 1940, 1941, 1942 and 1943.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: In order to enable us to scrutinize more closely and in greater detail the various governmental expenditures under the proposed war appropriation bill, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance if when he makes his statement to the house on the resolution he will give not only the total estimated expenditures of each department of the government but also a complete detailed break-down of the estimates of each such department.


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: I shall give consideration to that request. The practice last year was that each of the defence ministers gave the details of the proposed expenditures in his department and I gave the details of the proposed expenditures in all other departments. There is no particular reason so far as I know why the request of the leader of the opposition should not be complied with, but I should like to consult with the defence ministers to see what
War Appropriation

course they approve this year. Some of them in any event will give details at a very early stage.


Gordon Graydon: My object in making the request at this time is to point out to the minister what we think was a failure in the practice adopted previously in connection with this matter. We are anxious to give the closest scrutiny to the war expenditures this year and it would very much help those of us who will have that responsibility to have laid before the house at an earlier stage than usual the detailed expenditures by departments. In the past, as the minister well knows, not until he had given his statement in the committee were these details actually known to those of us who wish to scrutinize them carefully and direct questions accordingly. If the minister could carry out the suggestion I have made this afternoon the position so far as we are concerned would be similar to that with respect to ordinary civil estimates. The expenditures under the war appropriation bill are by far the most important of our expenditures, and for that reason I should like the minister to give careful consideration to the suggestion I have made.


Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of National Defence for Air):: I cannot speak for the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), but I think perhaps he would be in agreement if we were to table a break-down on Wednesday or Thursday-that would give us time to consult with the Minister of National Defence, who is away at the moment. I hardly think we shall get to the discussion on appropriations for defence until Wednesday. In any case if a break-down were tabled as soon as possible and printed in the Votes and Proceedings, would that be satisfactory?


Gordon Graydon: I do not want to ask impossibilities. I rather fancy from what the minister says that his suggestion might meet our requirements. We are anxious to have the whole break-down available either at the time the finance minister makes his statement or very soon afterwards.


Charles Gavan Power: Last year a break-down was put on Hansard covering all three departments, and I rather think that before we got through discussing the items of the different departments, the break-down on Hansard had been entirely lost sight of. If we give a break-down, under primaries, on Wednesday or Thursday-


Gordon Graydon: What does the minister mean by primaries?


Charles Gavan Power: The different items in the estimates. They call them primaries; I do not know just why, except that they are primary requirements, functional requirements, such as pay and allowances, civil government and so on, more or less as they appear in the ordinary book of estimates in peace time. If such a break-down were given, perhaps my hon. friend would be satisfied.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLD WELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Now that the address in reply to the speech from the throne has been adopted, will he suggest an early date when this house can meet in closed session to discuss matters relating to Canada's part in the war?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am anxious to oblige the house. It is entirely a matter of what is likely best to fulfil the wishes of hon. members and best to further public business. The plan on which the government was proceeding was to bring down as soon as possible our financial measures in toto. The estimates are already down. A resolution with respect to the war appropriation has just been advanced a stage from government notices of motion, and will hereafter appear under orders of the day. There is also now upon the order paper a resolution respecting the making of war supplies available for the united nations. In this way we have sought to give the house a complete picture of the sums which the government will ask to have appropriated. The budget will be brought down on Tuesday of next week.
A request has been made that we should establish the standing and select committees as rapidly as possible. Until all the committees are set up and until the house has had the preliminary statements with regard to total expenditures, with the sort of break-down that my hon. friend the leader of the opposition has asked for, so that hon. members may be able to study the details, I do not think we should interrupt the proceedings in order to hold a secret session. If the situation were so pressing that a secret session to discuss other matters would be regarded as more important than proceeding with the government's financial measures for the war, in the manner I have indicated, I would say that we would fix a day for a secret session forthwith; but if there is no situation that is being embarrassed by not having a

Business of the House
secret session at once I think the house would be in a better position to discuss in secret session matters pertaining to the war after it has had before it a complete picture of the financial situation. It is a matter of balancing. I should be glad to talk it over with my hon. friend and other leaders, if they so desire, and see if we cannot perhaps agree on a time that would be best.


Thomas Miller Bell: If the Prime Minister will pardon me, I should like to add that what prompted me to ask this question to-day was the fact that there has been a great deal of discussion in the British house, where Sir James Grigg, the minister for war, stated yesterday that the Canadian troops would probably soon be engaged. In view of the discussions which have taken place in the British house regarding equipment, and so on, I think it would satisfy some members of the house if a secret session could be held as soon as possible in order that we may make inquiry regarding certain matters which have come to our attention.



APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEES-DEBATE ON THE BUDGET

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before proceeding with the orders of the day, in order to continue what I said concerning the proceedings of the house, it may be of assistance to hon. members if I make the matter a little clearer. The Minister of Finance intends to introduce his budget on Tuesday evening. That means that for the remainder of to-day, on Monday, and until the evening of Tuesday, the time of the house will be taken up with other matters. I have felt that it would be furthering the wishes which have been expressed by hon. gentlemen opposite if we devoted that time to endeavouring to get the few remaining committees appointed. Fifteen committees have already been appointed. There remain the five of which notices are already on the order paper, one of which was under discussion yesterday and will continue to be discussed to-day. So that between now and Tuesday evening the first order of business will be the discussion of the setting-up of these different committees. The Minister of Finance proposes to proceed on Wednesday with the motion respecting the war appropriation for the ensuing year, and would like to have the house continue with discussion on that measure unless there are some other matters that it may be necessary to take up in the interval. The minister hopes to be able to make headway with the war appropriation discussion from the time that he proceeds with the resolution in the house.


Gordon Graydon: Will there be no opportunity of criticism with respect to the budget?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There will be opportunity, at great length if necessary, but not immediately after its introduction. The minister does not propose to go on with the discussion of the budget for some little time.


Gordon Graydon: Would the Prime Minister gives us some idea as to what he means by "some little time"?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Minister of Finance will have to answer that.
-Mr. CRERAR: How long will it take to discuss the war appropriation?


Gordon Graydon: Do I understand that there will be no reply with respect to the budget until the war appropriation has gone through its stages?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh, no; the Minister of Finance would be in a better position to say at what particular time the debate on the budget ought to be continued. I understand from him that he would like the remainder of the week to be devoted to the war appropriation measure. He feels it would accommodate hon. gentlemen opposite for him to wait until Monday for the debate on the budget to begin.



MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. SASSEYILLE ROY (Gaspe):: I
should like to ask a question of the Minister of Munitions and Supply in connection with bill No. 7. As this bill is voluminous, would the minister be good enough to supply the members with a chart showing how his department is now organized?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: I shall be very glad to have a chart showing the department's organization printed in the Votes and Proceedings.


RURAL MAIL
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. FRASER (Peterborough West):: I should like to ask a question of the Postmaster General (Mr. Mulock). He is not in the house at the moment but perhaps he would
Canadian Armed Forces

answer on Monday. I understand that representations have been made to the government by the rural mail couriers' organization, relating to permanency of employment, basic salaries and allowances, as well as cost of living bonuses. Will the Postmaster General be good enough to make a statement to the house indicating what consideration has been given to the representations of the rural mail couriers and what decision has been arrived at with respect to the matter?


Hon. C. W. G. GIBSON (Acting Postmaster General):: The Postmaster General is out of the city to-day, but I shall be glad to bring the question to his attention.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
[Stage Direction]
REFERENCE TO STATEMENT OF PRIME MINISTER IN '	1942 AS TO SENDING RECRUITS OVERSEAS
On the orders of the day:
Mr. VINCENT DUPUIS (Chambly-Rou-ville):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In closing the debate on bill No. SO on July 7, 1942, the Prime Minister declared, as reported at page 4014 and following of Hansard of 1942, that before enforcing the decision of the administration to send recruits overseas, he intended to give hon. members an opportunity of showing their confidence or want of confidence in the government. I would like to know from him if since that time anything has occurred which in his mind would relieve him of his responsibility to parliament before enforcing the cabinet's decision upon this very important question.


Mr. SPEAKER:: This is a question of which notice should be given.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member asks if anything has occurred to cause me to change my mind with respect to an important statement I made last year to the house. I would answer at once that nothing has.


FINDING OF CHIEF CORONER AT INQUEST IN CASE OF DEATH OF PRIVATE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. ROSS (Souris):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. (Mr. Ralston) based upon a report in the Toronto Daily Star of February 25, 1943, in connection with the inquest conducted in the case of the death of a private in the Canadian army. Chief coroner Dr. Smirle Lawson is reported to have said:
Private John Ileency Somerville came to his death on January 29, 1943, in Stanley Barracks

from lobar pneumonia and we place the blame on the medical officers in charge, who did not examine the patient sufficiently to determine the serious illness.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Vien: I think that this question should not be answered on the orders of the day. It should be placed on the order paper.


James Arthur Ross: It is a serious matter.


Gordon Graydon: May I interject a remark with respect to that? I realize that it may not be possible for Your Honour to allow a great multiplicity of questions at the opening hour of each session, but it does seem to me that not enough leniency is allowed to some private members with respect to questions of this kind. This is a matter of considerable importance to the central part of Canada, indeed to all of Canada. I think Your Honour might extend a little indulgence in respect of questions of this nature.


Thomas Vien: I should be very glad to allow leniency where there is a degree of urgency in a question to which a reply may be required within an hour or so. But the question the hon. member is asking would involve at least some research on the part of the department concerned, and the department should be given an opportunity of full inquiry before making reply. I would ask the house to realize that with respect to any question which has a degree of urgency, making an immediate reply necessary, on the orders of the day I shall always be prepared to extend considerable leniency; but where a question involves research and a full reply it should certainly be placed on the order paper. The question now under discussion, so far as I heard it from the hon. gentleman, is not one to which an answer to-day is essential for the hon. member's purpose: it should be placed on the order paper and he will get his answer in due course and in sufficient time.


