JOINT DEFENCE PROJECTS


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr.'Speaker, I wish to table, in English and French, an exchange of notes between Canada and the United States, dated January 27, 1943, relating to the postwar disposition of certain defence projects, installations and facilities constructed in Canada by the United States.
To carry out joint plans for the defence of this continent, and to facilitate the transportation of war materials to fighting fronts, the Canadian government has agreed to the stationing of United States military units at certain places on Canadian territory. This is part of the same programme of war-time cooperation which has resulted in units of the Royal Canadian Air Force operating from Alaskan bases.
In carrying out the defence programme, moreover, arrangements have been made whereby the United States government has supplied materials for, or has defrayed the

Joint Defence Projects
cost of, the construction of a number of projects, installations or facilities on Canadian soil.
The arrangement under which this programme has been effected is of a purely wartime character. It is not contemplated that the contribution which the United States is thus making to the common defence will give that country any continuing rights in Canada after the conclusion of war. Indeed, with regard to most of the projects that have been undertaken in this country by the United States, agreements have already been made which make the post-war position completely clear. An example with which hon. members will be familiar is to be found in the text of the exchange of notes providing for the construction of the Alaska highway.
In order that there may be no possible doubt as to the principles to be followed in the postwar disposition of the various defence projects to which the United States has contributed, the permanent joint board on defence recently recommended that the two governments approve a formula which would state these principles in clear terms. The formula which was proposed by the defence board was examined by the two governments and was approved by both. It has now been embodied in the exchange of notes I am about to table.
An examination of the notes will make it apparent that the agreements with the United States do not prejudice in any way Canadian post-war liberty of action. I ought to add that I am informed by those most directly connected that with respect to these projects, not only is Canada free from any post-war commitments, but that we have not at any time been asked by the United States to enter into such commitments.
The terms of the exchange of notes will make it clear that should Canada undertake to contribute to the joint defence by constructing installations or facilities in Alaska or elsewhere on United States territory, the same principles would reciprocally apply.


Mr. GRAYDON:: May I ask the Prime Minister if he intends to have these notes printed? How will they be distributed?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It might be advisable to have the exchange of notes printed in the Votes and Proceedings of to-day. A similar statement is being made at Washington this afternoon. That was my reason for being anxious to make to the house to-day the statement which I have just made.


Mr. MacNICOL:: May I ask the Prime Minister if what he has said in reference to the Alaska highway applies also to the roadway being built from Peace River to Providence? The United States at the moment are building a roadway north of the Peace river through a place called Notikewin to Providence, on the Mackenzie river. Does the same agreement apply? When the war is over will they retire from there also?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It applies to all projects, which relate to the war, which the United States installs or constructs in Canada during the period of the war.



CHIEF JUSTICE OF CANADA


[Stage Direction]
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 2, to amend an act respecting the Chief Justice of Canada.
He said: The purpose of this bill is to extend for four years from January 7, 1940, instead of for three years, as had been provided, the term of office of the chief justice.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. DIVORCE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 3, to amend the Divorce Jurisdiction Act, 1930.
He said:	This bill has been on the order
paper now for two sessions under public bills, and as public bills have not been dealt with for the past two sessions it remained as it was. Before introducing it two sessions ago I discussed the bill with the late minister of justice, the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, and after considering it he pronounced it proper legislation and legislation that should be passed.
As the Divorce Jurisdiction Act stands now, an applicant for divorce must bring the action in the province in which desertion takes place. For instance, if a British Columbia man marries a girl in Ontario, takes her back to British Columbia, and there deserts her, she may be obliged to return to her home in Ontario. She has the evidence which would entitle her to a divorce but she must go back to the province in which she was deserted in order to bring action. The proposed amendment will enable the applicant to bring action in the court of the province in which she is domiciled, provided that she has lived in that province for two years or more.
Labour Conditions


