[Stage Direction]
On the brders of the day:
Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture two questions. Has he been informed of the announcement that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company intends to sell in Wisconsin, United States, its large herd of 250 holstein cattle from the company's farm at Strathmore, Alberta? If so, will the minister tell the house what the government has done to retain these valuable dairy cattle in Canada?


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: I have no information with
regard to the matter other than what has been contained in the press. I have seen a notice there to the effect that the Canadian

Labour Conditions
Pacific Railway Company were selling their herd. So far as I know there is no restriction on selling breeding cattle in the United States or on their selling cattle in Canada.


John Horne Blackmore: Is the government not taking any steps to retain these cattle in Cknada, either by buying them or by some other means, in order to ensure that Canadian breeders will have access to them?


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: Speaking in the house on
January 29 the Prime Minister made reference to the consideration which the government has been giving to the appointment of a committee on estimates. I think it would be the desire of the members of the house generally to scrutinize in greater detail the estimates brought down this year by the government and to avoid a repetition of what occurred at the conclusion of the last session. I should be very glad to have the Prime Minister indicate to the house what policy the government intends to pursue with respect to effecting a closer audit by the members of the house of these estimated annual expenditures.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: As a matter of fact I have been waiting until the estimates were tabled to have a word with my hon. friend and the leaders of other groups with respect to the possibility of referring the estimates, either in part or in whole, to a committee or committees. I expect that the estimates will be tabled immediately after the conclusion of this debate, which I hope may be to-morrow night. In that event I shall be glad to have a meeting with my hon. friends with respect to this matter.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister in connection with certain advertisements which are appearing in nearly all the Canadian papers. I bring this matter to his attention because of his statement on Friday last that henceforth the national war labour board will be in the nature of an
industrial court, and the protest made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) against my referring to the steel dispute during my speech on February 4. I should like to draw the attention of the house to the full-page advertisement appearing in the daily press of Canada and published by the Steel Company of Canada, denouncing the organized steel workers and accusing them of the grave crime of treason. I wish to protest against this dirty and provocative advertising-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Clarence Gillis: -particularly as it will undoubtedly-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Vien: If the hon. member has a question to ask he is allowed to lay the foundation for it. He should now ask his question without making any other reference or offering any opinion.


Clarence Gillis: Does the Prime Minister think that advertising of this kind tends to a peaceful solution of the dispute now being adjudicated upon by the war labour board?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not believe that what I think would matter one way or another. I have not read the advertisement to which my hon. friend has just referred. To tell the truth, I spend less time on the advertisements than I do on any other part of the paper. However, I should think that if the advertisement referred to is adding to existing difficulties in the steel industry the national war labour board itself will probably take cognizance of the matter.


Mr. COLD WELL:: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance if this particular advertising is allowed to be charged by the corporation as part of its operating expenses?


Mr. ILSLEY:: My colleague the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gibson) would be the one to answer that.



CANADIAN NAVY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. ANGUS L. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence for Naval Services): Mr. Speaker, a few days ago the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group (Mr. Coldwell) and the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Graydon) placed questions
488	COMMONS
Canadian Navy-"Boating" Magazine
on Hansard, and asked for a statement in regard to an article entitled "Fairmiles and Foul" which appears in the January-February issue of a magazine called Boating. I regret that some time elapsed before I was able to gather together all the information necessary to make a full statement, and I regret still further that the statement itself must occupy some little time. But the article in question, together with editorials and other articles in the January-February issue of Boating, occupied practically the whole magazine, and it has been necessary to traverse a good deal of ground in order to be able to make an appropriate reply.	,
The article purports to criticize the building and manning of Fairmile boats in Canada and their operation by the Royal Canadian Navy. The article was written by Andrew D. MacLean, Commander R.C.N.Y.R., retired. It is quite a long article. In places it expresses the writer's opinion. In others it purports to state facts. I shall not attempt to deal with every statement of opinion or with every insinuation contained in the article. I shall deal chiefly with what the writer alleges to be facts, and I shall make such comments on these allegations as I can make from my own knowledge or from information supplied to me by officials of my department or by other reliable sources.
Training of crews. One of the first statements which Commander MacLean makes is with regard to the training of crews for these Fairmiles. On the very first page of his article, page 7 of the magazine, he says:
The senior officers of the Canadian. Navy prefer to run things in their own particularly obscure manner. .. .and make no difference between the training of Fairmile crews and the maintenance of the 600 h.p. Hall-Scott engines than they do for men and the steam machinery of corvettes, minesweepers and destroyers.
Again, on page 9, he says:
No special training was given our officers or men on being accepted volunteers for the Fairmiles service.
These are some of Commander MacLean's statements, and I should like to point out what the facts are. The facts are that before any Fairmiles were completed in Canada, engine-room crews were given special training in the running and maintenance of Hall-Scott engines, which are the engines used in these boats. Beginning early in 1941 and going on until February, 1942, two engineer lieutenants, one warrant engineer and fifty-four specially selected chief motor mechanics were sent to the Hall-Scott works in Berkeley, California, to undergo a complete course in the management

of the Hall-Scott type of engine. The men who were given this special training had, prior to their entry in the Canadian Navy, considerable experience with internal combustion engines, such as the Hall-Scott engines are. Upon completing this course one of these men was detailed to stand by each Canadian Fairmile as the machinery was being installed. One of these men was also a part of the crew of each vessel commissioned. As the shore repair staffs for Fairmiles at Halifax and Esquimalt became more familiar with the maintenance and operation of the Fairmile machinery, it was found that training which formerly had to be undertaken in California could now be efficiently conducted in this country, and accordingly the practice of sending men to California was discontinued.
In addition to this training in the maintenance and operation of Fairmile machinery, the naval mechanical training establishments at Halifax, Esquimalt and Pietou ran special courses in internal combustion machinery. This was general training for the class of engine to which the Hall-Scott belongs.
On page 9 of the article Commander MacLean says:
By August, 1942, out of more than thirty boats in commission only ten were fit for operational duties as a direct result of Ottawa's failure to provide specialized training and adequate, specialized base facilities.
The fact is that in August, 1942, there was a completely adequate number of trained men available to operate each Fairmile then in commission. In addition there was an adequate number of replacements available to take care of any emergency which might have arisen. A special branch of the Canadian Navy had been established for internal combustion engine ships. This branch corresponds to the regular stoker branch in the navy.
Providing crews before boats are ready. The second allegation with which I should like to deal is that in the autumn of 1941, twelve officers and seventy-two men waited at Toronto for some six weeks before they could actually man the ships and bring them down through the lake and river to the east coast.
It must be pointed out here that it is very common practice to send some officers and key ratings to every new ship some time before the ship is accepted. It is obvious, I think, to anyone who reflects upon the matter that men cannot arrive on a new ship, accept her, commission her and begin to operate her

Canadian Navy-"Boating" Magazine
all in one day. Some considerable period of instruction and of getting acquainted with the machinery is necessary.
The Fairmiles to which Commander MacLean refers in this instance were launched in July and August, 1941. We fully expected that they would be ready for acceptance much earlier than they actually were ready. Delays were caused by the difficulty in securing equipment, some of which had to be got in the United States, and it was not until the first days in November that the ships could actually be taken over by the Canadian Navy and sailed for the east coast.
Commander MacLean goes on to say that in the spring of 1942, "twelve boats had complete crews provided three months before they were needed, or 192 officers and men with nothing to do for ninety days." My information is that this statement is directly contrary to the fact, and some reflection would seem to show that my information is correct. The month of May is the first month in which wooden ships, not large ships, either, as these Fairmiles are, could safely leave great lakes ports for the east coast. If Commander MacLean's statement is correct, it would mean that complete crews for these twelve boats had been sent to the lakes in the month of February, when the rivers and lakes are completely frozen over.
Paying off Fairmile crews. Commander MacLean goes on to say that the crews of five boats were paid off in Halifax in December, 1941, "because of an artificial shortage of officers created by the opening of special schools before we had enough people to man the ships so urgently needed at sea." My reply to that statement is this, that the Canadian navy had to make the best disposition possible out of the men it had in the service.
Its principal task then was, and still is, that of escort work across the Atlantic. That is work which Fairmiles cannot undertake, at least for a transatlantic voyage. Corvettes and other ships of that type were urgently required for this duty, and so, too, were officers and men to man them. In December, 1941, training facilities were not available to the same extent as they are to-day, and in view of the shortages of personnel, the manning commander at Halifax had to use the available men on the ships where they were most urgently needed. Hence it was not the opening of special schools which deprived Fair-miles of crews in the winter of 1941. It was the urgent need of personnel for the larger ships which could be used as transatlantic escorts.
Dinghies for Fairmiles. Commander MacLean then refers to the dinghy supplied for these Fairmiles, and says that it was a joke. "Heavy beyond belief, it would not handle under oars or sail and was unsafe with more than two people on board."
The dinghies supplied for the Fairmiles were built, just as the Fairmiles were built, in accordance with designs worked out by the British Admirality. It is not true to say that they would not handle under oars or sail. In this instance Commander MacLeaD is giving an opinion, but I prefer to take against his opinion the view of the director of naval operations, Captain H. N. Lay, an officer of vastly greater naval experience than Commander MacLean, and an officer who has won two decorations in this war for his gallantry in actual naval operations. Captain Lay paid a visit to the shipyards building Fairmiles in the month of October, 1941, and he reports as follows:
I took particular notice of the ten feet dinghies which are supplied to the Fairmiles built. This boat is an extremely well built one, very strongly constructed, and should stand up very well to the handling it will receive during service. It is slightly on the heavy side, but as a davit is fitted for lowering, it is considered that this is an advantage rather than a disadvantage.
Guns for Fairmiles. The next allegation of Commander MacLean deals with guns. He says this on page 9 of his article:
The guns supplied were from eighteen to thirty years old and the ammunition of United States origin and very doubtful history. . .
As in the case of the dinghies, the guns supplied to Fairmiles were the same as those specified by the Admiralty for the same class of boats built for the Royal Navy. The guns for the Fairmile boats were obtained originally, in part from the Admiralty and in part from the United States Navy. The type of gun fitted to our Fairmiles was the one deliberately planned to be fitted, as laid down in the plans and specifications received from the British Admiralty. It is not a question here, Mr. Speaker, of having the perfect gun. It is a question of taking the best that you can get at the time.
But since the Fairmiles were originally armed, now nearly two years ago, I am happy to say that a better type of gun has become available, and is being fitted in the Fairmiles. I say further that the problem of securing better armament for these Fairmile boats and for all other types of ships used in the Canadian navy is one which is constantly under review by competent gunnery experts and armament specialists. These men are in touch
[Stage Direction]
490	COMMONS
Canadian Navy-Boating" Magazine
with the Royal Navy on the subject all the time, and whenever better armament is available for any Canadian ship, it is procured.
To illustrate the attitude which Commander MacLean has adopted throughout the article, I should like to refer to a photograph on page eleven, which he captions:
Lesson in Fire Power for the R.C.N.
Picture shows Fairmile of the Royal Navy on patrol in the North sea.
I am advised and I believe that the vessel shown in the photograph is not the same type of vessel we use at all; it is a Fairmile of a totally different class, one used against German E-boats, whereas our Fairmile is used against submarines. I think it is strange that Commander MacLean, who sets himself up as a great expert on Fairmiles, should make so grievous a mistake as that.
Electrical equipment. Then he deals with the question of electrical equipment and complains that in Canada we have maintained the English standard voltage of 24 instead of the north American standard of 32 or 110 on our Fairmiles. It may be said in reply to this charge that the electrical supply of 24 volts is not only in accordance with Admiralty design, but was also determined by the voltage of the generators supplied with the main engines. There was no option in the matter. We had to take the generators as they were or go without them.
It is true that two increases in electrical power supply have had to be made on these boats, but these changes were made necessary by the introduction and development of new equipment since the original Fairmiles were designed. It must be remembered that the present-day supply of electrical equipment is very limited indeed, and the retention of the 24 volt and the introduction of the additional 110 volt systems were the most feasible and economical and the only practical arrangements which could be made in the circumstances.
The Lynx. Then Commander MacLean refers to the breaking-up of the Lynx. The Lynx was one of the yachts which the navy procured in the early days of the war and converted for naval purposes. He says, on page 30, that he was appointed to command the Lynx, which was to be the mother ship of certain Fairmiles, that shortly after his appointment he went on leave, and that on his return the Lynx was being broken up for scrap metal. He goes on to say, "A signal had been misread."
Nothing could illustrate the unreliability of this gentleman any more clearly than this statement about the Lynx. While the Lynx,