Gordon Graydon: There is a good deal of feeling among some hon. members with respect to the issue I have just raised. Many of these questions and these answers are buried in Hansard or as orders for returns, and it is very difficult to get to the public the matters which are so important and which our duties as members require us to bring up. I do not think there should be any objection at least to the hon. member reading his question; it could then stand as a notice to the minister whose department is involved, and who in any event is not in his seat this afternoon, and it can be answered afterwards.

Farm Labour Programme


Thomas Vien: I would just point out that the remarks of the leader of the opposition bear out what I have just said. As the minister is not in his place the answer cannot be given to-day. The same publicity is obtained by giving notice of motion or having the question placed on the order paper. .


James Arthur Ross: May I complete the question, so that it may stand as notice?


Thomas Vien: Since the hon. meitiber has gone so far, he might as well complete the question.


James Arthur Ross: Will the minister or someone on his behalf advise the house if the matter has been investigated by his department, and what steps have been taken or will be taken to stop this type of neglect in the Canadian army?


Charles Gavan Power: The only objection I would make is that there is an assertion in the hon. member's question that there was neglect, and I am afraid I cannot tell my hon. friend whether or not there was neglect.


James Arthur Ross: The coroner's report is here.


Charles Gavan Power: I should be quite willing to take it as notice of a question, but if the question was formulated for the purpose of making an assertion that there was neglect on the part of the Minister of National Defence, I think I should object to the question.

APPEAL OF TORONTO GROCERS FOR RESTORATION OF HALF-POUND RATION	'
On the orders of the day:


Gordon Graydon: I desire to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. A British United Press dispatch appearing in the Ottawa Journal, under date-line of the 25th of February, states that Toronto grocers, with their shelves groaning with butter, yesterday appealed to Ottawa to restore the half-pound ration on March 1 instead of March 15. The secretary of the Toronto Retail Grocers' Association said the grocers feared that butter stocks would spoil on the shelves. "Toronto stores are simply loaded with butter," he added. WTill the Minister of Finance indicate to the house what consideration has been given to that appeal?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I was not aware until my hon. friend gave me notice of the question that any such appeal had been made, and therefore I will have to make inquiries about it.


JEWS IN NORTH AFRICA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. DOUGLAS G. ROSS (St. Paul's): I have in my hand a clipping from the latest issue of the "Canadian Jewish Review" which contains a startling article about the treatment of Jews in North Africa. Will the Prime. Minister give an assurance to the house that Jewish people in North Africa are to be quickly freed from such persecution as characterized the Yichy regime in France?
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not know what my hon. friend's estimate of my powers of prevision may be but the last thing in the world I would attempt to give this house is an assurance with respect to anything which relates to North Africa.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: The hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Cardiff) asked a question yesterday with respect to the policy of the government as to labour supply for agriculture for the forthcoming season. I wish to make a statement to the house on the development of the government's 1943 farm labour programme.
National farm labour policy, 1943. The national farm labour policy of 1943 calls for the closest coordination of the federal and provincial departments of agriculture, other federal and provincial departments, national and local farm organizations and the cooperation of citizens in general.
1.	Stabilizing employment in agriculture. The following measures have recently been taken to strengthen the established policy of the government to stabilize employment in agriculture; in other words, to keep essential labour on the farms.	'
(a)	Under P.C. 246, January 19, 1943, no person employed in agriculture shall accept other employment except for:
(1) Active service in the armed forces.
Farm Labour Programme

(2) He may take temporary employment not exceeding sixty days in any calendar year outside an urban municipality with a population over 5,000 but not for a longer time unless he has obtained a permit from an employment and selective service office. All employment offices have been instructed that permits should not be given to those who are essential to agriculture. Provision has been made to allow for the seasonal employment of agricultural workers in logging, lumbering, mining and fishing,
. when they can be spared from the farms.
(b)	Under the mobilization regulations farmers and farm workers applying for postponement of military service shall be granted such postponement until further notice unless it is established to the satisfaction of the board that they are not essential to agriculture.
(c)	An interpretative letter was sent on February 1 to the chairman of each mobilization board to ensure greater uniformity in the application of the mobilization regulations and to emphasize the importance of retaining man-power in agriculture. This letter stressed that postponements be granted until further notice to essential agricultural workers.
The letter has been recorded at page 270 of Hansard of February 9, 1943, and I will not take time to read it now. It has clarified the situation. Some suggestions have been made that, mobilization boards will not follow the procedure outlined. I have not had any such intimation from a single member of any board in Canada.
My personal contact with the mobilization boards, as members know, has been since December 1 only; however,. I am confident I can depend upon full cooperation from them and on compliance with the regulations by them.
2.	Dominion-provincial cooperative farm labour activity. For the past three years a very successful activity was carried on in Ontario on a dollar for dollar basis jointly by the dominion and the province whereby workers consisting of men and women and students from urban centres were recruited for farm work.
Last year a number of other provinces entered into a similar agreement. The salient features of these agreements, in which the federal Department of Labour shared the expenditures equally with the provinces concerned, were as follows:	,
In Ontario, the financial assistance was used to expand the activities of the farm service force. This force was made up of high school

students, university students, schoolteachers and townspeople during vacation and spare hours. Under this arrangement over 50,000 placements were made on farms during the 1942 season. Fifty thousand persons were made available for farmers who otherwise would not have gone near a farm.
In Nova Scotia, assistance in fruit picking operations in the Annapolis valley was provided. Agreements were made with each of the three prairie provinces to provide financial assistance for the recruiting, transporting and placement of emergency help for harvesting operations.
In British Columbia, the financial assistance was used in carrying out special measures to meet the labour requirements for fruit picking.
This dominion-provincial cooperative plan will be expanded and further developed this year in all provinces. Already conferences to this end have been conducted. Suggestions have been made that we develop a woman's land army-well, you see we have had three years of successful experience with a much broader scheme in Ontario and to a lesser degree in other provinces.
This year we will exceed our 50,000 individuals of 1942 in Ontario and do equally well in other provinces.
3.	Return of workers to agriculture from seasonal employment. Arrangements through the employment and selective service offices are planned and will go into effect to ensure that farmers and farm workers engaged in seasonal employment in logging, lumbering and other seasonal work return to agriculture in time for spring work. These men were encouraged to leave agriculture during the winter, when they could be spared on the understanding that they would go back to the farms in the spring.
There are some 175,000 men who were moved from farms for winter work who must return to agriculture, otherwise they will lose their rights to postponement under the mobilization regulations.
The employment offices will not issue permits to them for work in any other industry.
Positive assurance therefore exists that this large body of men will be available for 1943 farm work.
4.	Existing pools of man-power to be tapped. There are several sources from which we will recruit farm labour a few of which are:
(a)	Prisoners of wTar. The labour department will explore the possible use of prisoners of war on farms and will assume the responsibility for this activity.

Farm Labour Programme
(b)	Japanese in Canada. Already representatives of the sugar beet growers of Alberta and Ontario have representatives in the Japanese towns in British Columbia negotiating for Japanese labour. We used these men successfully in Alberta, Manitoba and to a lesser degree, in Ontario last year. In 1943 we expect still greater success.
(c)	Indians on reserves. Treaty Indians from the reserves will be used on farms. This was tried out last fall and proved satisfactory and will be further developed this year.
(d)	Other sources. Other sources of potential farm man-power will be explored. These include recruitment and training of women for driving farm equipment; use of civilian internees; use of men discharged from the armed forces and numerous others.
5.	Drawing from industries. A survey will be made, and based on same, industries which can do so without impairing the war effort will be required to release men and women suitable for farm work. This may mean that during the rush seasons some industries may be closed temporarily.
6.	Direction to agriculture of persons unfit for military service. The authority provided under national selective service regulations will be used to direct to agriculture unmarried men who are called for military service and are found to be unfit and who in the opinion of the national selective service officer are suitable for farm work. These men will be directed to productive farms where labour is needed. The government will pay transportation and if found necessary will make an initial allowance for work clothing. Furthermore, the department will see to it that the man is paid promptly.
7.	Mobility of labour. To provide absolute mobility of farm labour so that man-power may be moved from areas where work is completed to other areas where needed, the dominion government will provide transportation when the movement is from one province to another and will share expenditures within the province with the provincial governments. This will permit of organization of farm labour excursions and similar arrangements.
8.	Local agricultural war committees. Local agricultural war committees in counties, townships, parishes and municipalities have already been established by several of the provinces to promote organized effort in local communities to meet 1943 farm production goals.
Other provinces have this same plan under consideration. Slich committees can assist greatly in carrying out the details of the farm labour programme. The committees would be asked to perform the following functions:
(a)	To encourage within the local area the best use of existing farm man-power through the efficient planning and management of farm operations, farmers working together where practical, the sharing of labour, and the cooperative use of farm machinery.
(b)	To determine seasonal and full-time farm labour requirements in the community.
(c)	To encourage the transfer of labour from low to high productive farms and to work with provincial agricultural representatives, other provincial field men, and local employment and selective service officers in facilitating the placement of the most productive farms of workers brought in from other sources.
(d)	To assist provincial field men and employment officers in recruiting farmers and farm workers who can be spared from agriculture during the slack seasons for work in other essential primary industries.
(e)	Supplying information regarding the essentiality, or otherwise, of farm workers whose cases are under consideration by the mobilization boards when requested to do so. The local committees could be of assistance by reporting the facts regarding men who have not made themselves essential to agriculture by increasing production on the farm where they are working or by moving to a farm where their services are required. They could also report men who are unwilling to undertake essential seasonal work elsewhere when they can be spared from agriculture. Such reports will be made available to national selective officials, the representatives of national defence and agriculture, appearing before the mobilization board and taken in conjunction with reports received from recruiting committees and other sources will enable the board to reach a decision based on the facts.
9.	Movement of workers from low productive farms. Encouragement will be given to those at present on low productive farms to move to more productive farms. Each province will be requested to explore this possibility and to develop detailed plans which will best fit the local necessities.