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I desire to make an inquiry of the Prime Minister with respect to a matter that has come to my attention this afternoon. Some thirty representatives of Montreal Aircraft Lodge No. 712, covering a jurisdiction of about twenty thousand aircraft workers in four plants in the Montreal district, are in Ottawa, and from conversations I have had with them I rather think the situation there has deteriorated to such an extent that I am compelled to ask the right hon. gentleman if he will be good enough to make some intervention in the matter so that in the national interests the position will not become worse. I make this request in all sincerity of purpose because in my opinion it is greatly in the national interest that the Prime Minister should see these men and perhaps intervene so that the situation will not develop into something which will be detrimental to our war production. I wonder if he would give consideration to this suggestion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend and to hon. members of the house that at this time of war there is of course no more important service, next to that performed by our armed forces, than the continuous production of war industries in this country, and wherever it has been possible to do so, I have done my utmost to help to further both these large objectives. With respect to the specific request of my hon. friend, that I should of my own initiative, I take it, see some members of the aircraft industry, employees who are in the city at the present time, I would say to him that, as I am sure he will understand, in matters of this kind I have to consider not merely the immediate situation but what may come to be looked upon as the course of procedure which is to be the regularly recognized and adopted one. The Department of Labour is the department^ of government which primarily has to do with industrial disputes. I am aware that some members representing employees of the aircraft industry were in the city on Saturday of last week and that others were here to-day. On Saturday I communicated with the Department of Labour to ascertain what steps

were being taken towards conferring with these representatives. I was told at the t.imP I communicated that three or four of the representatives were then in conference in the Department of Labour with one or more officers of the department and that consideration was being given to their representations. I believe it is also true that the matter to which my hon. friend has referred is one which comes in part at least within the jurisdiction of the regional board which is located at Quebec, and I understand that an officer of the Department of Labour has been in Quebec, and possibly is there to-day, looking into the situation.
I should like to have it understood and known that if it is necessary for me personally to intervene in industrial disputes it must be only after the matter has been carefully considered by the cabinet as a whole. I cannot as Prime Minister, with the obligations I have to meet, much as I should like to be able to be of assistance, undertake to meet delegations that come to the city to discuss industrial disputes. Moreover, there is, I think, reason why the greatest possible caution should be exercised in having the government as ^ a government intervene in any dispute which it is possible to have settled between the parties themselves, or under the machinery which is provided by the government.
I will carefully consider my hon. friend's request, but I have to make it clear that all these matters should follow a line of procedure which is definitely known and which has been framed with a view to facilitating adjustments.


Gordon Graydon: My information is that this suggestion is made only after other avenues of approach have been thoroughly explored. May I also point out, in case the Prime Minister is under any misapprehension as to the basis of the dispute that in this instance it is not a dispute between employers and employees. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether it is possible for him to give any undertaking that the question wilt come before the cabinet, if he is not able personally to intervene.
_ Mr. MACKENZIE KING: I have pleasure in saying that I shall see that the matter is considered immediately by the government. As a matter of fact, it has been before the government already.



REPORTS AS TO UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE CITY OF WINNIPEG

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:	[DOT]
Mr. S. H. KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: I should like to ask the Minister of

The Address-Mr. Graydon
Labour if his attention has been called to the reports of large numbers of persons unemployed in the city of Winnipeg, many of whom have been laid off from plants engaged on war work. What steps are being taken by his department to deal with this serious situation?


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: That is a matter for the order paper.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I suggest that the hon. member place his question on the order paper.


Mr. COLD WELL:: May I suggest that to
these eight thousand people who are reported unemployed in Winnipeg the matter is urgent?
Hon. HUMPHREY' MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):	The subject matter of my hon.
friend's question has received the consideration of the Department of labour for some time. It is true there are registered in Winnipeg some eight thousand unemployed men and women'-I speak from memory-of whom five thousand are women, largely made up,
I am informed as a result of the registration, of married women. It is also a fact that work has been continuously available in the Winnipeg district for able-bodied men, in the bush, in the mines and on the farms. Only this morning the regional superintendents of the unemployment insurance commission were in my department when the whole matter was discussed, and we are rapidly working out a solution. Since we tackled the problem, fifteen hundred women have been transferred1 to the east, and we expect to be able to transfer some of the men. My hon. friend, who comes from the city of Winnipeg, cannot but know of the difficult times we have had there in the past, particularly with single men. I think it is fair to say that many of these unemployed men are of a kind that you get in every country in the world, many of them near the unemployable class, which in itself presents a difficult problem.
With respect to the women, for some months past the armed forces have been recruiting many women for the navy, the army and the air force. That is an avenue of approach to employment at this time.
Not only in Winnipeg but in other large centres of population in this dominion, by the very nature of things there are the seasonal conditions with which we are confronted at the moment, causing what might be called pockets of unemployment. The Department of Labour is working in close cooperation with the Department of Munitions and Supply in an effort to place these people where they can be most useful.



CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. ROY (Gaspe):: I should like to direct a question to the government. In consequence of a motion moved by the Prime Minister on July 30 last, the committee on privileges and elections was asked to fix a date for the election in the constituency of Stan-stead, Quebec. Has this committee reported on the matter, and if not, will the next committee be compelled to do so?
Right Hon, W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister): The committee to which the Stanstead election was referred did not make a report before the conclusion of the last session. The committee on privileges and elections will be reconstituted as soon as the debate on the address is concluded, and I purpose, as soon as it is reconstituted, to move to refer to it the matter of the Stanstead election, which comes under controverted elections.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, January 29, 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.
Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, I am sure I shall have the sympathy of most hon. members of this house when they realize the trepidation with which the average member of parliament first of all makes his maiden speech in this house, and then-which does not happen to so many-makes his first speech as leader of the opposition. As I said on Friday, I approach this undertaking with great humility. It marks the commencement of a new task, in a new field, and under almost entirely new auspices.
In opening my remarks I shall do something which I had intended not to do, namely, extend congratulations to the mover (Mr. Harris) and the seconder (Mr. Halle) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Lest this should be taken as a precedent, may I say at once that having sat in the house for seven years, I think I can conscientiously condemn the practice of filling Hansard over a period of some two months, with congratulatory remarks to the two hon. members who
The Address-Mr. Graydon

have made their contribution in moving and seconding the address in reply. But I should like to make an exception on this occasion, because we had as mover and seconder two members of the armed forces, and I want not so much to congratulate them as to pay tribute to what they represent in our national life and what they mean to every one of us.
I have also a personal note to sound with respect to the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Harris), who was an old school chum of mine. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and I approach more mature years, we like to recall those who were our friends in the past.
I am sure I echo the thoughts of hon. members generally, when I say that there is another very good reason why .1 should mention these two hon. members. I should like to associate myself with the principle that we cannot do too much in these times to create and foster unity between the great French-speaking and English-speaking sections of our population. I have been as fortunate, I believe, as most hon. members throughout these years in having had many close friends in both groups in this house. I wish to pay tribute to both of them, and I do so on this occasion by saying a word of congratulation to the mover and seconder, although otherwise I would not have followed the practice which has been traditional.
I think if we are to add to the prestige of this chamber, a number of things similar to the customary congratulatory remarks which are merely traditional, which mean very little and which sometimes embarrass those to whom they are addressed, might very well be dispensed with. There is no better time than the present to start to sweep away some of the cobwebs of the past and clear out some of . the underbrush, particularly in a war-time session of parliament.
The Prime Minister and members of the house generally will I think be interested to hear some declaration from me as temporary leader of this party in the house as to the policy of the official opposition in the house during this session. If I may say so, I do not think any hon. member will deny that throughout the years in which I have occupied a seat fls a private member here I have alwavs avoided narrow, old-fashioned, mean and petty partisan politics. At least I have tried *to do so. And I have no desire on this occasion or on any other to depart from that well-established personal principle. Today, when Canada is fighting for her very life, 
is no time for stress to be laid upon any artificial divisions. Surely that is fundamental. Our duty, I think-certainly I conceive it to be mine-is to treat every man, whatever his political views may be, as a Canadian first, last and always. For I say to the Prime Minister in all sincerity: we must not forget that this government is our government, the government of the Canadian people, and that it is charged with exceptionally heavy and exacting responsibilities, particularly in time of war. The new Progressive Conservative party, which at the moment I am leading, will try earnestly during this session to avoid unnecessarily dogging the heels of the present incumbents of office while those incumbents are engaged in the serious business of winning the war. This nation and this empire have too much at stake for us to play any little games while the enemy threatens us all.
Lest anyone mistake declaration of our intentions for a blanket approval of misconceived policy, misguided administration, or inefficiency and waste in the carrying on of the war effort, I desire to make it clear that where we feel it is in the national interest to do so, and for that reason and on no lesser grounds, we shall criticize constructively and meet the policies of the administration in head-on collision. Of scarcely less importance than the government itself, is His Majesty's Loyal Opposition. My conception of the duty of that opposition during a time of war centres in an insistence upon clear and practical principles, effective and adequate measures designed to bring about a full-out effort to win the war, and a meticulous audit of governmental expenditures. If there be one thing above all others an opposition should endeavour to do, either in peace or in war, it is to ensure that every dollar collected from the taxpayers of Canada is expended without waste. That, we as an opposition shall try to do this session.
I have . tried, as I am sure all other hon. members in the chamber have tried, to maintain some ideals in public life. There may be some who will joke about ideals. There may be some who will lightly spurn the idea of men in public life having principles. Sometimes our ideals and principles may become clouded by the issues which confront us, but I really believe that every public man must have ideals and that they must be high ideals. One of the ideals which I think must permeate all of us, every man in public life and every party, is complete willingness to render service to our country and our people. Once the ideal is accepted, the opportunity to render the service will come just as surely as night