which was a very old yacht, had been condemned as unseaworthy and unsafe and unfit for service, and while her machinery had been taken out, she was not being broken up at the time that Commander MacLean returned from leave, nor has she since been broken up for scrap metal. She is still lying at a dock in a certain eastern Canadian port.
Delays in building. Commander MacLean complains next of the great delays that occurred in the building of these Fairmiles, due, as he claims, to lack of intelligent priorities on engines, tanks and fittings. He says that it takes two to three times as long to build these boats in Canada as it does in Britain.
I should be the last to deny that there have been delays in the shipbuilding programme for Fairmiles. Here, it must be remembered, there was a new industry for Canada. New sources of supply had to be developed; new materials and new machinery had to be secured. Shipyards had to be built in some cases and their staffs had to be organized in almost all cases. There is bound to be delay in any countrjr in such circumstances, but I must point out that in Great Britain several desighs of Fairmiles are produced, whereas Canada produces only one type, and that is the Fairmile used in anti-submarine work.
In Britain, again, boats are built on the mass production principle, but even with this mass production method it takes from five to six months to build a Fairmile in Great Britain. In this country, as I said before, we built and are building Fairmiles to the British design. The first contract wTas let on December 17,	1940. The contractors
were required to build the hulls only. The department supplied special equipment and machinery. In procuring this equipment and machinery very many difficulties and delays were encountered.
In a war where there are great demands upon every form of mechanical production, difficulties and delays are inevitable at first. I believe, however, that any shipbuilder building Fairmile boats will say that so far as the naval service is concerned it has done its utmost to help out the situation. For example, in the first month of the building programme, representatives of the naval service met with the contractors, with the builders of these boats, to clear up certain problems that were presented by the plans and specifications, and this contact with the builders has been maintained ever since. There are on file at naval service headquarters many letters expressing the builders'

Canadian Navy-"Boating" Magazine
appreciation of the help received from the naval service, and I have seen no letter or communication of any kind to the contrary.
As to the comparisons between the rate of building in this country and in England, as I have said, England employs the mass production method and even by that method it takes from five to six months to build a boat there. In Ontario, where most of these boats were built in the lake yards, from the time the first keels were laid, early in 1941, until the boats were commissioned, the average building time was eight and a half months. In the case of one firm, the time taken was six months and six days, and last year, 1942, one firm delivered one of these vessels in three months and twelve days from the laying of the keel. This is a splendid tribute to the zeal and skill of our shipbuilders.
Idle shipyards. The editorial which appears in the magazine Boating, on page 6, states that "of the five Fairmile building yards in Ontario, two are very busy and three have no Fairmiles to build." The facts are that there are seven Fairmile yards in Ontario, and in all seven yards Fairmiles are in various stages of construction at this very moment to the total number of ten.
Delivery of engines. In the article, Commander MacLean alleges that engines were delivered to some yards six months ahead of time, and in other cases the builders could not get engines when they required them. I will say, in answer to that, that there is no case known to me or to the department where engines were delivered to yards six months before they were required. As the engines were received by the navy at Toronto, they were shipped to the builders whose vessels were in the most advanced stage. There were some cases where builders who originally had been rather backward eventually made more rapid progress, and some of these builders might have had to wait a short time for engines, but never for six months.
Attack on Royal Canadian Navy. So much for the specific charges which Commander MacLean makes. But there is another matter to which I must refer, and it is this. Throughout the whole article, as well as in an editorial comment, and in anpther article appearing on pages 40 and 41, numerous slighting references are made to the Royal Canadian Navy, that is to say to the permanent force. It is suggested, for example, that the naval board should have more naval reserve and naval volunteer reserve representation.
In this connection, I should like to observe that the board of admiralty in Britain has no reserve officers on it. The Canadian naval board is modelled on the British board of 72537-324
admiralty, with this difference, however, that the board of admiralty is an executive body whereas the Canadian naval board is a body advisory to the minister of naval services. The minister, under the act, has full executive authority corresponding to the authority exercised in England, by the board of admiralty itself. But there is one further difference which Commander MacLean, or the editorial writer, has forgotten, and that is that the secretary of the naval board here is an officer of the naval volunteer reserve, whereas in Britain the secretary is a permanent civil servant.
The Canadian naval board consists of the chief of naval staff, the vice-chief of naval staff, the chief of naval engineering and construction, the chief of naval personnel, the chief of naval equipment and supply, the deputy minister of naval services, with a naval volunteer reserve officer as secretary.
It is alleged in this magazine that the board has awarded promotions and decorations to itself and to the personnel of the Royal Canadian Navy in a very improper and unfair manner. I must point out in answer to that charge that in the last promotions list which appeared at New Year's 3-1 per cent of the permanent R.C.N. officers received promotions, 10-5 per cent of the R.C.N.R. received promotions, and 4 per cent of the R.C.N.V.R. officers received promotions. In other words, the permanent R.C.N. officers received proportionately fewer promotions than either of the other two branches of the service. But beyond that, the naval board does not make promotions. Recommendations for promotions are made, in the first instance, by officers commanding ships and establishments. They are in the best possible position to know the merits of those serving under them. Their recommendations are then reviewed by the promotions board, which is a totally different board from the naval board, and finally the recommendations of the promotions board are reviewed by the minister, who has to make the final decision as to promotions.
So far as decorations are concerned, 84 have gone to members of the R.C.N., 54 to members of the R.C.N.R., and 123 to members of the R.C.N.V.R. It must be pointed out with regard to both promotions and decorations, that at the beginning of the war we had a very small navy. The ships were commanded and manned almost entirely by officers and men of the permanent force.. They were the first officers and men to see action, and I think I can safely say that they were all keen to get into action. It took some time to develop officers and men in the
[Stage Direction]
Canadian Navy-"Boating" Magazine
two reserve branches. The profession of a naval officer, as I have often said to this house, is not one in which skill can be acquired in a day, or a week, or a month; it is a matter of years of training and experience.
In the first days of the war, therefore, inevitably the brunt of the work fell upon members of the permanent force. I am glad to say that now members of the two reserves, having gained valuable experience, are taking their places nobly, gallantly, in the battle line, and as time goes on and the navy increases in size, more and more of the work will fall on their shoulders. But I know of no officer in the permanent service who would not gladly go to sea at this instant if the opportunity presented itself.
It is alleged that we have too many high-ranking officers in the Canadian navy, too many admirals, too many brass hats. The Australian navy, which is only about one-half the size of the Canadian navy, I notice has five officers above the rank of captain, while we have seven. In comparison with the British navy it can be said that we are not too heavily staffed in the higher ranks. Indeed I think we are below the United Kingdom standard, for in the United Kingdom there are some . one hundred and eighteen admirals while we have five, which is a definitely smaller proportion.
I shall say nothing on the general question of the propriety of such articles as those that appear in the January-February issue of Boating, beyond this, that several of the statements may well be deemed to constitute an offence against the defence of Canada regulations. Such matters as details of the construction of ships, and the armament of ships, are not matters that, in time of war at least, are usually made the subject of newspaper or magazine articles. More especially is this true when a person acquires knowledge of these matters in the course of his service as an officer.
Above and beyond these particular matters I think I must say something, although I say it with some reluctance, about the writer of the article himself. I believe that is necessary, because many people who have read his article, even though they may hear or read what I have to say to-day, may still feel that there must be something wrong somewhere when a former officer takes what ought to be the very serious step of attacking his own service.
Let me say on this point that the total number of persons employed in Fairmiles at this time is under one thousand, and this out of a total strength of something more

than fifty thousand. So that with every consideration in the world for what the Fairmile fleet has done, and with every appreciation of the gallantry and fidelity of its members, the Fairmile fleet after all constitutes in men something less than one-fifitieth of the total strength of the Canadian navy.
Now a word about the author, because his experience and ability are proper matters for consideration in a case of this kind. He has criticized the ability and the judgment of others; he cannot blame us if we look now at his own talents and his own training.
Commander MacLean is now in his forty-seventh year. He has reached an age when service in small ships becomes very trying, as we have found by unfortunate experience with many officers who have passed beyond the vigour and resilience of youth. He served in the last war with the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve for a little over two years, first as a probationary sub-lieutenant and latterly as a lieutenant. His service was mostly in small craft in the Mediterranean sea and his record was good. He commanded the Toronto division of the R.C.N.V.R. from 1927 to 1931, when he retired. In 1935 he was made a lieutenant-commander on the retired list. Just before the outbreak of this war he offered his services to the Canadian navy. Subsequently, no place having been found for him in the Canadian navy at the time, he became attached to the Canadian air force. However, during the first nine months of the war he had considerable correspondence with the naval department, with the result that on July 13, 1940, he was offered an appointment as lieutenant-commander. But he thought this rank was not high enough to induce him to leave the air force, where he was a flight lieutenant. He felt that he should be a commander. He was told that there was no such appointment available, and he finally agreed to accept an appointment as lieutenant-commander. In this capacity he took charge of a group of yachtsmen going to England, and he arrived there on September 23, 1940.
After spending some time at bases there, he was given command of a coastal trawler, and in December, 1940, he was appointed to the staff of rear admiral coastal command. From January to June, 1941, he was on the staff of captain of motor launches at a United Kingdom port. The whole time which he spent at sea in United Kingdom waters in this war could not have exceeded two or three months; I think that is a generous estimate. He returned to Canada in August, 1941.