Farm Labour Programme

10.	Experienced farmers will be used to
advise:	,
(a)	Appointment of regional national selective service officials with farm experience. Qualified men with agricultural experience will be appointed to the employment staff of each region and where necessary within individual provinces.
(b)	Agricultural division of the labour supply branch. An agricultural division of the labour supply branch has been established. On its staff are men experienced in agriculture.
(c)	Close liaison with federal Department of Agriculture. A close contact will be maintained between this agricultural division and the federal and provincial departments of agriculture.
(d)	Representation of agriculture on National Selective Service advisory board. An outstanding farmer who is a member of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture has been added to the National Selective Service advisory board.
11.	Discussion of programme with provincial authorities. This programme will be sent at once to each provincial department of agriculture and labour to be followed by detailed discussions in each province between their respective officials and representatives of the Department of Labour immediately.


Mr. REID:: Has the minister given consideration to the utilization of the hundreds of conscientious objectors who are employed in forestry camps and who could be given work. of a more pressing nature?


Humphrey Mitchell: This matter is at this moment receiving the attention of the Department of Labour. We expect to make an announcement within the next few days.


Gordon Graydon: I did not note in the minister's statement any reference to whether the government had made a nation-wide survey to find out exactly how many men and women will be required to meet the needs of the production programme on the farms.


Humphrey Mitchell: We have many surveys;
I should be glad to show them to my hon. friend. After all it is only a guess. The figure you get to-day is dead to-morrow; in fact sometimes it is dead a long time before it reaches me, owing to the constant changes in the agricultural situation in a seasonal country. But if my hon. friend would like to see the best thing we have I shall be glad to give it to him.


Gordon Graydon: It is not particularly for my own purposes that I am asking the ques-

tion; I am only anxious to find out whether the government is approaching the matter from one point of view or the other. The government ought to know what is required before it decides on the policy to fill the requirement.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: With reference to the letter addressed by the deputy minister, Mr. MacNamara, to the mobilization boards, will the minister say how many answers have been received, and will he lay them on the table? I happen to know of one from a member of the mobilization board in New Brunswick. It was a most constructive letter; I wish it could go on Hansard. It gave the considered opinion of a man who is doing a fine piece of work. I may add that he is not the chairman of the board, either. It would be most instructive if those letters could either be read into Hansard or printed in Votes and Proceedings. I ask the minister in any event to lay them on the table so that we may see what is the reaction of the members of these boards to the suggestion of the deputy minister of labour as set forth in that letter.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Does the Minister of Labour think that any instructions or suggestions have issued from any other department of the government to the boards, which might have a bearing upon the decisions they would make in the cases of those who might otherwise be granted postponement because they are essential to agriculture? Cases are being reported to me of men who so far as the ordinary human intelligence can see ought to be granted postponement by reason of their being essential to agriculture; but for some reason the boards are not granting postponement. It gives rise to the question whether orders are going out from the government countermanding orders from the minister's department.


Humphrey Mitchell: I think the hon. member can rest assured that no orders have gone out from the government contrary to those of the Department of Labour.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Are not quotas sent out by the Department of National Defence to the boards asking them to secure a certain number of recruits each month? Does the Department of Labour get that direct from defence headquarters here?


ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. ANGUS L. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence for Naval Services): May

Post-War Reconstruction
I have a moment to make a statement on a matter brought before the house yesterday by the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling)? I was not able to get this information yesterday because Admiral Brodeur was on his way to Washington, and at the time I had not seen the Quebec newspapers. The statement I should like to make is as follows:
A Canadian Press dispatch appearing in newspapers of February 25 states that Rear-Admiral Brodeur of the Canadian Navy had declared in an interview in Quebec "that the Germans may concentrate as many as 500 or 600 submarines around Halifax, and Newfoundland next summer to harass allied convoys."
I am advised that no representative of the Canadian Press was present at the interview; that the only reporters present were one from the Quebec Chronicle-Telegraph and one from L'Action Catholique, which is published in Quebec. Sub-Lieutenant Jacques Trepanier, of the Department of Naval Information, was also present at the interview.
The Quebec Chronicle-Telegraph report contains the following item:	.
He (Admiral Brodeur) maintained that if the enemy puts out from 500 to 600 submarines this year, in which case the Germans would probably place many around Halifax and off Newfoundland . . ."
L'Action Catholique news story contains no reference to specific numbers of submarines.
We telegraphed Rear-Admiral Brodeur and his reply is as follows:
I wish to state that at no time during press interview or during address did I state 500 or 600 submarines would be off Canadian coast nor was the closing of St. Lawrence ever-mentioned. Lieutenant Trepanier was present on all occasions and should be able to verify my statement. During interview and speech it was mentioned-
The word is doubtful in the cypher used in the telegram; it is either "mentioned" or "suggested". I think the correct word is "mentioned".
-that the enemy might have 500 to 600 submarines for operations in Atlantic ocean.
Sub-Lieutenant Trepanier confirms the view that Rear-Admiral Brodeur did not say that 500 to 600 submarines would be concentrated off Halifax or Newfoundland. It would therefore seem that the Canadian press report appearing in certain newspapers on February 25 has not quoted Rear-Admiral Brodeur correctly in this regard.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Has the minister notified the rear-admiral that he should not talk at all?


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: Well, it is difficult for naval officers or officers of any of the forces, besieged as they often are by reporters, to say nothing. Often they are in a position where silence could be construed as a statement. I do not think these men want to talk, but I think they are really on occasions compelled to say something.


Gordon Graydon: Even with the best interpretation put upon the statement made by the minister this afternoon it seems to me that a good deal is left to be desired with respect to the whole matter in connection with the safety of our country at this time. Civilians all over Canada are asked to seal their lips with respect to all matters concerning safety measures, and I think we should at least expect those in higher positions of authority to set us an example. I hope the minister will take appropriate steps to see that that is done in his department and among those who are in the navy.


POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON RECONSTRUCTION AND REESTABLISHMENT
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, February 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver Centre) for the appointment of a select committee to study and report upon the general problems of reconstruction and reestablishment which may arise, at the termination of the present war,
Mr. PAUL MARTIN (Essex East) :: When I adjourned the debate last night I had commented on the observations of the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) in respect of the treatment of men who return after fighting in- the present war. I concurred generally in what he had to say. I am sure he would be the first to want to impress on the country what has been done by the government, the Department of Pensions and National Health and the various committees of this house who have dealt with this very problem.
It might be helpful at this time if we were to review some of the endeavours and achievements in that regard. First of all, there is the Pension Act, which was revised in 1941; a committee of this house presented a long series of recommendations, most of which were adopted by the government within six months of being recommended. The regulations with regard- to medical assistance and treatment have been revised in various in-
Post-War Reconstruction

stances, and while I do not suppose they satisfy all hon. members nevertheless some real progress has been made. Then we would not want to forget the provisions concerning out-of-work benefits, vocational training, physical reconditioning, assistance to returned men who propose to engage in agriculture and who require credit, continued education, and the fixing of the proper status of the returned man under the Unemployment Insurance Act. Then there is the Compulsory Reinstatement In Industry Act passed in 1942; the Vocational Training Coordination Act of 1942; the extension of the principle of civil service preference to returned soldiers; the preference supposed to be given to returned men in respect of defence contracts; the setting up of representatives in government employment offices throughout the nation to look after the returned men, and the setting up of the various citizens' committees. One might also mention the work in regard to hospitalization, with the expansion of the number of beds from some 2,000, I believe, to about 8,000.
This record is not complete, but I am sure hon. members will agree that the problem has engaged the attention not only of the .^administration but of this house, and that what has been done reflects the determination of the membership of this house to do everything possible to ensure that those who have the primary responsibility in carrying on this fight will not suffer when they return to this country. Therefore, as was done last year by hon. members on the other side of the house, I think it is only fair to commend the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) for the leadership he has given in this endeavour.
Last night, too, I sought to indicate that in my opinion the general purpose would be best served in this debate by considering the general principles of the problems involved, leaving the working out of details to the committee. Perhaps I should preface what I have to say in that connection by agreeing with the observations of Doctor George Luxton, now with the Department of Labour, who in a recent number of Public Affairs said:
It is idle for us at the present time to draw up detailed blueprints to show how the employment gap will be closed. So much depends both on Canadians possessing the same unity of purpose as they have had in war time, and on an international atmosphere of mutual cooperation. But we can fruitfully consider the major determinants of the solution.
Is that not really as far as we can properly go? We must be prepared with our ideas and our plans, but in no circumstances must these

be regarded as final, because they will depend for their ultimate determination on circumstances and contingencies which are not now before us.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Nothing is final.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No; but I think it is
important for use to realize that, because sometimes when hon. gentlemen speak one has the impression that they have in mind a solution, a formula by the mere exercise of which these problems may be readily solved. I agree that it is not enough merely to state the four freedoms. I agree that it is not enough merely to confine oneself to general observations. Public opinion in this country and all over the world will demand a translation of those general observations into practical measures, so that the masses of our people will be secure in employment which will enable them to provide properly for their dependents, which will permit them to be properly housed, with adequate nutrition, adequate health standards, adequate educational opportunities and so on. Certainly these will be the minimum requirements; and bearing in mind that we are now giving of our property and our treasure to an extent to which we are not prepared to place any limit, I subscribe to the view that we should approach the problem of social readjustment in the same light. If we can spend our money and our energy on the prosecution of a war which was not of our making, every member of this house knows that as a public man he will be called upon to meet the public demand and see to it that we fight all the social and economic evils with the same energy and to the same extent that we are prepared to fight this war.