The Address-Mr. Graydon
follows day. I do not apologize for having some ideals in public life. If we are to have an effective democracy, one that is worth fighting for, we should not be ashamed to proclaim certain high ideals to the men and women throughout the country who are asking us to give leadership.
For a good many months in Canada, a new progressive and aggressive movement has been growing among the common or garden variety of people, like those of us here in this House of Commons. I do not want the Prime Minister to misunderstand any expressions I may use, but it is obvious that for some considerable time there has been in this country a lively dissatisfaction with certain aspects of the present administration. In all fairness to the Prime Minister and to the government I may go further and say that very often in war time a government may be condemned as much for its good deeds as for its bad deeds. Nevertheless the fact remains that the masses of our people have been trying to find a voice to express their protest against the present administration, other than through that which sponsors a socialistic state in Canada. I say that with no desire to reflect upon the personalities of those who sit to my left. In a young nation like this, where people desire to retain initiative and individuality, and crave freedom from too stringent government controls, it will be readily seen why a new movement should have taken root somewhere between the dissatisfaction that exists with respect to the government on the one hand, and the failure to act on the part of those who have been most vocal in their protests. The new Progressive Conservative movement, which began many months before Port Hope, found its voice at that conference last September. No doubt the proposals adopted at Port Hope were startling to many people in Canada holding old ideas. But they formed the basis of a new charter for the common people of the dominion. It was no old-line party manifesto. It was no ivy-covered political structure. Rather it was a spearhead, giving expression to a rapidly-growing public sentiment not confined to any single political party but drawing its adherents from all.
The choice of Hon. John Bracken, then premier of Manitoba, at the Winnipeg convention, was the natural result of this people's movement. The policy laid down by that convention at Winnipeg further exemplified the extent to which the demands of the common people were being appropriately met. The new movement led by Hon. John Bracken represents an honest attempt to find a satisfactory
solution of the major problems which face this country in a war-time period, and which will require solution when the war draws to its close. If there is one thought above another I should like to leave with the house this afternoon, it is this. Whether or not hon. members agree with the programme and policy which was approved at the Winnipeg convention, there can be no doubt of the sincerity of purpose of those who advance that programme at this time. We may be proved wrong; we may be proved right. But those considerations do not matter quite so much as the fact of our honesty in advancing and promoting this programme.
There will be some who will think in terms of political yesterdays, and who will facetiously raise some question respecting the double name of our party. We are not ashamed of the alliance indicated by our party name between the Progressives and Conservatives. More than that, may I say that for a long time I have not been, interested personally, nor do I think the people throughout the country are greatly interested, in artificial party labels. In the final analysis the new Progressive Conservative movement will be accepted or rejected by the people of Canada, not on the basis of the label it wears on the sleeve of its coat, but on the basis of the service it gives to the dominion and the ultimate results achieved.
' It has long been advocated that a strong opposition makes for a stronger government. Most people in Canada believe that the unmistakable strengthening of our party throughout the dominion has already achieved results which in extent are almost amazing. Within the period of a few days after the close of the Winnipeg convention, which called for better financial treatment of members of our armed forces and their dependents, the government effected changes which in the main were a reflection of the policy our party adopted,-and I congratulate the government upon that action. The call by our new leader, Mr. Bracken, for the adoption of a system of parliamentary under-secretaryships has met with some results, as indicated in the speech from the throne. It may be, of course, that the Prime Minister's answer will be that great minds think alike. But it is good to be the first great mind, the one that begins thinking ahead of the other one.
The emphasis laid in Winnipeg upon active social pioneering in Canada has also met with some response in the speech from the throne. That response may be feeble, but at least we have the honour of recognition. Measured from every other angle the Winnipeg con-
The Address-Mr. Graydon