Canadian Navy-"Boating" Magazine
At this point reference must again be made to certain parts of his article. For instance, on page 8 he states that he was sent back to Canada to help with the Fairmile subchasers that were building. There is no record whatever to show that he was sent back to Canada or asked for by Canada for this purpose. Later on in the article he refers to his experience as acceptance officer of the British Admiralty on Fairmile motor launches. I communicated with the British Admiralty on this point, and I am informed by them that though he was on the staff of the captain of motor launches and though he would have had certain duties in connection with Fairmiles under construction, he was never admiralty acceptance officer for this type of craft.
When he returned to Canada we did not have any reports on him from Great Britain, and, as one Canadian officer put it in making a report of Commander MacLean's ability later on, "we had to take him largely at his own valuation." At any rate we took him and placed him in charge of Fairmiles as senior officer Fairmiles. He was given a set of definite instructions and told to go ahead. He held this post as senior officer Fairmiles for nine months. If the Fairmile situation is as bad as he says it is, should not he as senior officer in those formative months bear at least some of the blame?
I pass on now to what is perhaps the most significant comment I have to make. I have looked over all the files relating to Commander MacLean and to his service, both in Canada and in England. He has sneered at and belittled the Canadian navy so violently and so openly; he has lauded the British navy so highly-and quite properly lauded it-that I expected to find in his records something to indicate that he stood very high indeed in the opinion of officials of the great British navy. But what did I actually find? I found that his standing in British naval circles was exactly the opposite of high. The reports by his senior Canadian officers are not very flattering, but one of them at least is absolutely fulsome when compared with the reports by officers of the royal navy. Some time in 1941, in answer to a request that he be given some sea service, he was told in England that an endeavour would be made to send him to sea, but that he would not be considered for a command. These facts from the record, from the opinions of British and Canadian officers alike, together with the fact that his experience at sea in this war is quite limited, I think will have to be borne in mind in valuing his article.
I have only one word more to say. Boating has an editorial in the same issue suggesting that the House of Commons should order an inquiry into the administration of the navy. Remember, about a year ago the same magazine was threatened by a naval officer with a libel suit, and had to offer an apology for making incorrect statements. But I may inform Boating that if this House of Commons, wishes to order an inqury into the administration of the navy, either in respect of Fair-miles or in any other particular, I shall be quite content, and I have no fear whatever of the result.
I have always conceived the main function! of the Canadian navy up to the present to>
be that of convoy work in the north Atlantic-. It has other tasks on our coasts and on other seas, and as this house knows, more recently its work has been extended to the Mediterranean sea, where some Canadian ships of war-we were told yesterday that we had none-have already gained great distinction for themselves, and where unfortunately one has already met its end with a loss of thirty-five lives. The value of our naval contribution up to the present stands or falls on that work. A few weeks ago I stated publicly that more than forty per cent of the burden of escorting convoys from these shores to the United Kingdom falls on the ships, officers and men of the Royal Canadian Navy. That is the most precious, the most vital line in the world to-day, the line that runs from America to the United Kingdom, and more than forty per cent of the work of guarding that line falls on Canadian naval officers and men.
No matter what individuals may be attacked, ministers, chiefs of staff or other naval officers; no matter what innuendos may be cast or opinions offered, one fact will remain outstanding, namely, that to organize and carry out such a programme from small beginnings and under the stress of war conditions is not a minor contribution to the war effort; it is not the sort of contribution that is made by inefficient, incompetent or careless men.
Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, I think every
member of this house, regardless of the position he may occupy, at least will agree with the statement of the minister as to the magnificent service being rendered by the officers and men of the Royal Canadian Navy at this time. I would not rise in my place this afternoon to attempt for a moment to belittle the Canadian navy; rather I desire to point out to the minister, as I pointed out last year to the Minister of National
494	COMMONS
Canadian Navy-"Boating" Magazine
Defence during the debate on the war appropriation bill, that after all these men and these departments are not infallible. We must not get into the habit of lightly tossing aside every suggestion with respect to the betterment of these services which already are doing good jobs, even though we may sometimes be termed arm-chair critics in war time. It is possible that these departments may render even better service. It is not my desire therefore to speak from any narrow point of view or to belittle any of our services.
I do not apologize to the minister for having suggested that he should make a full statement with regard to this article. I am not an expert on naval affairs, but to me this article appeared to have been written by one who because of his experience, should know what he was talking about, and it seemed to me it was deserving of the attention of the minister and the house, so that the navy might be able to profit by,the statements and charges contained therein. I think that is the stand the country would expect to be taken by the leader of an opposition.
I was interested, of course, in the defence Lo the charges put forward by the minister. Upon one point he raised I should like to [DOT]comment further; that is, his suggestion that rthis was a serious step for Commander MacLean to take. I know nothing of what may have been the underlying motive in this case, because I merely read the article and must go by that entirely, but I agree with the minister that it was a step which this man must have known when he took it. But when the minister suggests that this article may contravene some provision of the defence of Canada regulations, then I say that he has said either too much or too little. During the last seven or eight months we have had an experience in Canada with respect to charges laid under the defence of Canada regulations. If this article, or these charges, by Commander MacLean actually contravene the defence of Canada regulations in any way it is the duty of the minister and the duty of the government to prosecute both the magazine and the author of this article to the full extent of the law. We as members of this house must realize, I think, that we cannot allow men, no matter how high they may stand in naval circles or in public life,, to contravene or offend against the defence of Canada regulations. The minister must now make up his mind with respect to the position he is to take. I should like to ask him if, in view of the .eerious charges which have been preferred,
IMr. Graydon.]
this matter has been referred to the Department of Justice for an opinion, as would ordinarily have been done.
What I say is not said in defence of the author of this article. I have no desire to defend anyone at the moment with respect to these charges. I am only anxious to have one thing happen. If there is something that can be done to make our naval board and our whole naval contribution in this war more effective and more nearly perfect, that should be the sole aim and object of every one of us. We must not indulge in carping or quibbling criticism of our navy, and I do not want that to be done. If there is something to this, then I think we must utilize it for the benefit of Canada and for the benefit of the navy on this particular occasion.
I am informed that on October 28, 1942, there was issued from naval services headquarters a release with respect to the retirement of this man. I know nothing about his record other than what the minister has told us; consequently I have no desire to dilate upon that. However, the press release from naval headquarters did say

I point this out to the minister so that he can check on it; I do not want to enter into any controversy with respect to it-that this man had retired from the naval service at his own request. At the end of the quotation in connection with the release it indicated that on his return to Canada last year he was appointed senior officer in charge of Fairmiles. At that time there was only one boat and he was instrumental in developing this branch of the Royal Canadian Navy to the large and efficient force it is today. I do not make this statement with any desire to defend the man who has made these charges, because I want to make it clear and have it distinctly understood that so far as we are concerned we are anxious only that should there be anything in these charges which will bring about a closer approach to perfection in our naval services, it should be looked into.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This matter is not
debatable, but there is one point that I should like to make quite clear. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition has referred repeatedly in his remarks to charges. I think the minister has made it perfectly plain that while the article contained numerous allegations and innuendoes there was not one specific charge against the Canadian Navy as a service or any officer of the Canadian Navy. If hon. gentlemen opposite have any charge to make, the minister has already

The Address-Mr. Picard
made it clear that he will not hesitate concerning an investigation into that charge.
I do not think it should remain on the record that there are charges which have not been fully met. As a matter of fact there have been only allegations and statements. These have been answered, I think to the complete satisfaction of this house, by the minister.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: The minister has made a reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). This reply was at considerable length and under our rules and the rules of the British house the question should have been answered categorically and handed in, to appear in Hansard the next day. The minister did not do that; he made a long speech justifying his administration. I suggest to the Prime Minister that the reply should have been handed in in writing, because it is not debatable. Then we could have seen it next day and if there were any questions to be asked, they could be asked then. In my opinion, and in view of the minister's reply, a naval board should go into this matter. The whole department seems to be top-heavy with admirals, some of them being on the shore.


Thomas Vien: In the light of the
importance of the statement made by the minister I was willing that some latitude should be allowed to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon), but I point out that there is nothing before the Chair at the present time.


Thomas Langton Church: Admitting that, may I be pardoned if I say that it is a wide stretch of the rules to allow on the orders of the day a debate which has lasted nearly an hour. A navy board or a commission should be appointed to go into this matter.


Mr.   MACDONAXD@Kingston City: On the point of order, may I say that on three different occasions I was asked to comment on the statement which had been made by Commander MacLean, and it was in response to a request from the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Cold-well) and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) that I made the statement which I made to-day. I could not give it in any briefer form.