John Horne Blackmore: If the hon. member would permit a question, what form would he expect that demand to take?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have only a short time left, and I want to state my point of view, but I will not overlook that matter.
Last evening I quoted from the book by Professor Carr which was referred to by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), to indicate that there was a moral crisis and that one should not overlook this fact in considering the problems of the day. I did not mean to have that statement detached and to serve as an apologia for our omissions. I merely said, and repeat, that an affirmation of this kind is an expression of belief in the destiny of humanity itself, based upon common religious acceptances, which is fundamental to any economic or social programme that may be contemplated.

Post-War Reconstruction
Reference has been made to the planning technique, and I support the suggestion that has been offered. Of course one must plan, in the sense that one must prepare; but 1 say that by planning or by suggesting the planning technique we must not assume for one moment that as a result we shall have a dogma or a formula which in itself will be capable of dealing with any problem. Planning in the sense of preparation must be done, of course; and I readily admit that heretofore there has not been enough planning. In a moment I shall indicate the sort of planning I envisage, but I suggest that one must take great care in the setting up of the planning technique not to fall into the mistake of creating rigidities which will reduce men to the form and the position to which they have been reduced where planning techniques with false motives have been applied, particularly in the totalitarian countries. Right in our own country, during the emergency of war, we have set up a planning technique. What has been the result? There has been a very serious diminution of human liberty, a suspension which we are prepared to accept, having in mind the victory we all want and for which we are all striving. But I say this, and it may apply to the present situation as well as to the future. The planning technique as well as the system of administrative controls which must inevitably linger must be constantly abutted by legislative supervision and legislative scrutiny if we are not to have a situation in which these requirements are dealt with at the expense of human liberty, if we are not to have to return to the very sort of thing from which for centuries man has striven to extricate himself.
What I meant last night when I said that we had to look at this problem from the broad perspective was that these effects will be of no avail unless the whole thing is done on a collective basis with the participation of all nations. Our country which looks to the markets of the world for the source of its major income is in a special position in that respect. Consequently the kind of planning that I would envisage would be one where the key commodities available to all nations would be distributed through properly controlled nonprivileged international pools, where production and distribution would be controlled by international cartels, again not based upon legal or special privilege. The trend of the future must certainly be toward more extensive international control over raw materials, foreign exchange, markets and credit by some, let us call it a supranational agency along the lines designated this morning by Mr. Sumner Welles and yesterday in the United Kingdom by Mr. Morrison.
This in turn will call for the creation of some mechanism by which this can be brought about, and I would hope to think that the committee will formulate a plan and subscribe to the idea of the creation of an international bank, the control of production and distribution of the ' major foodstuffs and materials, a rationalized system of immigration and migration, the control of employment and the promotion of health and social welfare measures. All these things can be done only by collective effort. That is where I want to leave the emphasis. That is the impression I wish to leave, if I leave no other.
We have now the United Nations set-up. There are some who would create a new paper organization for the world, but I am not one of those. While I think the United Nations organization as now constituted could be perfected, I still should like to see its continuance. The present set-up between this country and the United States in the form of corporate bodies, the governmental agencies which have been set up between the United States and the United Kingdom and now between Russia and China-these ad hoc corporations and committees must continue. It is by such a movement, and by such a movement alone that we shall bring about some stabilization in the problems that will face us in the period of liquidation as well as in the period of the long term. If that does not happen we can expect only a recurrence of the incidents which brought about the situation that made it possible for unruly, evil men to try to gain control of the world as well as of their own continent.
It seems to me that we should have a programme of this kind set up, and I make the suggestion to the house somewhat along the lines of that made by Mr. Percy Corbett. We should have a trade commission instructed to secure the removal of quotas and other direct restrictions on trade and the reduction of tariffs. There should be a central bank developed out of the present bank of international settlements and having authority to fix funds and to maintain exchange rates. There should be a development commission having at its disposal substantial funds for financing public works of an international character and industrial installations, with the double object of raising the standard of living in undeveloped areas of the world and furnishing new outlets for the productive capacity of existing industrial countries. There should be a migration and settlement commission.
We may find ourselves at the end of hostilities faced with the situation we were faced with after the last war. A powerful creditor nation group or possibly a powerful' creditor nation may find itself in competition with other countries of the world that want
Post-War Reconstruction

to improve their immediate position and that find themselves obliged to compete in the markets of the world with that nation. If we are to have once again nationalistic monopolies; if we are to have private monopoly based on privilege, then we may as well give up. Great and gigantic as this task is, I have every confidence that we shall all be able to agree on the formula and the programme. It is by emphasizing these general principles that I think this committee and this government can make its ultimate contribution in helping us to get somewhere. The emphasis in the future must not be on the acquisitive side; it must be on the con-tributive side. The endeavour of men and all nations it seems to me should be not what they can get out of it but what they can make by way of contribution. We should strive to eliminate the two extremes which should not exist, particularly in a country like Canada, namely, the extreme of poverty on the one hand and the extreme of richness on the other.
It seems to me that these general observations should serve as lines of approach by this committee. I am not unaware of what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said in this house on March 25, 1942, as reported on page 1628 of Hansard. He said:
The war has to be won before there can be any thought of reconstruction: and if the winning of the war is to include as we hope it must the restoration of freedom to those parts of the world from which freedom has been taken away by aggressor [DOT] nations there is yet a vast task that lies ahead of the free nations of the world. I stress this because I should like to remove altogether any impression that in constituting a committee of this house to study the problems of reconstruction, the government or any one on this side of the house- or for that matter I hope I may say anyone in this House of Commons-entertains the illusion that at the present time we are anywhere within sight of the termination of the present war, or by any means certain as to its course at least for the immediate present.
I think we shall all concur in that. We do not want to give a false impression; we do not Want to have emphasis made where emphasis is not intended; we simply mean that part of the job of winning this war is to cultivate confidence in the minds and hearts, of those who are now in the territories occupied by the enemy. Let them know that we, too, are thinking of a programme for the improvement of the lot of man from the point of view of economic and social welfare. Let them know that when the time comes we shall be prepared to deal with the tremendous problems which will face us.
We made a great mistake at the close of hostilities in the last war. We built a utopia.

I was one of those. We thought that by putting formulae on paper we could bring about the millennium. We did not take into account the tremendous forces that the war had created. This time we must try to keep our feet on the ground. This time let us have a realistic approach, not forgetting the ideal but ever having in mind the practical difficulties. There is a challenge to our generation in this period of revolution, and that is what it is. Whether that challenge be managerial; whether it be collectivist; whether it be the functions of free enterprise or collectivism, there is a challenge to our society. It seems to me that the well-intentioned man in the good society should not fear this challenge; rather he should look upon it as affording an opportunity for constructive action.


Charles Gavan Power: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in order to bring to the attention of the committee which is to deal with these matters, of the house and of the country a problem which I consider will be one of the most important and most difficult of those we shall have to solve in the years to come. It is in a way a problem special to the air force, but it does in a degree concern the other two armed services. It arises out of the hope, the desire and even the necessity which falls upon the people of Canada to deal effectively with the rehabilitation of the young men whom we have enlisted as aircrew and sent overseas. The problem differs to some extent from that which arose after the last war, and I say that with some knowledge because for the past twenty-five years I have been actively interested in the rehabilitation of the veterans of the last war.
My interest is also attracted by the fact that the most difficult cases we had to settle, and which I feel we were not able to settle satisfactorily with all the machinery and all the planning we undertook following the last war, were those of the teen-age boys who had enlisted before they reached their twenties. In this war, perhaps not a majority but still a very large proportion of the young men who are now in our fighter and bomber squadrons in the middle east and all over the world, are young men who have hardly reached the age of twenty. They have been taken from their high schools, or colleges and universities, and in some cases their education was not complete. They have not as yet established themselves in any vocation, in any trade, in any industry. We took them at the threshold of their lives and we have

Post-War Reconstruction
placed them in one of the most hazardous of all occupations. These young men have no job to go back to. They have no career in life. They may have had their hopes; they may have had their ambitions; they may have had their minds directed to one or other of the various occupations, that would be open to them in this country, but I submit to this house that the experiences which they are undergoing at the present time have in all probability diverted their minds from their peace-time thinking on these matters.
What shall we do with these men? We take them away from their schools and put them through the joint empire training plan. We teach them to fly, and they work up to the time when they first get into an aeroplane and experience the thrill of flying. There is
-	

Vmrlv-hnrlv of hrinffinff
themselves up to the point when they want to get into an aeroplane; after they have got into it and had the necessary training there is the thrill of their first solo flight; later, the thrill of moving into a faster aircraft and still later to a twin-engined bomber. Then they go overseas and are put through an operational training unit, where they learn to handle and to fight in a machine in which they are going into combat with the enemy. Then they are posted to an operational squadron, let us say a bomber squadron. They are sent on flights, varying from ten to twenty hours in duration, mostly at night in the darkness and in all kinds of weather; and ever present in their minds, no matter how brave they may be, there is the possibility of some mechanical defect in their engine. Always there is the danger of a lurking enemy night fighter. Then they find themselves right over the centre of the object which has to be attacked. They are surrounded by anti-aircraft fire. Sometimes their machine is almost torn asunder by flak explosions. They drop their bombs and begin the long trip home.
All this requires courage of a different kind from the courage which was required of the soldiers in the last war. The soldiers in the trenches needed nerve to sit there under bombardment day after day, in the wet and the dirt and the muck of the trenches. The airman requires a different kind of courage from that of the man who goes over the top to attack the enemy fortifications, and from that of the man who took part in the old-fashioned glorious cavalry charge. It is a different kind of courage that keeps the airman's nerve from wearing out under constant wracking hour after hour and
day after day until such time as his operational tour is completed. As a result of these experiences these men will come back to Canada, not wounded-that is not the problem, because the doctors can look after any functional disability. What we have to look after is the disability of the mind. We have thwarted that young man's ambitions and his hopes. We have violently and abruptly taken him away from the career which he might have hoped for and might have had in this country, and when he comes back here there i^ a let-down from all the thrills and excitement of the months of his training and the months of his operations. When the period of let-down comes, that young man, no matter who he may be, becomes a problem not only for the air force-it is their problem first, I admit-but after that, a problem for the whole country and a problem for every one oi us to consider seriously. He has become nerve weary. He is suffering from mind fatigue. As I said before, I do not care how brave or courageous he may be; something must happen to him when he goes out time after time on those hazardous journeys, waiting for the worst to happen.
How to treat him is a very difficult question. We have plans. We are proposing to send some of them to convalescent homes, but there are those who when they reach Canada do not want to hear any more about the war. They do not want to see a uniform again. They do not want to hear the sound of a motor. They ought to be sent away somewhere. Convalescent homes may suit them, but I do not know that convalescent homes where they would meet others of their own kind would be suitable, because they might be continually talking or thinking of the horrors they had undergone. We can and will arrange for their rehabilitation and the completion of their education at colleges and universities. We can arrange for their vocational training. We can endeavour to find them jobs in the air force while they are still with us, and then outside, after they have decided to leave. But I fear that the finding of jobs in the air force will not be so easy. It looked easy. I have been giving this matter consideration almost ever since I took on this ministry. But I know the experience I had in the last war. I have talked with every one with whom I could speak on this subject. I have discussed it with chaplains, who are nearest perhaps to the innermost thoughts of these boys. I have discussed it with the auxiliary services, and talked it over with psychologists and psychiatrists. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, although we have all these plans, I
Post-War Reconstruction

think it is a matter almost of dealing with each individual man as an individual case. It is almost impossible to lay down a formula.
It was easy enough for us to think: Well, we have any number of ground jobs here in Canada, any number of positions which could be made available by transfer or transposition. Frankly I thought we could bring back many hundreds of these men when they got through with operations and send others overseas to take their places; that they could carry on administrative work or even act as instructors in the place of the instructors here. Our experience up to the present has been too short for me to give any definite statement of opinion on it, but I have found that many of these lads will not stay here and will not take ground jobs. Some may come back with a certain amount of feeling against those who have jobs here in Canada, an unreasonable and unjustifiable feeling, but many of these returned men have not been here six months before they are begging and praying to go back to another tour of operational work. They do not seem to want to remain here.
I have in mind now four or five of the finest of our young fellows, all of whom have been decorated, and two of whom, I know, were offered and accepted command of fighter squadrons in Canada. But they would not remain here; they wanted to go back. It is a real problem to find something for them to do. Ground positions-administrative positions, equipment officer appointments, such jobs are open to them; the Lord knows they can have them so far as we are concerned and we will take all the time required to train them, because all of them had not the necessary training in high schools prior to enlistment, and they have had less opportunity for such training since they joined the air force. They were busy training for fighting or actually in operations. As I say, we will take all the time necessary to train and to acclimatize them to Canadian conditions; but I fear that unless we handle them somewhat differently and give the best thought of the country to this problem, we may not make a success of it.
_ The other point I wish to bring out is the importance of dealing adequately with this matter; because do not forget that these young men are the men on whom Canada's destiny is to be built. They are physically of the highest standard of Canadian youth. They are picked men educationally and mentally. They are the men who normally ten years hence would have been sitting in this House of Commons and fifteen or twenty years hence would have been occupying these treasury benches or the benches opposite.

I speak with feeling, because I believe this is one of the most important problems with which we have to deal. As I said, we have plans and have been giving them thought. I am not sure that our plans will succeed. It may be, as I have said, that we shall have to deal individually with each case. Even to-day, when they come back, and while they are still in the air force and under discipline, I am not sure whether we should have them under extremely severe discipline or under the least discipline possible. I am not sure which is best for them.
We are in the position that it is very difficult to place them under the command of men who saw service in the last war, even if those men won medals and decorations in that conflict. They are not at all interested in the old men of 1914-18, and the young men of their own generation who have seen service in this war are perhaps not old enough to take charge of a job which needs the wisdom of a serpent, the patience of the Madonna, knowledge of psychiatry' and psychology and the equipment of a doctor of philosophy.
Frankly, therefore, we are faced with a difficult problem. I ask the house to give it the best consideration; above all, to have patience with those who are trying to do a job of work with it. I ask each hon. member individually to think over something in this regard, and I can assure the house that we will give every consideration possible to ideas from any quarter with regard to any one of these boys who come back.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not sure that I can contribute very much of value to this discussion, but before I embark on a consideration of the material which I had prepared I wish to tell the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) that I am glad he brought up the particular problem to which he has referred. The position of these young men who have returned after months of trying activity in the most hazardous of all occupations so far during this war is a special and real problem of itself. But it is not the only problem relating to the returned man.


Charles Gavan Power: Oh, no.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not by any means. Perhaps, as a matter of magnitude and intensity, having regard to the fact that the air forces have been in action so much, and will continue to be until the very end, it will be more difficult to treat than that of members of other branches of the armed forces.

Post-War Reconstruction
But there are other problems with regard to these men to which grave attention will have to be paid. I am ndt sure that we are grappling with the problem of the returned men to-day. I had a rather shocking experience on a train, coming here last Monday. I am referring to it only in passing; it arose from the discussion raised by the minister. I met two men on that train, one a discharged soldier from the Dieppe commando. He had enlisted in the city of Hamilton; he had gone overseas with his unit; he had volunteered to go to Dieppe; he had fortunately returned, but he had eleven shrapnel wounds in one of his legs. He returned to England, was placed in hospital for several weeks and then assigned to a unit at Aldershot. He told me that while he was there, an explosion of a gas main occurred in the camp. He volunteered with nine others to help fix the leak, and while he was so engaged he was severely gassed, taken again to hospital, and sent back to Canada to military district No. 5, in which he was born but in which he had not lived for many years. He was discharged in February of this year; and I saw his discharge. As the train bustled along I made this notation-I am not going to mention his name; I have written to the army about him. This is what is on his discharge sheet: "His services no longer required. Unsuitable for the army."
What do hon. members suppose was done to that boy? He was given a ticket costing $2.35 to the place where he was going, but he was refused a ticket to Hamilton at which point he said he could get his old position back. I am going to test the truth of that statement. It is of course an ex parte statement, and I do not know yet as to its correctness. But if the minister and other members of the government could have heard the curses that that young man heaped upon the Canadian army authorities he would have cause to stop, ponder and think. May I say, further, that at the beginning of the conversation that young man did not know who I was, although subsequently he did learn.
Another young man had come from the neighbouring county of Charlotte. He had been in the army for two years, but had not been sent out of Canada. Upon enlistment he was rated as category A. He was born and brought up in a farming community, and had never learned a trade. Although he had attended barber school for six weeks he had never worked at barbering. Upon entering the army he was given a trade course as an acetylene welder. This course affected his health, with the result that he could not go on. His physical condition deteriorated to a
point where, after spending two years in Canada and after the government spending a good deal of money on his training, he was discharged as category E. He applied for a trade course to become a barber, and was refused on the ground that when he enlisted he had told the army authorities he was a barber. Why he did so, I do not know.
If those two men could be here to-day and the minister could hear what they had to say about army authorities I am sure he would stop, ponder and think. I do not say that these stories are true, but I am trying to investigate them. They indicate, however, the magnitude of this problem of rehabilitation. I shall not say anything further with regard to these two cases, because I do not wish to judge them on the basis of ex parte statements. However, they appealed so strongly to me that I undertook to investigate them and, to the best of my ability, I am doing so.
The minister has raised the special case respecting airmen, and I believe he has done a service in bringing that matter to the attention of the house. I am afraid I cannot help him very much. I believe each case will have to be solved on its own merits, and some sort of remedy will have to be applied in individual cases where men do not, of their own volition and through the exercise of their own will-power settle down to civilian life. I say, however, that this may be one of the gravest problems with which the country will have to deal in days to come.
I listened with a good deal of attention to the speech of the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin). I have no intention of following him through the philosophical disquisitions he placed upon the record so eloquently, but I suggest to him we must be a bit more realistic about this question of reconstruction. It will be a question of jobs, not theories. Only jobs will put contentment into the hearts of these returned men, and the others who will be transferred from war to civilian employment. You can talk about your League of Nations; you can talk about collective action with respect to the world set-up to be; you can say what you like about the mistakes made following the last war; but may I remind the house most respectfully that we won the last war, and we have not won this one yet. Let us not lose sight of fundamentals. The fundamental thing upon which this nation to-day should focus its attention is the winning of the war. In the statement my hon. friend read near the conclusion of his speech the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) himself emphasized that matter fully. Do not let us lose sight of the principal thing which should hold our attention to-day. This war is not