Thomas Langton Church: The minister might also
look into the navy mansion houses, one of them on Crescent road, Toronto-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Langton Church: -that are used when many of our soldiers' families are living in hovels.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, February 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. W. E. Harris (Grey-Bruce) for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session and the amendment thereto of Mr. Graydon, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. L.-Philippe PICARD (Bellechasse): Mr. Speaker, in rising to proceed with the remarks which I started to make last night I should like my first words to be words of welcome to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston). I should like him to be assured that we all rejoice at seeing him back in his seat and in such apparent good health. We appreciate the considerable strain he is under at all times and the heavy burdens which he has to carry. Whatever may be the opinion of some of us about certain of the policies upon which he may advise the government, I do not think anyone will deny the extent of the service which he renders to his country at a moment like this.
There was an unforgivable omission in my remarks last evening. When I started to speak I wanted to keep my remarks as brief as possible because I knew I had only fifteen minutes before eleven o'clock. I omitted to congratulate the new parliamentary leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon). Many have wished him long life in his present position, but I cannot be that cruel. Let us say that we wish him a better fate than that of some of his immediate predecessors. Since he is quite young, let us say that we wish him to reach the head treasury bench when he is the same age as the only one of his immediate predecessors, who became Prime Minister, Mr. Bennett. Then after a short tenure of office, he could enter the House of Lords as Viscount Graydon of Peel.
In an effort to keep my remarks last evening as brief as possible I skipped from one subject to another and there were one or two remarks in connection with lease-lend which I postponed making. As I have a few minutes at my disposal, I shall make them now.
I have expressed my entire approval of the new set-up for lease-lend, and I do not intend to withdraw anything I have said in that connection. I should not like either that anything I will say now be construed as qualifying or conditioning what I said last night. It is said that we are to extend credit to any nation up to the amount they can pay and that we will then continue to provide goods as long as they are needed for the war effort or for the safety of the united nations. This
The Address-Mr. Picard
[Stage Direction]
brings to my mind the fact that the control of one of the most important Canadian corporations is allegedly still held in private hands in England. I refer, of course, to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. The railway problem in Canada has been one of our anxieties. Many remedies have been proposed by the railways and by the different railway groups, and there may be opposition to the plan I suggest.
I wonder whether it would be possible to do over there what has been done to a certain extent here. All United States securities at present held by Canadians are listed with the foreign exchange control board, and under the rules which now prevail the board can offer to Canadians a fair market value in Canadian funds for these securities. That would give the board, or the government, United States funds for the financing of our war purchases in that country. Why would it not be possible for the British government to do the same thing with shares of Canadian or foreign corporations-have them listed and get control of them, paying for them in English currency? That could be done without any disturbance to international exchange. These shares could then be transferred to the Canadian government, which would hold them as part payment for the goods we shall send to Great Britain under lease-lend. That would seem to be a perfectly normal and fair exchange.
When the United States gave to Great Britain fifty old destroyers, Britain in return granted the United States bases in certain British islands or territories which the United States considered necessary for its own defence. Those bases may be in the hands of our good neighbours for longer than a few weeks or a few years. Would it not be considered another fair exchange if financial control of one of our largest corporations passed finally int o the hands of Canada? Would it not simplify matters when the time comes that we shall have to face the railway problem in Canada if at that time the Canadian government, or an independent corporation under the government, such as the foreign exchange control board, owned or controlled the shares of the C.P.R. now held outside this country? It is a well-known fact that prior to this war and prior to the last war a considerable amount of this stock was held in Germany, France, Holland, and a large part of it in the British isles. Such stock as is now in alien hands is being taken care of by the custodian of enemy property. Would if not be possible to arrive at an arrangement with Great Britain for the transfer of such shares as are held in Britain, as an appropriate compensation for whatever we may do under lease-lend?
[Mr. Picard. 1
It also occurs to me that the Labrador question, which was settled so nicely by the privy council in 1926, if I remember correctly, might be the subject of negotiations, let us say, between the two governments. Not that I should like to pose as a Canadian imperialist or be suspected of a desire to promote Canadian imperialism. I see my good friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) smiling when I use the word "imperialism", because he knows how much I am against British imperialism as applied to Canada; I certainly should not like to advocate Canadian imperialism and spread that doctrine all over this continent. But would it not be a good opportunity for Canada to clear up the Labrador situation? There are vast water powers on the Hamilton river of which we were deprived by a scholarly judgment of the judicial committee of the privy council in 1926. Nobody would dare suggest that that body was tinged with political influences or affected by imperial policies; however, at that very time an imperial conference was sitting in London in which Newfoundland had a vote. But Newfoundland is now administered by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and an arrangement could be arrived at granting Canada substantial benefits which, counted in dollars, would be considerable in years to come, if not at the moment. That might be a splendid gesture for the United Kingdom to make in return for what we may graciously decide to grant her under lease-lend.
When the house rose at eleven o'clock last night I was discussing the case of some young agriculturists who had been called up under the mobilization act. I told the story of one of these men, and I ended by saying that the board had decided that he should go into the army and that in the spring he could put in an application for six months' leave so that he could work on the farm in its busy season. But getting a release from the army is not as simple as it may appear at first sight, even when the man has a good case, and I will come to that in a moment. Lest some of my previous remarks be construed as disparaging the revision board sitting at Quebec I wish to state emphatically that I have the greatest respect for all members of the board, and especially for the chairman. I think that they deserve all possible praise for the manner in which they perform their arduous task, and they do it with a great sense of equity and justice. But their hands are tied by a lot of silly regulations, and on many other questions they lack immediate information on different government policies with respect to exemptions or deferments which may be given to farm hands and farmers' sons. I would

The Address-Mr. Picard
say further-this may sound personal, but I must express my feeling-that the board at Quebec is advised by a representative of the registrar's office who to my mind is the man least qualified to occupy such a position of trust. His very presence on the board is sufficient to take away any respect for the law and its administration on the part of anybody who may be appearing before the board.
In the case to which I referred a moment ago, this man, file in hand, was trying to impress on the board that the young applicant was hiding behind special privileges granted to industrial workers while all the time he was classified as B2, and when his class was called he reported and left the factory where he was engaged. He was given no special privileges as a specialist; yet this man who was advising the board was continually emphasizing that point. At every moment of the board's proceedings when I have been there this man has acted in the same way. I thought at one moment that his conduct might be attributable to the fact that his own name translated into English means "let us win"-but I afterwards discovered that he had not served in any war, so that that motive might not be applicable to him. My point is that if there are many men on the boards like this man it is not surprising that in some places there have been complaints against the boards from people engaged in agriculture. If agriculture is to be protected, clear instructions should be sent to all the boards and to all the officers, and such men as the one who represents the registrar before the board of revision in Quebec should be dismissed. As to the registrar himself in Quebec, I consider him an able and efficient public servant, who performs his duties conscientiously and well.
I spoke a few moments ago of releases from the army. That is a much more difficult problem. These boys who appeal for release have been sent into the army in many cases because of their ignorance as to the proper manner of filling out the information sheets sent into the registrar's office, or because they did not know that they could appeal from the registrar's decision, or because of a decision of the board based on incomplete information supplied by the applicant. In some cases the file is misinterpreted.
In some cases the boy may have been properly sent into the army and the father who is left on the farm may be injured or become seriously ill, or perhaps the boy's elder brother may be in that position, which makes the boy's presence on the farm necessary for its efficient operation. In either case
considerable correspondence and endless delays take place before you can get any satisfactory results, if any. I know that we should proceed carefully in this matter and that we should not permit anybody and everybody to withdraw from the army. There should be some way in which these cases could be rapidly eliminated, especially when the spring comes, the season when men are most needed on the farms.
I will not go into the detail that I had intended to about two cases which I know of. In one case there was a delay of six months; in the other, five months have gone and no answer has yet been received. There have been medical examinations by doctors; statements have been submitted as to the size of the farms, and in one case, although the father had become permanently injured, the son had not asked for exemption, but application was made later, and we are still awaiting the result. I refer to these matters to show the necessity of a clear-cut policy as regards the farm workers, and the importance of advising the boards immediately on this question, so that uniform decisions will be arrived at all over Canada.
All men in trades directly connected with agriculture should be dealt with in the same way. For instance, where a man is a blacksmith, and the only one in the neighbourhood, and you cannot find another one within ten miles, the consequences are serious if he is taken into the army; yet in one case it is admitted that he is necessary to agriculture, and he is given a deferment; in another case deferment is not granted. Or take the case of a man who is operating a flour mill, perhaps the only one for several miles around: one board may decide not to grant a deferment, while another board may say that he is necessary to agriculture and must be retained at his work so that farming may proceed in his district. Uniform decisions should1 be easily arrived at in matters such as this, if the government would send to each of the boards a straight and clear-cut announcement of policy in this respect.
There is another thing I would like to speak about while I am on this general question. It concerns those who for one reason or another are considered at fault under the mobilization regulations. A right move was the decision arrived at some time ago to give a chance to register to all those who had failed to do so. This privilege could have been better explained in the press, although it was something to have it. It should be extended, I think, to everyone whose position is not regular under the old
The Address-Mr. Picard
[Stage Direction]
regulations. Of the men technically at fault, I would say that ninety per cent are in such a predicament because of their ignorance, or the ignorance of their parents, or lack of information which should have been supplied to them. They are now hesitant to regularize their situation, and procrastinate in doing so because they fear reprisals and punishment.
I think the department should declare an amnesty, let us say of two months, for all those whose situation is irregular. Give them two months in which to report in writing to the nearest district mobilization bureau. At the same time the registrars should send a further notice to all those whose cases are irregular, those who did not get their notices from their local post offices, those who have failed to report for medical examination, or those who have failed to report to camp. Let them know that if they come forward and report, their case and whatever requests they may make for deferment or exemption will be studied and decided on their merits, and let them have no fear of punishment and reprisals if they get to camp because they are in some cases many months late. Let them come forward: if they have a good case give them deferment; if not, let them go in the army, but without any special hardship or punishment when they get in. The results, I am sure, would be good throughout Canada, because this is not a problem peculiarly applicable to Quebec; from what we see of the results of registrations in many districts it is much more general. In this way we would clear up a false situation which exists now in many parts of the country.
To this new advice should be added the questionnaire which is sent to all men engaged in agriculture, and they should receive two copies so that they can retain one. At the moment there is this process. A man receiving a questionnaire fills it up; if he is deferred for six months or some other period, the present practice is to ask him to fill a new questionnaire if his category is called anew, or if the delay given to him has expired. If in the meantime there has been a change in the farm stock; if the number of cows or pigs does not exactly agree with the number given in the previous return, if the man has one acre more or less in hay or barley or potatoes than was indicated on the previous questionnaire, immediately it is assumed that the man is trying to cheat the government, and whatever he says afterwards is regarded with suspicion. If these matters could be clearly explained, if the proper information were supplied to everybody, there would be considerably less trouble. As a matter of fact I -received a letter yesterday from a registrar informing me:

In answer to your letter asking me to send you a hundred copies of the questionnaire for the use of farmers, I must tell you that I have adopted the policy of not sending out copies of this questionnaire except to the interested party himself, because in the past there have been a number of abuses which have caused us worry.
I thought that was a very inappropriate answer to send to a member of parliament who is asking for information on a public matter.
In conclusion I should like to impress upon the house the difficult situation in which some farmers find themselves at this juncture. They do not know how to plan their production for the next year. They do not know where they will stand so far as help is concerned. On the one hand they are advised by the Department of Agriculture to produce -more and more- which is good advice; on the other hand they face mobilization orders and varying interpretations in each district by the mobilization board. They do not know where they will be if they are without the help of their sons or their farm-hands. So far as production is concerned, they face a shortage in certain supplies which they need.
I had some trouble about the dairy question in my district, -where men have increased their herds and produced more. This is one of the questions mentioned by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) when he interested himself in the fate of the processors of butter, those who processed their butter at home instead of sending their milk to the dairies. He may have some trouble in his district because of lack of transport. We are nearer the city; we have not so much trouble in that respect, but above all things we need cans. We have no containers, and under the new regulations it is going to be very hard to get them because they are not so quickly made in these days. I have fortunately good news to-day, because in a letter I have received from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) he informs me that the production of cans in January was nearly fifteen times as great as it was in January of last year. Last year there was a real lack of containers throughout the country, and especially in our district, where people extended their herds, enlarged their agricultural and dairy production to meet the demand, and, having facilities for transport, thought it would be easy to meet requirements. According to the letter from the minister, last year, in January, one of the largest companies produced only 1,026 cans, while in January of this year, upon a specially urgent request from the Department of Agri-