Post-War Reconstruction

yet won, and 1943 promises to be a pretty tough year. I think it will be the turning point in the war.
The terms of reference of the resolution practically reduce the committee to a study club. I am not objecting to that, but I must point out that that is really all the resolution is. I am sorry that in moving it the minister did not give a lead to parliament as to what was in the minds of the administration. It is the duty of the minister charged with the administration of soldier civil reestablishment and civil rehabilitation to give a lead to the country, when he proceeds to set up a committee under a motion of this kind. The government ought to have a policy which it is prepared to lay before the committee and before parliament. For aught I know, the minister has, but his very silence in not making any statement with respect to the matter when moving this substantive motion indicates to me that the government has no policy. He ought to make that position abundantly clear before the resolution passes.
Where does the government stand on this question, or is it going to leave this huge problem to the membership of the committee, and of the house generally? Not one of the members of the committee is an expert-and I say that with great respect and all due deference. I look over the names of these hon. gentlemen, all of whom are intent on trying to do their very best with respect to the study of this problem, but none of whom is capable of solving these problems.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Some of them know a great deal about giving jobs, though.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am coming to that later. I shall tell the membership of the house, if I have time before I take my seat, that there are three agencies which will solve ninety per cent of the problems in connection with rehabilitation. Those three agencies are private enterprise, coordinated with labour and capital. I am dealing with our own country. Those three agencies will largely solve the problem of rehabilitation, if they are given encouragement by the government, government support and wise legislation.	My hon. friend's interjection has
prompted me to say this before I had intended to do so.
Coming back to my original thesis, namely, that the war is not yet won, that that is fundamental, and that 1943 is to be a tough year, I say we must take the position that until the war is won any discussion of postwar conditions and post-war problems is merely academic. On that point I find myself

in agreement with the Prime Minister. Conditions may change from day to day, and any hard and fast decisions which may be reached in advance of victory, or in advance of a victorious peace, may well prove to be wholly illusory: Therefore I say with all the earnestness and sincerity at my command: let us keep our eyes and our minds on fundamentals; let us keep our eye on the ball.
My approach to the consideration of these matters is not based on any philosophical theories as expounded so eloquently by the hon. member for Essex East, or any other economic theories. He stated yesterday that the approach to this problem must not be in terms of public works and that sort of thing. With that I am also more or less in agreement. But it should be in terms of the kind of world and the kind of country in which we shall live in the post-war years. That, he said, was the basic consideration for this discussion. I do not follow him there. I think what the people of this country are concerned about, what the men and women who are in war industry in Canada to-day, who may lose their jobs at the termination of hostilities and who should be absorbed into peace-time activities, are thinking about is work and jobs.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is what I said; that is the basis.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The returned men will want work and jobs, but will not want the dole, even in any such form as unemployment insurance. I suggest that the fundamental thing for all is proper planning on the part of all parties and interests so that work may be found for all at remunerative rates, so as to provide a good standard of living. As I listened to my hon. friend and read his remarks of last night I was wondering if he could tell us what kind of world the post-war period will bring. Do any of us really know what kind of world we shall have?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I said I did not know.


Richard Burpee Hanson: With some of the objectives outlined in my hon. friend's speech I am in agreement; with others I am not. I have, however, not the time even if I had the desire for an academic discussion of the various topics to which he has referred, except to say that we are at war for a definite purpose. We are at war to put down and defeat forces which seek to put an end to our present type of civilization. That is the one definite object of this war. I agree with the hon. member for Essex East in his statement, I think in reply to the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) last evening, that to

Post-War Reconstruction
suggest that we are at war to build a better world, as is sometimes stated, is to give to Hitler and those who think and act as he does, an admission that our present type of civilization is lacking in essentials and fundamentals. That I deny. We can improve it, but it is not lacking in fundamental essentials. In that respect I am in agreement with the hon. member for Essex East.


Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: You are for the status quo.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No; I am not a Tory; I am for orderly progress; so is this party. I am not for revolution, if that is what the hon. gentleman means. I am neither a reactionary nor a revolutionist. The hon. gentleman can be which of the two he likes.


John Horne Blackmore: That is unfair.
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury:) It is not. I am leaving him a free choice in a free country. But the gibe was intended to indicate that I was a reactionary seeking to preserve the status quo. We must move forward in this world, but let us do it in the way of orderly progress, not by revolution.
Most if not all of the discussion so far on this resolution, as far as I can observe, and in a degree I will except the hon. member for Essex East, has centred around the theory and the postulate that the state is to do most if not all of the planning and execution of postwar rehabilitation. I say, as a practical citizen of this country, that this theory is unsound. The state cannot plan for me and all of us. The state can and undoubtedly will be obliged to do a great deal, especially during the transition period from war-time to peace-time activity, but fundamentally I submit it is reasonable to assume that post-war conditions will not differ greatly from those obtaining in peace time, and that the type of civilization which we enjoyed prior to 1930 will not be greatly changed in the immediate future. Whatever change there may be I hope will be in the way of orderly progress and evolution. I am in agreement with advance and progress. Undoubtedly at the end of the present hostilities very grave problems will confront us as a nation in common with the rest of the belligerent world, and1 it is incumbent on every serious and thinking citizen to make a determined and serious effort to anticipate those problems and to explore every avenue for their solution. That I think is the main reason for the setting up of this committee, and with that I am in accord.
Democracy, the democratic nations, somewhat slowly if you will but nevertheless surely, have been able to organize and mobilize their
72537-48i
resources to fight the greatest war in history. And that war will be won. I suggest that it should be the business of democracy to organize the resources of this nation and of all democratic nations, each within its own ambit, capital and labour, industry, natural resources of forest, field and mine, in such a way that it cannot be said that while we won the war we lost the peace. If we can organize for war we can organize for peace. I suggest to the minister, to the membership of this committee, and to the membership of this house, that the agency best equipped to attain that great objective is private enterprise in conjunction and in coordination and cooperation with organized labour and our financial resources. These three groups together have the means to do it; they have the experience, and I have no doubt they have the will to do it. These agencies working hand in hand, with good-will and a single purpose, aided by wise legislation and parliamentary action, can do the trick. Among the first essentials to bring about that coordination and cooperation is the greatest measure of good-will on the part of all three. Those who are in charge of all three ought to be urged to have that outlook in approaching these problems.
I do suggest-and I hope this reaches a little wider constituency than the membership of this house-that private enterprise, in cooperation with organized labour and our financial institutions, should now show the way, take the initiative and give the government a lead, instead of waiting for the government itself to produce plans for the rehabilitation of our people after this war is over. I believe that private initiative, backed by and in conjunction with the other agencies I have mentioned, will give that lead; in fact I believe that movement is under way at this very moment. With intelligent direction, mutual understanding and good-will, and by wise legislative policies these three, better than any others, can do more than all the government plans, government spending and regimentation could ever visualize or accomplish.
Private enterprise, aided by the other agencies to which I have referred and in conjunction with them, to-day is taking the initiative in respect of this matter right here in Canada. It may be of interest to the members of this house to learn that recently the heavy industries of this country set up a post-war planning committee, and that other committees have been set up, to consist of representatives of all the institutes and associations concerned with the solution of the post-war problems of the heavy and durable-goods industries. The primary objective is to-
Post-War Reconstruction

make a determined effort to devise ways and means of providing the maximum amount of employment and as much as possible to avoid unemployment. With the good-will of the nation behind it, and with government aid and direction, this committee will make progress. Other committees are being set up along the same lines, and if they get together and work in cooperation, intelligently encouraged by the citizenship of this country and by governments, they can accomplish a great deal in that connection. Recently I had a conversation with a representative of this committee; and as a basis for preliminary investigation and study he listed nineteen objectives which I should like to place on the record but which I fear I have not time to read to-day. Instead I will hand them to the chairman of the committee. They are objectives which will give new forms of employment, because in many instances they deal with new projects. They are not all governmental; for the most part they are to be undertaken by private enterprise, some by municipal authorities, some by provincial authorities, some by the federal authority and some by these authorities working in cooperation. The list is by no means exhaustive, but it covers a number of concrete topics which I am sure will provide this committee with ample food for thought and exploration.
I do not expect any miracle to be produced as a result of the deliberations of the committee, but I would hope that under the intelligent guidance of an intelligent chairman, such as the committee had last year and, I assume, will have this year, the deliberations of the committee will be constructive and with a single purpose in view. I do not damn it with faint praise; I am rather glad to see the study undertaken, but I am not sure that it will produce a report upon which the nation can act. I hope it will; and if I could be of any assistance I would be only too glad, though I do not feel competent to add anything of any great value to the deliberations of the committee. But I would hope that out of the welter of discussion, out of the examination of experts, out of the exchange of ideas, constructive suggestions might come which later on would give a lead to the government and to the nation. I warn the house, however, that if all is to be left to governments and governmental agencies, as some people would have it, that will not do the trick. You cannot load problems like this on governments and expect to accomplish very much. This is the work of all the people, of the people best qualified to perform these functions. We cannot produce full
lMr. R. B. Hanson.]
employment in this country if we leave it all to the state. Indeed this party holds the view that we must avoid the danger of leaning on the state too much. In this connection I commend to this house the philosophy underlying what I consider to be a very able editorial in the Ottawa Journal of yesterday, which states in part;
It is the duty of the state to try to provide every man -with opportunity to earn a livelihood. It definitely is not the duty of the state to care for people who will not take advantage of opportunities to earn their livelihood.
And again, speaking of the terms "equality" and "liberty" which are used so glibly by many people in this country, and so very loosely, the editorial adds:
It might he a good thing if we could hear something about justice. There is no justice in penalizing industry and thrift for the gain of laziness and extravagance.
I submit that these are wise philosophies. Again I would commend to the membership of this house, and particularly to my hon. friends to the left-


John Horne Blackmore: Which ones?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, the left centre, I will say. I commend to them and to the people of Canada the eight points enumerated in a recent issue of the San Francisco Argonaut, quoted in the editorial to which I have already referred. I was greatly struck when I read these eight points, and I am going to place them on record.
1.	You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
It seems to me that is very' sound. Thrift is an old-fashioned virtue which is practised altogether too seldom in this country, but it was a virtue practised by our fathers, and mothers, and as a result we, their descendants, have made progress in this country. I know that without the thrift practised by my parents I would have been nowhere. I commend the second point also to my hon. friends in the left centre.
2.	You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
No policy of tearing down will build up and strengthen this nation. The only policy that will get us anywhere is to strengthen people, not to tear down.
3.	You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
I know it is not fashionable to champion big men, but without big men where would this country have been? I have in mind at the moment some of the pioneers who built up Canada, some of the pioneers who built


Post-War Reconstruction
up my own province of New Brunswick. The pioneers are gone; I look around and wonder who is to take the place of those big men who did things in the days gone by.


Joseph William Noseworthy: They were not big in the sense in which that word is used to-day.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not going to enter into a controversy with my hon. friend. I know I could not convince him and I am quite certain he could not convince me, so what would be the use. This is the next point:
4.	You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
Let us try to make the poor richer. Let us have a better distribution of wealth if you will, but the fact remains that you cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. The next is:
5.	You cannot lift the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer.
No one knows that better than the trade unions. They want their business to go on. If the member of the trade union is the type of man I believe he is, he wants to see his employer prosper because, as the employer prospers, so does he. Under the present industrial set-up in this country there is no position in industry to which a man starting at the bottom of the ladder cannot hope to achieve by getting to the top in that industry. One of the greatest attributes of democracy is that it is possible for that sort of thing to happen. Then the next reads:
6.	You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.
I remember the days of the NRA in the United States, those hectic days after the bank holiday in 1933. I used to marvel at the government of a country not far from our shores trying to borrow the nation out of adversity into prosperity. That cannot be done by a nation any more than it can be done by an individual. That is not sound philosophy.	.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: Can a
government?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do.not think that is true, having regard to the experience of the United States in the recent depression. The next is:
7.	You cannot build character and courage by taking away a man's initiative and independence.
That is what regimentation does. Initiative and independence are priceless in the eyes of a free man. Let us not destroy them. The next is:
8.	You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.
I commend these to the consideration of this house and this country.


Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, if I had sufficient time I should like to follow and analyse the speech just delivered by the former leader of the Progressive Conservative party (Mr. Hanson), but I have not. However, I should like to make just one remark. Without the little fellows in Canada we could not have the big fellows who are so ably upheld to-day and were upheld in the past by the hon. member who has just taken his seat. That applies not only to Canada but to any other country in the world. Just as soon as you take away the little fellow, the big fellow must disappear also.
There are a number of things that might be said in connection with this rehabilitation committee. I am glad to see that at the head of this programme we have a gentleman as healthy and as free from malnutrition as is the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie). I remember one day two or three years ago when I was coming from the west I was taking a walk along a station platform one cold wintry day. The minister came along and stopped to speak to me and as I looked up at him I began to feel very small indeed. I believe I have had as many of the good things of this world as the average man, but I think the minister has had a little extra share. I hope that in his capacity off Minister of Pensions and National Health,, as head of the department that is looking: after the welfare of the people, he will see^ that some of the things which he has enjoyed are passed along to the rest of us in Canada. To those of us who have reached maturity it may not seem quite so important, but there are a number of underfed and underprivileged people in Canada. We do not see many of them around this chamber, but you do not have to go very far from the House of Commons to find the underprivileged and even the undernourished. Let us hope that before this committee finishes its work provisions will be made to right many of the wrongs that exist to-day and give to those who are undernourished some of the surpluses we are so well able to provide in Canada.
It would seem to be my task to-day to speak for agriculture. There are a number of gentleman farmers in the house, but very few of them have had to make their living from the soil. By a gentleman farmer I mean the man who has sufficient culture to go to a state dinner and know exactly how and when.
Post-War Reconstruction

produce, so how are we going to pay up? And although we cannot deliver, we have to continue paying interest. This does not look like sound business.
Again, we have been and are still compelled to pay excessive prices for the things we have to buy. On February 3, in a previous speech, I stated that on a tractor valued at seventeen or eighteen hundred dollars we are compelled to pay approximately $85 more than we would have had to pay a little over a year ago. I do not know what Mr. Gordon and his officials are doing about that. There seems to be no objection to increases in the price of farm machinery, or of lumber, nails and other hardware needed to provide storage facilities for grains on the farms.
Another injustice of which we complain is that implement companies are allowed to go out and seize machinery while the farmer's crop is still in the field under the snow. The farmer has done everything possible; he has his crop to the stage where it is in the stook ready for the threshing machine, but because of weather conditions and shortage of help the threshers have not been able to carry out their work as they should, and the farmer is penalized to the extent that his implements are taken away from him. I wonder if the government intends to do anything about this question. If not, I fear that numbers of other farmers will be on relief in the very near future, because farmers, like others, have to eat, and if their machinery and farms are taken away they will have to do something else.
About a year ago, on the address in reply to the speech from the thronej I dealt with the question of education and the teachers. I am not satisfied that we are getting the best we can out of our educational system. It is entirely on a provincial basis, and there is a considerable variation in the amounts spent on education in the different provinces. Before we can have a prosperous Canada we must have an educated and enlightened people; for until people begin to think for themselves they will not get along as they should. Experience has taught us that when we allow the other fellow to do our thinking for us he does it in his own interests and not in ours. I have here the figures of amounts expended on education in the Canadian provinces in the year 1935:
Province
British Columbia	
Ontario	
Alberta	
Manitoba	
Quebec	
Nova Scotia	
Saskatchewan	
Prince Edward Island
New Brunswick	

Amount per year per pupil .. $69 70 ..	60	48..	55	58..	48	08..	46	05..	36	43..	34	64..	31	55
.. 29 86
Compare these figures with those of the United States. The highest expenditure per pupil is paid in New York State, with $124.32, and the lowest is Mississippi, with $18.93. Only nine states were below the New Brunswick average of $29.86. The Canadian average, including night schools and so forth, is $57.92, and that of the United States $74.22. If therefore we want a lead so far as education is concerned, and go across the line, as we have done in other cases, we shall find a very good lead in the direction of spending more on education. I am not suggesting that we should place additional taxes on the farmers, because already they are paying more than they can stand. Taxes at the present time are based on the assessed value rather than the production value, and unless some drastic change is made in our taxation system we shall not achieve the best results, or those which we should seek.
A number of people want to reduce the salaries of teachers. On the other hand, for a number of years I have advocated better qualified teachers and a higher rate of salary. Teachers are not nearly as well paid as are even labourers in industry, although they are compelled to dress well and to spend considerable time and money in securing the qualifications necessary to teaching. There are some who fail to see the importance of the teacher in the every-day life of our children, whom we entrust to them for five days a week.
I have here a table which shows the salaries of 14,259 of our male teachers in 1938, the latest period for which I have been able to-obtain returns.
Number
teachers	Salary range
6 		
75 			 $ 300 to $ 400
666 		
1,181 		
1,404 		
1,255 		
1,240 		
736 		
661 		
491 		
I pause to say that 7,715 of our male teachers, or more than fifty per cent, received less than $100 per month. Under our present system of taxation I f^ar that we cannot do very much better; but I advocate a change of system which will give us better teachers and provide them with better pay and living conditions. The table continues:

Post-War Reconstruction
Number of teachers	Salary range
522 		
369 			 1,300 to 1,400
375 			 1,400 to 1,500
361 		
369 			 1,600 to 1,700
341 			 1,700 to 1,800
391 			 1,800 to 1,900
329 			 1,900 to 2,000
We find that in all of Canada we have 3,487 teachers receiving more than $2,000. This, I believe, is not good enough. There are far too many in the low-income brackets, and we cannot expect to get the best in the teaching profession under those conditions. A few months ago Saskatchewan was short to the extent of 145 teachers. In Alberta we are also short, after bringing back to the profession a number who had. been out of it for a number of years. This is not helping, and is not adding to the betterment of our system of education. I understand teachers are leaving the profession every day and going into munitions factories or other government work, because of the better pay and something better to look forward to.
Of the teachers in the higher income brackets we find the division as follows:
Number
Province	of teachers
Ontario	 2,346
British Columbia	 475
Alberta	  261
Manitoba	 163
Saskatchewan	 117
New Brunswick	 59
Nova Scotia	 66
Prince Edward Island	 0
Let us take the number I spoke about before, namely 7,715, and find out how they live. We will consider the man who has just been married, and my figures will be based on 1938 prices. To-day prices of things we buy are much higher, and the newlyweds would have to live on a much smaller and slimmer ration. This is the table of expenditures which would have been required in 1938:
Pood	 $ 268 00
Clothes	
104	50Shelter, light, fuel	
503	00Medical	
30	00Recreation	
42	50Insurance	
120	00

Looking through this table one might assume, from the comparatively small amount for clothing, that the man and his wife must have had an ample supply of clothing before their marriage. The recreation item is small, and it would seem that they might depend upon their neighbours to furnish conveyances to take them around. Perhaps, too, they would rely upon their neighbours to take them
to the Follies, or to other types of amusement. This total sum of $1,068 leaves approximately $132 as savings for the year.
This is not good enough. Something should be done to put our education on a different footing, a different basis. If we are going to have better conditions we must have better education and a more nearly even distribution of education costs. As I have already said, at the present time most of the cost is levied directly on the farms. Sometimes we find that merchants in small towns and cities claim they are paying a higher percentage of taxation than are the farmers. But when that statement is made I ask this question: Where do you get your revenues from which you pay that higher percentage? I find almost every time the taxation can be traced to the farmer. Those taxes are borne by the farmer either directly or indirectly.
As my time has almost expired I shall not say much more on this occasion. I hope to discuss other matters in more detail on a later occasion. Last night I listened with keen interest to the chairman of the committee of last year, the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Turgeon), and took particular interest in the part of his speech I am about to read:
There is not any question that during the terrible and long years after the war which were known as the depression we let ourselves sink to depths of shame which only the courage, heroism and sacrifices of the men and women who are fighting for us overseas can wipe out. What the Prime Minister was saying to himself as well as to the men and women whom he was actually addressing was that the experiences of the war-and surely we must learn from the experiences of the war-have taught us that we, business men as well as the government, permitted certain things to be obstacles to full employment in the days of peace, when, had we only known it, those things were not real obstacles.
I was pleased to hear the hon. member say that. There may be some shifting of responsibility from Mr. Speaker's right to his left. But if that argument should arise I would say that those who are now to his right were to his left at one time, and vice versa. So that those who have been and those who are in office must accept full responsibility. Now that they know that the factors which held them back in the past were only imaginary, I hope something definite and far-reaching will be done to rectify those things.
We seem just a little slow to move unless somebody else takes the lead. In yesterday's evening Journal I noticed this brief article, which I shall read. Under date of London, February 25, it is headed "Britain Plans Vast Post-war Programme", and reads-as follows:
Post-War Reconstruction