The Address-Mr. Green
culture they produced 16,038 cans. If this goes on, and if the good offices of the Minister of Agriculture are exerted in the same proportion all the way through, we may be in a better position in the months to come. But at the moment our farmers in my district are suffering from this shortage. They used to spread their small production of home processed butter in the adjoining district in quantities of twenty-five or thirty pounds. Under the new rationing regulations they cannot do that; they have to dispose of their production wholesale. Some of these places have no cold storage, so that they are forced to produce less because they cannot find containers to send their product to the city, nor can they dispose of it under the new rationing regulations.
There is another matter to which I should like to refer while on the subject of rationing. It may not be exactly in my field, but it concerns workmen. It seems strange to me that men who are working hard in industry, who leave their homes in the morning and do not return until evening, are not given a larger ration of butter, let us say, than men who are idle, or, as is true of many, are doing nothing in their homes, or are office workers. The man who leaves home in the morning, or at night for the night shift, is usually unable to come home for his meals; he has to have sandwiches or other things of the kind, and he must have sufficient butter. If he has only a share of the family ration or of his own ration the meal will not be so appetizing. I wonder if something could not be done in that regard. It may be difficult to arrange it but I fancy it has been done in other countries. It might be possible to stamp the books of factory workers who are under a special strain, so as to give them some special consideration.
Thomas Vien: The hon. gentleman's time has expired.


Mr. PICARD:: I shall take only a minute longer, Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the house. Last year when we were discussing bill No. 80 I came across a passage in the British Hansard with reference to the question of agriculture, which I should like to submit to the house. In a speech, the Rt. Hon. Eugene Wason, chairman of the committee that considered relief to agriculture in Scotland, made this statement:
It should be represented to the military authorities-
That was in 1916, a year and a half after the war started.
-that any attempt to maintain or increase the food production of the country would be made
impossible by the further withdrawal of experienced workmen.
In conclusion, sir, may I say this. Let us not forget that the land is the first element that enters into the question of production. Farming is the primary industry and the most essential in carrying on a war, because the best trained men, with the best and most modem equipment, cannot fight on an empty stomach.


Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):: While it is hard to realize, the fact is that this is the fourth war session of the nineteenth parliament of Canada, and since it is a war session I suggest that it is essential that, throughout its length, the members of this house should keep before them a clear view of the war situation. By so doing they will help the Canadian people also to keep a clear view of that situation. As I see it, the picture is this. The united nations are at last able to turn to the offensive. There have been victories, grand victories, particularly in Russia and in North Africa. We have some reason to take heart, but let us remember that behind us defeat is barely out of sight, and ahead are tremendous tasks. The year 1943 will be a year of fierce fighting, and fierce fighting means heavy casualties. Therefore, for this house and for the country, the most important part of the speech from the throne should be the last paragraph, which reads:
We have reason to be profoundly grateful for the improved position of the united nations. We must be careful, however, not to be misled by recent successes. The submarine menace has been growing, not diminishing. Decisive battles have still to be fought and won. For some time past, the movement of munitions and supplies overseas has been seriously restricted because of submarine activities. Until that grave menace is effectively controlled, there is always the danger that reinforcements and supplies in sufficient volume may not reach the battle zones. As areas of conflict close in, fighting will increase in intensity and ferocity.
I stress the next sentences:
The hardest battles, the heaviest sacrifices may be in the future. Only the utmost sustained effort on the part of all the united nations will ensure defeat of the axis powers.
With that warning in mind, let us look out across the seas. Canada is a nation facing both great oceans, the Atlantic and the Pacific. To-day Canadians look across the Atlantic and see a frightfully powerful Germany, which has yet to be beaten to her knees, a Germany dominating the whole of the continent of Europe. They look across the Pacific to Asia and see another powerful nation, Japan, dominating many lands, a nation which must be attacked, a nation which has already won great victories, a nation which is now coiled

The Address-Mr. Green
and ready to strike. Its premier showed this quite clearly when he said in the Japanese diet three weeks ago, as reported in the press:
Reviewing the first year of war in greater east Asia, Premier To jo asserted Japan "has completed the basis for certain victory". "Our position for both offence and defence has been completed," Tojo declared.
The former ambassador from the United States to Japan has written a book entitled "Report from Tokyo: a Message to the American People." That is a book which I suggest should be read by every member of the Canadian House of Commons. He points out clearly what we face in the Japanese military machine. He refers to it in these words:
I have indicated the surprise and the shock I experienced on returning to the United States to find how little the American people, as a whole, appreciate the dangers we face in fighting this machine, a machine which, without any shadow of doubt, firmly intends, after consolidating the areas it has temporarily occupied in greater east Asia, to attack countries in the western hemisphere.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the war situation which confronts members of this house and the Canadian people to-day, in the month of February 1943; and this picture of the war situation at once brings to mind certain subjects which should be considered by this House of Commons during the present session.
First, questions having to do with our fighting forces. We have been led to believe that our Canadian army in Great Britain will lead the attack when the continent of Europe is invaded. If so, and there seems to be no doubt of it, they are entitled to and should get training in actual fighting before they are called upon to lead that invasion. They will be attacking an army that has been fighting for nearly four years. One wonders why Canadian units have not been sent, say, to North Africa, for war experience. It is true that some officers and non-commissioned officers have been sent there. But why have no Canadian units been sent abroad as such? Why have the Canadian units been held so closely in Great Britain? One wonders whether it has been because that is the Canadian government's policy or whether it is because the Canadian staff overseas insist on keeping direct control at all times over all Canadian units. I would point out to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston.) and to this house that in any event such war training now would probably mean greater efficiency and far fewer casualties when the Canadians are called upon to lead in the invasion of the European continent.

One wonders, too, whether there are sufficient reinforcements in Great Britain to keep our Canadian army u,p to strength once fighting begins. We know there will be heavy losses. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) warned Canada of this in his New Year's message when he was reported as follows:
_ Prime Minister Mackenzie King, in a New Year's message, warned the Canadian people that "all our armed forces" will be in action during 1943 and that they "must be prepared for heavy losses".
There is concern across the country as to whether adequate reinforcements are available. This question is so important that I ask the government to give the Canadian people immediately definite assurance that adequate reinforcements are available, and to arrange for a secret session of the House of Commons at which the members may be given the facts with regard to reinforcements, such facts as cannot be given out to the public.
We also have an army on the Pacific coast. Their job is to fight the Japanese. Why have not units, or at least officers and noncommissioned officers from the Pacific army been sent to the southwest Pacific where they could learn by actual experience the best methods to use in fighting the Japanese? Such action would increase the efficiency of the Pacific army, raise the morale of the men serving in it, and promote good feeling between Canada and the United States and between Canada and Australia. In fact Major-General Odium, who is now our ambassador to China and was formerly our minister in Australia, went further. Late in November he advocated in Toronto that Canada send troops to the southwest Pacific theatre of war to assist General Douglas MacArthur. He is quoted as saying:
The best defence for this country is not a group of divisions sitting passively in Canada, but some additional force-even as little as one division-sent to General MacArthur, so that, on the Japanese tender southern flank, he may pass from the defensive to a vigorous local offensive.
General Odium was the first commander of the second Canadian division overseas. Whether or not he is right, the fact is that sooner or later Canadian troops will be fighting Japanese troops, and if forced to do so without some war experience, the result will be increased casualties and perhaps lost battles.
Then a further question in regard to the fighting forces: How can the officers commanding in the Pacific army be expected to keep their units efficient and to instil in their men the spirit of the offensive when they have in the units two kinds of troops, one group-

The Address-Mr. Green
who have enlisted for service anywhere, and half or more than half who cannot be sent out of Canada? Furthermore, those officers [DOT]commanding are put in the invidious position that their units must serve beside United States units the men of which can be sent anywhere in the world. Canada is put in an impossible position in that regard. I urge the government to change its policy, cut out all delay and all political considerations and change its policy, bringing in a realistic policy by making all Canadian troops, certainly all Canadian troops serving in the Pacific army, available for service anywhere in the Pacific area.
Another question is whether our navy is getting sufficient escort ships to beat the U-boat menace on the Atlantic, and if not, why not? Last week a startling statement was made in Toronto by Mr. Desmond A. Clarke, director general of shipping, in which he pointed out that men were to be taken out of other war industries in order to help build escort ships. He is quoted as saying:
And we need them right now (referring to the men) not for cargo ships but for fighting escort vessels. We must lick the submarine. There is no use building more cargo ships to have them sunk.
Why should the men of the merchant navy, men who are facing such great hazards, not be treated as members of the other fighting forces? Why should they not be given the same statutory right to pension, and why should they not get the same income tax exemption? I suggest that these are things that should be changed without further delay.
One final question concerning the fighting forces is whether the time has not come, in fact whether it is not long since past, for the awarding of all pensions on the insurance principle, which, as hon. members know, now applies only to men once they leave the shores of Canada. I suggest it is high time that all men serving in the active army were protected by the insurance principle with regard to pension. It is also time that steps were taken to protect from cancellation the insurance policies which our men had taken out before they enlisted or were called up. Great hardship is being suffered by many married men in that connection, and something should be done to remedy the situation.
A second subject that should be considered at the war session is Canada's position in the group of nations known as the united nations. There are many signs of the growth in Canada of a "small-power complex," a feeling that we must run along behind Great Britain and the United States. Take, for example, the government itself; it apparently is quite content to be left out of all the major conferences. Last year it had to be prodded into claiming a seat for Canada on the Pacific council. This question is vital for Canada, because we are at the parting of the ways. Canada can eventually become one of the most influential powers in the world. I do not say one of the largest; I use the word "influential," far more influential than perhaps our numbers would justify. But we never will if we develop a small-power complex; other nations certainly will not take us at higher than our own valuation. If there is not a change in that respect, Canada will have very little to say at the peace conference, and this might mean great tragedy for the Canadian people; many of them have definite ideas, and very sound ideas, as to what sort of peace they want. Yet the larger nations may decide on some other type of peace that prevents the kind of world Canadians want from taking shape. Canada, I say, must make herself heard, and heard in no uncertain manner, on these questions.
A third subject which should be considered is this: this house should insist that Canada's man-power policy be "work or fight." It is just as simple as that. The picture at present is that there is a shortage of men for agriculture, logging, mining and many other vital occupations, such, for example, as fuel delivery. At the same time ministers are actually talking about Canada reaching her full production. The Minister 6f Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) has thrown out the hint that it is questionable whether Canada can produce any more. I thought I detected in the speech of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) the other day something to the same effect. This is a great mistake, because there are still many Canadian people who are impatient and anxious to do their share in connection with the war effort. It is simply a matter of mobilizing them. Many cannot find a place; for example, older people, and men and women carrying on their ordinary work during the day who are nevertheless willing to do part-time work in the evening or during the week-end. Little or no attempt has been made to make use of their services. Canadians are begging for direction from the government, while at the same time some at least of the national selective service offices are carrying on in the utmost confusion and with the utmost delay; long lines of people seeking work cannot get any satisfaction, and apparently no one is able to give direction.
It can all be traced to the policy of the government of not quite a year ago, which was "the negative compulsion of restriction,"
The Address-Mr. Green