Vast government plans for post-war building and town planning in Britain were outlined in a white paper published to-day.
The plans spread over 10 or 12 years and include the recruiting of 1,250,000 workers for rapid but orderly expansion of the building industry.
It is planned to establish conditions of work which will eliminate casual engagement of workers which formerly was the most unsatisfactory characteristic of the building industry.
The large deficiency in the labour force will be met by special training of adults by the state and it is estimated 200,000 could be trained during the first three or four years.
With a lead like that from Great Britain I feel quite satisfied we should be on our way; we should not wait until the war is over. It has been admitted on different occasions that obstacles in the past were only imaginary. Now let us see that those who have found that out convince their comrades in parliament that they should not stop, but should proceed at once to make things better. In order to do that, on behalf of agriculture I suggest that first of all an adjustment of our debt situation be made. Nice words are passed on to the farmers, but we still find creditors right on the farmers' shoulders. They will not get off, and until they do and thereby lighten the load, the farmers cannot make headway.
Because farms have been stripped of labour, and because, as has been pointed out here in the past few days, we have in the west unlimited sources of electricity, I suggest the electrification of agriculture. This does not apply only to my own province, although I understand they are proceeding with something along that line this year. But it should apply, and I believe in the very near future will apply, all across Canada. The power is there; all we have to do is to harness it and take the drudgery out of farming. Then we have large irrigation projects that could be put into effect. I will name just one, the William Pearce, which I understand can be put into operation for some $23,000,000. During the relief period when people were not given all the relief they should have had, something like $10,000,000 was spent in that dried-out territory.


John Ritchie MacNicol: May I ask the hon. member how many acres the William Pearce plan is expected to irrigate?


Robert Fair: I have not the details of that. The hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch), who is familiar with it, says about half a million acres in Alberta alone. If this irriga^ tion project were put into effect we would be able to grow enough sugar to release a number of the staff of the wartime prices and

trade board for more useful work and possibly save Mr. Gordon some sleepless nights, if he is experiencing such at the present time. It is far more in accord with common sense to spend money on something of that kind.
We should have an agricultural policy announced, not after the war but now, that would guarantee parity prices for the products of agriculture. We have in the past produced at far less than cost of production; why not start even now, years after it should have been done, to give us cost of production with a reasonable profit?
For income tax purposes one year should not be taken alone, because one year we may have a good crop and the next four or five years have crop failures. In some districts we have had crop failures for more years than that. The average income over a period of at least five years should be the basis.
For our pioneers, spoken of by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) we should have an increase in the old age pensions and a lower starting age. I see you are going to call time on me, Mr. Speaker; I should like with the indulgence of the house to have just a couple of minutes to finish.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Robert Fair: I would also ask that old age
pensioners be allowed to receive $500 a year, instead of the $365 they are allowed at the present time, without having their pension cut down. We should adjust soldier settlers' debts in accordance with the proposal I made when I spoke here on February 3. A resolution to that effect is now on the order paper. And for the boys and girls fighting the present war we should give them a square deal right from the start, not twenty years after they come back, but immediately they come back. I believe my colleague the hon. member for Camrose (Mr. Marshall) has on the order paper a resolution dealing with that.
The question is bound to come up, where ' will you find the money? I would ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) to tell us where he is finding the money at the present time for the war. If he is unable to get an answer to the question among his officials and advisers, I would like him to come across to the left centre group pointed out by the hon. member for York-Sunbury and we can tell him how to get it.


Mr. G. E. WOOD (Brant):: I hesitate to
follow the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) in his remarks any further than the last he made in connection with old age pensions. I would suggest to him that if he or any of his friends wants an old age pension, provision already is made. Since 1908 we have had

Post-War Reconstruction
government annuities under which by contributing to them at any time after five years of age one can have any kind of old age pension he wants. There is nothing to prevent anyone from having an old age pension even at twenty-one years of age if he pays for it.
In its approach to this important question of reconstruction I am satisfied that this parliament has before it one of the most difficult tasks that has ever faced any parliament, namely, to devise some programme whereby it can create a condition of affairs to carry us successfully through the post-war period. I rather take the view of the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) and also of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) that the winning of the war is the primary object. Whatever we do in the future will be more or less dependent on how this war is won and on the terms of the peace. No country to-day can live to itself; it will be dependent on the economic and other conditions that exist in other countries, because we shall have to dovetail our own economic life in a measure into their desires. Another thing that we should keep in mind is that while we are anxious to raise our standard of living we must not allow it to rise in excess of those of other countries because, if our standard of living is much higher than theirs it will be difficult for us to secure world trade and a proper world balance, inasmuch as we shall not be able to compete with them. That must be kept in mind. I know there are those who take the view that "as long as I get what I want I do not need to worry about the other fellow." But that philosophy is wrong; it cannot exist in this time; it could only lead to a repetition of the same disaster again. Furthermore, I say, as the Prime Minister said, that if the new order is not here and now we shall never have a new order.
I am prepared to say that the conduct of this war by this administration is making a great contribution to the post-war period in Canada. The conduct of this war, wise or otherwise, will leave an aftermath of difficulty and debt and disaster which, if not foreseen and avoided, will have to be paid for in the post-war period when the boys are returning. I would say that the wisdom of this government in introducing foreign exchange control, the excess profits tax and the regimenting more or less of industry in regard to price control, has had a great influence in maintaining an economy that will keep things on an even keel so that we shall not create loans which will only create disaster and depression afterwards. I believe that the contribution which this government is making will be very helpful in the post-war reconstruction period.
Unfortunately a great deal of pressure is being brought to bear by labour and even by our farmers to break this control system. While we do have to suffer some disabilities in consequence of control we should bear in mind that as consumers we enjoy the benefit of the holding down of our cost of living, and to that extent we should at least be fair enough to bring that side of the question to the attention of the public.
I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) last evening, in the course of which he stated that the depression of 1930 was caused by the selfishness of the great financial interests. I should like to approach that question from another point of view. I believe the depression of 1930 was caused more by the unusual prosperity that was enjoyed by a certain group of mediocre-minded people who had saved some money and who wanted to copy some of the richer people. They went into the stock market and took away control of many industries by bidding more for the stock than its earning power justified. As a result, a good deal of our industry got into the hands of men who did not know how to run it. They may have been good labour men but they were not capable of administering industry. Therefore I warn the committee, the house and the country that we must not permit any situation to exist under which people will administer affairs which they are not capable of administering. It seems to me that if we develop a nationalized industry there will be great danger of another depression, because the same element of society might obtain control of any government which would have the responsibility of nationalizing industry, and this would lead only to a repetition of the depression of 1930.
The hon. member for Vancouver East also had something to say about the accomplishments of our great ally Russia. I should like to direct attention to the fact that a great deal of the success Russia has achieved has been as a result of the help of the capitalistic, democratic countries, and that Russia is enjoying her present position because the capitalistic countries shared the knowledge and improvements that had been brought about under the system of free enterprise.
In these days we are subjected to many catch-phrases designed to have people believe that on account of the mercenary motives of some people, many in this country do not receive their fair share of the national income. It has been said that in 1942 we produced $9,000,000,000 worth of goods, of which we
Post-War Reconstruction

have marketed about $7,500,000,000 worth. Who got that money? Well, labour got over $4,000,000,000; the farmers got over $1,000,000,000, and those who had their money invested in industry got only $318,000,000. To those who believe that labour is not getting its share I ask, if you took the $318,000,000 and added it to the $4,000,000,000, do you think that would satisfy labour? I yield to no man in my desire to serve labour, but I know that the sober-minded labour man realizes that he must have industry as a place where he can sell his labour, and that he would not be doing labour any kindness by draining off all the profits so that there would be nothing left to plough back into more factories and equipment to create more employment. I only hope and trust that this reconstruction committee will keep some of these fundamentals in mind, and not be carried away by those catch-phrases which are intended only to divert the attention of the people from the really important matters in order that those who wish to fool the people [DOT] may gratify their own desires.
Then I hope the committee will give some consideration to our agricultural problems. In spite of all that has been said about farming I believe that, after all, the farm is a fairly good place to settle a large part of the population of Canada. In spite of all its disadvantages; in spite of all the hard work involved, I believe the farm offers a security that can be found nowhere else. If a man owns a farm he has a security which it would cost another man thousands of dollars of invested capital to obtain. If I may be allowed a personal word, the other day I sat down at my table on my own farm and enjoyed a meal cooked by my good wife. The only things on that table that were not grown on my farm were the pepper, salt, sugar and tea. Everything else was produced on my own land.


Mr. McIVOR:: And grown well.


George Ernest Wood: It was certainly well cooked. Where else could a man get security to compare with that? I have reached the point where I deplore the practice of some who call themselves dirt farmers but who seem to talk about only the unfavourable aspects of farming. They have more or less discouraged our youth from wanting to go on the land, and now they wonder why they are short of help. If agriculture is to have its proper place in the national life of Canada we must give it some self-respect. I have no intention of shutting my eyes to its weaknesses, but at least I can be honest enough to give it the credit it deserves.

On motion of Mr. Wood the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver Centre) the house adjourned at six o'clock.
Monday, March 1, 1943