the same old policy that had been, used in raising men for the forces, except that it was described by a different name. It is really a policy of coaxing, threatening and bluffing, instead of courageously leading, and is exactly the policy we have had in connection with the raising of troops. As one looks back over the past year it becomes interesting to read again newspaper dispatches appearing on March 25, 1942, when this "negative compulsion of restriction" policy was announced, and to find this:
The government yesterday launched an extended national selective service plan designed to obtain from every Canadian the utmost contribution to the war effort through application of "the negative compulsion of restriction."
Then it goes on:
Fruit of months of planning under direction of the cabinet war committee, a series of orders in council was tabled by the Prime Minister, giving effect at once to the new regulations.
I am sure you will remember, Mr. Speaker, how excited and thrilled we were that Canada was really going to see action with regard to the use of her man-power. Then a couple of months later, in May, 1942, we saw another splurge, as follows:
Canada prepared to-day to take up the last slack in man-power, when it was announced by Elliott M. Little, director of national selective service, that all unemployable male persons, including persons on pension, must be registered within one week of June 1 and renew their registration every two weeks while not employed.
Important sidelight divulged by Mr. Little to a press conference this morning was that the government not only intends to dredge its manpower pool to the bottom, but may move war industry into sections where most unemployment is reported.	*
So we went along until August, when the Prime Minister announced new man-power controls. This was after parliament had gone home, and we read:
Prime Minister Mackenzie King on Wednesday night announced proposed new measures of control over man-power and woman-power designed to place "all but very old, the very young and the disabled" behind the war effort.
Then on August 31 we had more headlines:
Compulsory employment for all under new selective service; no transfers without permit.
Regulations under which every unemployed Canadian must seek work were announced to-day by Labour Minister Mitchell and Elliott M. Little, director of national selective service. They go into effect at midnight to-night.
The next thing we heard was that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) had gone to Great Britain. While over there he gave an interview, in the course of which we find these words:
. . . application in Canada of some features of Britain's man-power policy may be forthcoming

when he returns to the dominion. He described Britain's mobilization of men and women for service in the armed forces and industry as "a magnificent piece of organization."
Months before that, the British had gone much further than Canada, when they conscripted for national service, either in the armed forces or in industry, all men between eighteen and a half and forty-five years of age, with similar provisions for women between twenty and thirty. The Minister of Labour was to come back and make things hum. Well, he came back and then followed a quarrel with Mr. Elliott Little. So that we have drifted along under the same policy, which is typified by an order in council issued on January 28, 1943, amending the national selective service mobilization regulations. On December 11, 1942, an order in council had' been passed under which all men of certaip age groups who had not reported for service were directed to report by February 1. The order in council of January 28, 1943, just three days before the men were to report, reads in part:
And whereas it is deemed necessary for the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada and for the efficient prosecution of the war that the time within which every designated man aforesaid is required so to report be extended. . . .
Then it goes on to extend the time until March 1, and I suppose there will be a further extension to April 1. I think the reaction of [DOT]the public to this man-power policy may be expressed in the words "disappointment" and "disillusionment". The government must stop dodging and twisting on man-power; it must give clear, courageous leadership based on a policy of "work or fight", and I am confident that the people will respond. Accordingly there should be no doubt about my support for the amendment to the speech from the throne, particularly the paragraph which regrets the failure-
.	.	. to provide an adequate plan for theeffective use of Canada's man- and woman-power.
Then I come to my fourth subject. The speech from the throne mentions the need for a scheme of social insurance which will constitute a charter of social security for the whole of Canada, and a committee is to be set up to study the question. This is all to the good, but there seems very little chance that any legislation will materialize at this session, which means that Canada will continue to hold her present unenviable position as the most backward socially of the Englishspeaking nations of the world. Many hon. members, in all parties, wish to see humane legislation placed upon the statute books

The Address-Mr. Green
without further delay; in fact they insist that this be done. I suggest that during this session, while this scheme of social insurance is being studied, at least two great needs should be met. Those are the needs of our old age pensioners and of the recipients of the war veterans' allowance. These people are in an impossible position at the present time, with the cost of living as it is, and I suggest that they should receive at least $1 a day if unmarried and $2 a day where the husband and wife are together. Moreover, the regulations should be amended with regard to their opportunity to earn some extra income. At the present time, as the War Veterans' Allowances Act is being administered, great unfairness is being done those old soldiers who are able to go out and get jobs perhaps for only a few months. The new age is here now; it is not coming after the war. We are now in the new age when humanity, rather than material things, should be our first concern, and a very good place to start doing something about it is by meeting these needs I have mentioned.
Then fifth and finally there is the attitude of the ministry toward this house, and in this I am sure I shall have some support from hon. members on the government side. Last year I had an uncomfortable feeling that the ministers cared very little what went on in the house, as long as they personally were not hurt too much; that the debates were allowed to drag; that the house was used as a sort of safety-valve while the cabinet did the legislating by order in council. The press gallery had that feeling, too, as well as the public; and respect for parliament fell. If this is not changed it may lead to the break-down of parliamentary government in this country. I could give many examples, but I shall limit myself to two. In the first place it has been said repeatedly by hon. members on all sides of the house that parliament should have at least some check on the orders in council and administrative orders that are going through the mill in such volume these days. Yet the ministry have not provided any means whereby such check can be exercised. It cannot be done satisfactorily in the house, but there is nothing to prevent the setting up of a committee of members to which these orders in council and administrative orders could be referred for consideration.
The Canadian people need the protection of parliament against some of these orders. For example, last fall there was the threat of an order being put through to force the early closing of small merchants' stores. In Vancouver, and I assume the situation was the
same in many other centres, this would have meant the putting out of business of many small merchants, most of whom are veterans, widows or men and women who cannot do any other type of work. The reason given for the proposed order was that these people could be used in the war effort. I have always had the suspicion that somewhere behind it all was some man accustomed to big business who may have wanted to get rid of the competition of these small merchants. Any private member of this house, I do not care what his politics may be, would have known at once that such an order was foolish, but it took the controllers a long time to find this out. In the meanwhile these small people were caused a great deal of unnecessary worry.
There are other regulations, such as those having to do with taxis, the rental regulations, the national war services regulations and the fuel orders. All these should be considered carefully by this house. In the last few weeks there has been a great deal of trouble in Vancouver with regard to fuel; this year, incidentally, we have been forced to stop boasting about our mild climate. The fuel controller issued an order last summer that sawdust could not go over a certain price. Many of the sawdust dealers decided that they could not carry on at that price, and they simply went out of the sawdust business. The controller was not worried about this; all he did was to pass the order and let somebody else do the worrying. Then there were no men to deliver fuel. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) was not worrying about that; it was up to the fuel dealers to get the men. The dominion government has got into the habit of stepping in, but not stepping in the whole way. They step in just far enough to make a great deal of trouble, and then let the people do the worrying. Fuel is a necessity. In the speech from the throne when the last session was prorogued on January 27, we find these words:
Where required, more equitable distribution of the necessaries of life has been ensured by the rationing of supplies to consumers.
This was not done with regard to fuel. In my city people suffered, and I think people died because they were unable to get fuel during the cold weather. This sort of business is not good enough for Canada in the year 1943. Yet we find the Vancouver Sun, a supporter of this government, reporting on a visit which Mr. Gordon, the head man, made to Vancouver on January 25, as follows:
Mr. Gordon did not hesitate to rap Vancouver authorities and the Vancouver public for failing to heed warnings which he said his office had sent out.
The Address-Mr. Green

He rapped them in the same tone in which he squelched speculative questions about future rationing of commodities and issued an implied warning to potato producers to bring out their potatoes.
Some of these moguls seem to have very little understanding of the problems of the small man who is the backbone of Canada, and their actions should be checked and checked carefully by this house.
My second example of how this government has flouted parliament is in connection with naturalization. The Secretary of State (Mr. McLarty) will be interested in this. In 1940 a committee of this house was appointed to review the defence of Canada regulations. I happened to be a member of that committee. During the hearings we found many questions having to do with naturalization and with the deportation of enemy aliens which needed careful consideration, and on August 1, 1940, the committee recommended:	.
Your committee, therefore, recommends that *t the next session of parliament a special committee of the house be appointed to consider and review the law relating to naturalization. Your committee is also of the opinion that the special committee should review as well the law relating to deportation and again consider and review the defence of Canada regulations.
At the next session, in 1941, a committee was set up again to consider the defence of Canada regulations, and was instructed to consider also the law relating to naturalization and deportation. It reported on June 4, 1941, as follows:
13. Naturalization-Deportation.
Your committee has received some evidence and has investigated these two important subjects in part only and, notwithstanding the fact that your committee has held a great many meetings, including on occasions two meetings a day, the limited time at our command has made it impossible to devote the time to these subjects which they require in order to enable a proper report to be made to the house.
Your committee therefore respectfully begs to recommend that at the next session of the house ;he law relating to naturalization and deportation and matters incidental thereto be the subject matter of a reference to a committee [DOT]of the house.
During the following session of 1942 I asked on different occasions whether a committee was to be set up to study naturalization and deportation, and it was my understanding that this would be done. However, nothing happened. This was bad enough, but when we came back here in 1943 we found, if you please, that on July 9, 1942, while the house was sitting, an order in council was passed amending the naturalization regulations. Important changes were made in the regulations having to do with the necessity of an applicant filing a declaration of intention. Later,

on September 23, another order in council was passed again amending the regulations. On January 14 of this year, just a little over a month ago, we find1 that an order in council was passed revising all the regulations under the Naturalization Act. All this has been done without any reference being made to the House of Commons. Apparently nothing has been done with regard to deportation, but perhaps we shall have an order in council on that subject popping out of the bag one of these days.
At this time both these matters are most important. The question of who is to be a Canadian citizen, what rights he is to have, how his fellow Canadians are to treat him and what we are to do with enemy aliens are matters that must be considered1 carefully. At the present time any enemy alien who is interned cannot be sent out of Canada after the war if he has been here for five years. That is the law as it stands at the present time. It is ridiculous and a change should be made, without further delay. I repeat that this is the time when the law should be carefully reviewed by parliament or by a committee of this parliament. Parliament and parliament alone should decide what is to be done in connection with these matters.
The subjects I have mentioned, the flouting. of parliament by the cabinet, the need for humane legislation, the "work or fight" policy -with regard to man-power, Canada's attitude toward the other united nations and the affairs of the fighting forces are vital subjects which should be considered by the House of Commons during this sessiou.
The year 1943 will be one of severe testing for the Canadian people. They have shown great strength, not only in materia' resources but in character, and they will see this year through with courage no matter what tragedies 'may occur. I have no doubt of that In return, however, they have the right to expect of their government bold leadership; they have the right to expect of their parliament, of this gathering of their elected representatives, the most careful consideration of all vital subjects, and may I suggest, consideration given in a patriotic spirit modelled on the spirit of our young Canadian airmen who wili be flying in the skies over other countries far from their own homeland during every day that this house is in session.


Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Mr. Speaker, in common with many hon. members who have preceded me I should like to express my great pleasure at the favourable turn of events in the various theatres of war. I am sure we are all heartened by the successes

The Address-Mr. Douglas (Weyburn)
which have attended our forces and those of our allies in Africa and in the Pacific, and particularly in the Soviet Union.
I cannot help expressing regret that the speech from the throne made no mention of the gallantry displayed by the Canadian troops at the battle of Dieppe. The constituency which I represent is the headquarters for the South Saskatchewan regiment. The commanding officer of that unit has the distinction of being the first Canadian in this war to be awarded the Victoria Cross, and other officers and men of the regiment were decorated for bravery and devotion to duty.
I want to support the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) when he asks the government that an opportunity be given this house as it was in the British house to discuss the Dieppe operation. The administration itself can best judge whether or not such discussion should take place in closed or in open session. But opportunity there must be; for while the gallantry of the men involved left nothing to be desired, that cannot be said of the staff work of those who were responsible for conducting this combined reconnaissance. There are several things which we ought to be told as members of this house, either privately or publicly, and the first thing is why there was no preparatory aerial bombardment to soften up the objective. My information is that in the original plan that was the intention, but at the last moment it was deleted. If this be true, we should know why. We should know why men were landed at high tide and taken off at low tide at an hour when anyone who is familiar with the channel tides would know that these men would have to cross four hundred yards of open beach to reach their barges. We should know why tanks were landed on a beach facing a twelve-foot sea wall which had not been breached. In 1936 I spent a day in the town of Dieppe, and I would imagine that even aerial photographs would show the impossibility of scaling a sea wall unless it had first been partly demolished by aerial bombardment. What astounds me is not that none of the tanks got off the beach, but that those who planned the operation ever expected them to do so.
I think this house should have some information from the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) regarding any reports he may have respecting the weapons which were used in this operation; and if there were found any defects in quality or quantity we should have the assurance of the minister that this matter is being taken care of.
A recent newspaper report indicated that General McNaughton told press reporters that the lessons of Dieppe had been invaluable to the British and United States forces in their recent landings in North Africa. But, Mr. Speaker, General McNaughton and the Minister of National Defence will have to go much further than that. They will have to give the Canadian people the assurance that the lessons of Dieppe will be of value to our own forces when they are called upon to invade Europe. To lose sixty-seven per cent of our effectives in nine hours of action is a grievous loss, but I believe that those who lost their loved ones at Dieppe will be encouraged if they can be assured that the sacrifices made there will result in the saving of thousands of Canadian lives when our troops finally invade nazi-occupied Europe.
I have said repeatedly in this house that the people of Canada will forgive the defence ministers and their general staffs many things. But there is one thing they will never forgive them. They will not forgive them the loss of a single Canadian life on account of either incompetency or lack of carefully prepared planning. We all know that some attempt will be made to invade the continent this year, and that in all probability Canadian troops will be the spearhead of that attack. Casualties are inevitable-heavy casualties-and I believe the Canadian people will bear those casualties with fortitude; but they will demand the assurance that every possible precaution in the way of aerial support and meticulously laid plans has been taken in order to keep the casualties down to a minimum.
I do not say these things, Mr. Speaker, in order to reflect upon any person or persons on the general staffs, but we may just as well recognize the fact that the man on the street no longer believes in the infallibility of military experts. Some of these military experts were the same men who told us that the Maginot line was impregnable, and that the Russian army would last only six weeks. With such catastrophes in our minds as the campaign in Norway and the loss of Singapore and Tobruk, the man on the street is fearful lest the traditional conservatism of the military mind should result in fruitless and unnecessary sacrifices of human life. The Minister of National Defence and the other defence ministers can do much to allay such fears by being very frank with this house, either in open or in closed session, and telling us something of the lessons that have been learned, of the precautions which are being taken, and of the plans which are being
606	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Douglas (Weybum)
laid to see to it that operations in the future will be successfully carried out with the minimum cost of human life.
The speech from the throne also makes mention of the Casablanca conference. I want to make only one reference to that. I believe there will be general disappointment that as yet the united nations have not stated in clear and unmistakable terms what their peace aims are. There are those, of course, who say, and they have said it in this debate, that our first job is to win the war, and that afterwards we can discuss the question of the world we want to build. But I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the winning of the war is to some extent dependent upon the kind of world we shall build afterwards. The people of the occupied countries and of the neutral countries, and above all our own people, wish to know what we are fighting for; and since the common people are paying for this war in blood, sweat and tears, they most certainly have the right to know.
In the past few months a number of things have happened which have done much to chill the enthusiasm of those who believed that we were fighting this war to establish the four freedoms in the world. There has been the recognition of General Mihailovic of Yugoslavia as against the guerilla peasants of his own country. There has been the recognition of the so-called Otto of Austria, who has been given permission to raise an Austrian battalion in the United States. There has been the sanctuary given to Prince Paul of Yugoslavia, a former nazi collaborationist now enjoying refuge in British Kenya. Above all, there has been the unsavoury deal with Messrs. Darlan, Flandin, Nogues and Peyrouton. Have we forgotten that these are the men who were responsible for the loss of British and Australian soldiers in Syria, for the death of British sailors at Oran and Dakar, and that some of these new-found friends of ours were responsible for the deaths of over one thousand United States troops at the recent landing at Casablanca? These pro-nazi collaborationists have had the Morocco radio turned over to them. The type of propaganda which has been coming from that source has been so vicious that even the state department of the United States has had to tell its own people not to take that propaganda too seriously.
The man on the street does not think in terms of subtle diplomatic distinctions, and he wants to know what we are fighting for. He wants to know whether we are seeking to destroy Hitler only to replace him with a lot of little Hitlers. Some will take the view that
{Mr. T. C. Douglas.]
these matters do not concern us here, that they are the sole concern of the United States state department and the British Foreign Office. I protest most emphatically against that view. This is a global war. Whatever affects the united nations in any one part of the world affects all. To-day Canadian boys are flying over almost every continent, and if blood is the price of having a voice in building the world to-morrow, then Canada has bought and paid for a place in the councils of the nations. I should like to tell the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the government that they will have the support of the great majority of the Canadian people if they urge upon the British and United States governments that there shall be an end of dealing with collaborationists, because we can convince the world of our good intentions after the war only if we take a firm and courageous stand during the war. The Prime Minister can render a great service to this country and the world by urging, particularly upon Great Britain and the United States, that the united nations shall state in clear and unmistakable terms what our peace aims are, and by showing the man on the street that we are not only seeking to destroy nazism and fascism in Germany and Italy, but seeking to destroy them wherever they raise their ugly heads anywhere in the world. The time has come when we have to get over having a colonial mind, when the government has to begin to conduct itself as befits the government of a self-governing nation within a great commonwealth of nations.
I should now like to come nearer home There are so many matters regarding which one might speak as affecting the welfare of our country in war time that it is impossible to deal with them all. I shall, therefore, confine myself to dealing with one subject, namely, the state and condition of agriculture as it affects the people of Canada and particularly the farmers of Saskatchewan. In doing this, may I say that the hon. member for Regina (Mr. McNiven) said the other night that those of us in this corner in private conversations do not talk the same way as we do on the floor when we are discussing government policy. Let me say that we do not say to every government member whom we meet in the corridors what we think of the government's policy. We do not think that is necessary; we take it for granted that the government members know what -we think of their policy. I would not think of wasting the hon. member's time or my own in trying to appeal

The Address-Mr. Douglas (Weyburn)
to his_ reason to get him to leave the Liberal party. I have never really thought it was reason which kept him in the Liberal party.
The first comment I wish to make with regard to the government's agricultural policy is that it is apparent that there has been no satisfactory cooperation between the government ministers responsible and organized agriculture. On January 29 the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) stated the grain policy for the coming year. In the course of his remarks he said that the government had arrived at this programme after full discussion with the wheat board, discussion with the advisory committee of the wheat board and some conference with the provincial agricultural authorities and the Canadian federation of agriculture.


James Garfield Gardiner: That was absolutely *correct.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister says that is correct. I merely want to draw to the attention of the house that, according to the Regina Leader-Post of January 30, this is what Mr. Wesson said, speaking in Calgary at the annual convention of the Canadian federation of agriculture.
I resent the action of the Canadian government in completely ignoring nationally organized agriculture when laying down a major farm policy.


James Garfield Gardiner: That statement was not based on the facts.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Wesson is not only a national vice-president of the Canadian. federation of agriculture, and president of the Saskatchewan pool; he is also a member of the advisory committee of the wheat board; and when Mr. Wesson makes a statement like that it seems to me that, whatever conference or consultation there may have been, certainly it was far from satisfactory, to elicit a statement like that from a man holding the position which he occupies.


James Garfield Gardiner: If I may be permitted, I said in my speech the other day, with all of the delegation from the federation sitting in the galleries at the time, that the group had met the government just prior to our coming to this house and had agreed that there had been a misunderstanding when the statements were made at Calgary.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Well, as is
said on the radio sometimes, "That ain't the way I heerd it." That is not what I heard from some of the delegates who were here. At any rate I will l^t the statement stand.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is in a written statement, and is public property.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Then we shall be very glad if the minister will table the statement.
Now, as to the government's agricultural policy, it seems to have been bedeviled, ever since the war started, with a series of improvisations and a total lack of any long-term, careful planning. There are a great many .illustrations of this contradiction in policy, and it is rather significant that in all the speech from the throne there is no mention of the government's agricultural programme for the war period, but merely a statement of what they intend to do to help agriculture in the post-war period. This is significant for the simple reason that the government has not had a clearly defined agricultural policy for war time but, as I say, merely a series of improvisations and contradictions. Let us look at some of them.
Take, for instance, the contradiction of having the Minister of Agriculture and the food administrator saying to the farmers of Saskatchewan, we want you to increase pork production 70 per cent, and beef production and coarse grains by so much; and, on the other hand, the Department of National- War Services taking man-power away at such a rate that it will be virtually impossible to hit the target set by the Department of Agriculture. The man-power question is something that will have to be gone into in greater detail as the session proceeds.
On March 23 last order in council P.C. 2252 was tabled, which gave the right of postponement to any man who was essential to agriculture. It placed the responsibility, not on the man to prove that he was essential, but on the board to prove that he was not essential. I can speak only for the province from which I come, but in that province little or no attention was paid to that order in council. The board continued to call men, and I am not laying the blame entirely on the board. The secretary has said to me repeatedly, in reference to cases that I have referred to him, "We are given a quota each month by the military authorities." They are faced with divided responsibility. The Department of Agriculture said, leave the men alone; the military authorities said, you must get so many men a month. The board could not, therefore, pay attention both to the order in council and to the request of the military authorities, and undoubtedly for the last year in Saskatchewan the decisions of the divisional board have been dominated almost entirely by the officer representing the military authorities in that province. The result is that our
508	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Douglas (Weyburn)
farms have been almost completely denuded of man-power. In some instances the last man on the farm has been called.
The Minister of Agriculture visited Saskatchewan in January and made a statement, as reported in the Regina Leader-Post, in which he said that the present regulations provide that any farmer can obtain postponement of military service merely by demanding it and showing that he is a farm worker. Well, nobody knows better than the minister how absurd that statement is. Suppose the farmer does demand postponement and suppose the board does not pay any attention to him; then what? In scores of instances men have made application to the board, and the board had so many of them that they did not even get to the man's application by the date on which he was supposed to report. He had, therefore, one of two choices. The Minister of Agriculture is saying something. He can make his speech afterwards. Let him sit up in his chair and dangle his feet until I make mine. As I was going to say, in many instances these men found that by the date upon which they were to report they had not heard from the board, and they had either to risk being arrested for failing to report or, if they reported, they then were out of the jurisdiction of the Department of National War Services. It was, therefore, absurd to say that any man could demand postponement. He could make application, and many such applications were made, but they were often not replied to, so that a man had no choice but to report. As the government knows quite well, when Mr. Milliken was appointed as agricultural representative, he was so inundated with applications that he simply threw up his hands and resigned in disgust.
The government has issued an 8-point statement in the matter. I hear them referring to the new regulations, but they are not new regulations. Let us get that clear. The regulations are the same as those contained in order in council P.C. 2252. What has been issued is simply an interpretative letter seeking to advise the respective boards how they shall interpret the regulations. Let me remind the house of two things. First, we have no guarantee that the divisional boards will pay any more attention to the interpretative letter than they did to the regulations; and, second, even if they do, in many instances the damage is already done. I think the government will have to go much further. They may have to take the drastic step of taking men out of the army and putting them back on the farm wherever the farm has been left without sufficient man-power to produce the

kind of things which the Minister of Agriculture wants to have produced in the programme which he outlined the other day.
There is no use in the minister or anyone else saying, as the Minister of Agriculture did last week, that we have a farmer representative on the board and that it is up to the board. The government cannot hide behind the skirts of the divisional boards. These boards either carry out the government's policy or do not. If they are not carrying out that policy, the government should dismiss them and appoint new boards; but if they are carrying out the government's policy, the government must accept responsibility for their actions. The sooner we get back to the place where someone in the government is responsible, and will accept the responsibility, of dealing with this situation, the sooner we shall have sufficient labour power on the farms to fill the quotas which the Minister of Agriculture has contracted to fill.
Take some other contradictions. The farmer has been bewildered and confused by differing advice and different suggestions which have been made to him. The Minister of Agriculture goes on the radio and tells him to hold his cattle, and not long after that Mr. Donald Gordon, chairman of the wartime prices and trade board, tells him not to hold his cattle and chides him for doing so. One day Mr. Taggart, the food administrator, declares that it is nonsense to talk about butter rationing, and within ten days we have butter rationing. At one time the farmer is told to produce more flax, to get into flaxseed production, and now he is told we do not need increased flaxseed production. I have before me a copy of a broadcast, reported in the Western Producer of January 21, made by Mr. George Robertson, secretary of the Saskatchewan pool, in which he says that early last December, that is 1942, an agricultural production conference was held here in Ottawa, in which it was agreed that the acreage seeded to flax during the current year should be increased by more than one million acres, representing an increase of 68 per cent over last year's acreage. Repeatedly it was suggested to the farmers of the prairies that they should get into flaxseed production. In my own constituency I know of many farmers who paid from three dollars to five dollars a bushel for royal flax seed and now, according to the programme announced by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, apparently the government does not want the farmer to increase his flaxseed production. Many of these men will use the seed anyway, and we shall find next fall that we shall have quotas on flax-and there is nothing harder to store than flax.

The Address-Mr. Douglas (Weybum)
We had a similar problem before in connection with coarse grains. Last year farmers were told to get out of wheat and into coarse grains, which they did. They put several million acres into coarse grains. To-day thousands upon thousands of granaries all over the prairies are filled with coarse grains which farmers cannot deliver. The farmer has a quota of twenty bushels to the acre, and he is lucky if he can get cars to ship them. He was told to produce coarse grains; he had every reason to think that if he did he would be able to dispose of them, but now he cannot dispose of them.
One more contradiction in this policy. We have frozen farm prices and, what is even worse, we have frozen the amounts of certain farm commodities that the farmer may deliver and sell, but we have done nothing at all to freeze the farmer'*, debts. The debt situation on the prairies, and particularly in Saskatchewan, has reached a point where something must be done. At the present time, farm debt in Saskatchewan-mortgages, agreements of sale, debts on implements and so forth-is in excess of $600,000,000, or something over $21 for every acre of crop land. I ask hon. members to realize the plight of a prairie farmer. He has in his backyard all the means to make some payment on these debts. But he cannot dispose of his wheat; he cannot dispose of his coarse grains; they are frozen. It is not his fault; yet the interest on his debt continues to accumulate even though it is not his fault that he cannot meet it. Last year the debt adjustment act of the province of Alberta was declared ultra vires, and consequently the debt adjustment acts of Saskatchewan and Manitoba were placed in jeopardy. A debt conference was called in Saskatoon last fall, and my understanding is that at that time assurance was given that some steps would be taken by the federal government to pass an order in council under the War Measures Act giving the provinces power to protect the farmers during this war-time crisis. But that order in council has not materialized. In the meantime the judicial committee of the privy council has concurred in the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada and declared the debt legislation ultra vires. The other day I asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) what the government intended to do about the matter and was told that it is still under consideration. I suggest to the government that it will have to have more than consideration; some steps will have to be taken immediately to prevent all foreclosures
and evictions and to freeze debt. If the farmer is to have his prices and quotas frozen, then he ought to have his debts frozen. I say to the Minister of Agriculture in all seriousness that if the farmer does not get some measure of security on his farm, if something is not done about his debts, about his manpower-because he is to have less machinery- then we are headed for trouble. I know in my own constituency farmers are getting rid of their stock, in some instances men who have been trying hard to raise stock. I say to the minister that I am afraid that unless some steps are taken not only shall we not reach the objectives which we have set but we may not reach this year even the objectives which were attained last year.
That is why we in this group ask for a longterm plan mapping out the things to be produced and the quantities which the government is prepared to accept. We ask also for parity prices for the duration and for a period after the war. The average farmer cannot go into producing certain commodities unless he knows that he can count on a certain price over a period of time.


Gordon Graydon: Why should he not always have parity prices?


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: Of course he should, but certainly he should be guaranteed them now. If he starts certain lines of production at the suggestion of the minister, he should not find a year or two hence when he is ready to market the products that the price has gone. The slogan on the prairies has been: When there is a price there are no pigs and when there are pigs there is no price. We are seeking to avoid that.
The third thing we suggest is that the government should set up agricultural commodity marketing boards which would take delivery of these commodities from the farmer at the guaranteed price; dispose of them to the retail or export trade and absorb any loss incurred, as is being done by the wartime prices and trade board, which is subsidizing certain industries.
Fourth, we ask that sufficient labour be returned to the farms that are denuded, and sufficient left on the other farms, to enable them to meet the demands for foodstuffs that have been sent out by our allies.
Lastly, we ask that the government take steps to freeze farm debt and give the farmers security on their farms in this period during which they cannot deliver the commodities which they have produced.
510	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Douglas (Weyburn)
In conclusion, one word with reference to the discussion of social security in the postwar world. We in this group have always maintained, and continue to maintain, that there cannot be such a thing as a system of social security superimposed upon a system of economic insecurity. There can be no social security apart from economic security. Sir William Beveridge makes it perfectly plain that when he is talking of a social insurance scheme it is based on more or less continuous employment. He says that any excess over eight and a half per cent of unemployment will throw his whole scheme out of gear. Therefore we believe that for anyone to talk, as the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) did yesterday about social security on the one hand and retaining free enterprise on the other is a contradiction in terms, because rugged individualism has never produced for our generation anything but ragged individuals on the one hand and people wallowing in wealth on the other. It is time we realized that to talk glibly about "social insurance" and "social security" and the "Beveridge plan" as though these things could be superimposed upon an economic system that has produced poverty on thd one hand and plenty on the other, natural resources needing to be developed on the one hand and unemployment on the other, is to talk about things that contradict each other. We believe that there can be no social security for the people of Canada until we are prepared to make fundamental economic changes and to reorganize our society in the interests of all the people instead of allowing it to be used as a means of economic exploitation for the benefit of a few.
In the magazine Time dated January 11, there is a statement by Monsignor John A. Ryan of Washington, an outstanding leader of the Roman Catholic church in the United States. He sums the position up in words which are very clear. He says:
The millions of returning soldiers and sailors will not be satisfied or fooled by the old claptrap concerning "rugged individualism" "American opportunity" or "American equality" . . . they will not be lulled to sleep by commonplaces about the limitation and difficulties of distribution, nor by promises of "prosperity just around the corner". They will demand jobs here and now. I do not believe that an economy dominated by the philosophy of "free enterprise" will be able to meet that demand.
On motion of Mr. Blanchette the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver Centre) the house adjourned at 5.53 p.m.

Thursday, February 18, 1943