vention was a successful war-time achievement, and one which has been beneficial to the whole of Canada.
I come now to another subject which is of grave importance to all of us. Since the last meeting of parliament the Canadian troops have gone into action in the much discussed Dieppe raid. Having no reason to constitute myself an arm-chair critic with respect to army strategy and tactics, I shall leave for others the privilege of discussing those matters. But this afternoon on behalf of the party I lead in the house I do wish to pay tribute to the courage, the valour and the bravery of our men under what to many of us, who perhaps do not understand military tactics, seemed almost insuperable difficulties.
Canada emerged from the last war heaped with honours won on the field of battle. Her first contest with the foe on land in this war has brought to one of our greatest Canadian soldiers, Lieutenant-Colonel Merritt of Vancouver, no less an award than the Victoria Cross itself. Many other officers and men received high awards and decorations for valour on that occasion. Dieppe at least displayed to the world that the same quality of Canadian soldiering abroad which added so much to the prestige and reputation of Canada in the last war, has been well maintained, preserved and promoted in this one. I pay that tribute to Canada and to her fighting men.
In recent days the news has come of the momentous meeting at Casablanca of Mr. Churchill and Mr. Roosevelt. I should like the Prime Minister in his address to make clear several important points arising from the Casablanca meeting. Perhaps if he has time this afternoon he will be good enough to answer these questions, because to my mind it is of the utmost importance that the public should know the answers. The questions are these:
(1)	Was the Canadian government kept fully informed of the course of the discussions, and consulted with respect to the decisions reached?
(2)	Is the Canadian government a party to the decisions arrived at, and does the government fully concur in those decisions?
(3)	Was an invitation extended to the Prime Minister to attend this conference?
(4)	Has the government advocated to any or all of the united nations the setting up of a supreme war council, in which all the allied nations shall be represented, so that there may be coordination of the efforts being put forth in this common cause?

I believe the Prime Minister will at once agree upon the necessity for such a council; or, if such a council is not possible-and there may be many reasons which it may not be proper to state as to why it is not possible- would the Prime Minister indicate whether there is any prospect of the setting up of an empire or imperial war council, so that a closer liaison may be maintained between the various members of the British commonwealth of nations?
It would seem to the public generally that closer coordination of the war effort throughout the world must be achieved by the united nations. It is a necessity which becomes more apparent every day. Such a supreme war council, or a master plan for the defeat of our enemies, would instil into and induce a great measure of courage among our people. And, Mr. Speaker, unity in war time would be followed by unity in peace time, a consideration which I suggest is of grave importance at this moment.
What is the position with respect to our own armed forces overseas? I would ask the Prime Minister to give an answer this afternoon to this question. I am going to warn the government at this stage that only in the rarest circumstances during this session, and only when we are dealing with the most confidential matters will the official opposition stand idly by and allow the government to hide behind five words which are well known throughout the country-"not in the public interest". I know that certain information the government has cannot be divulged because it might give comfort to the enemy. But in many instances where no comfort would have been given to the enemy by disclosure of the information sought, the government has nevertheless hidden behind those five words.
I know the Prime Minister will not feel badly if I say that throughout the country the words "not in the public interest" have become almost a joke. I heard a story the other day and I think perhaps it is true. A lady was giving evidence in one of our Ontario courts. When the crown attorney asked her how old she was-I am sure the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) would have known better than to do that-she replied, "I am just thirty years of age." He said, "You gave evidence in this court five years ago, and I have it on record you said then you were thirty years of age." She replied, "There is nothing wrong about that, because I am not one of those who say one thing to-day and another thing to-morrow." When he pressed the question and asked her point blank just what her age

The Address-Mr. Gray don
*was, she replied-evidently she was an omnivorous reader of Hansard-"It is not in the public interest to give the information."
We must be given all information that is not of a strictly confidential character. Let us understand that it is the public of Canada who are paying the shot, and they have a right to know what is going on and how their money is being spent. Therefore I ask the Prime Minister in his address this afternoon to give the public full information as to how our present military requirements are being met. Has our army sufficient men overseas, and have we sufficient reinforcements to maintain our military strength at what it should be? I want him to give the facts and the figures on that point. As the session progresses we shall expect to have unfolded a further manpower plan. The whole problem of manpower-I say this guardedly and advisedly- has never been tackled courageously by this administration since the war began. The Prime Minister has been good enough to accept many of our policies; he should1 not be disturbed if I ask him to accept another. Here is the policy that was adopted by the Progressive Conservative party at its convention in Winnipeg on December 11:
Recognizing that the world struggle in which Canada is engaged requires a total war effort, we believe in compulsory national selective service, and that all those selected to serve in the armed forces should be available for service wherever required. We believe in the effective total utilization and proper allocation for war, by compulsion where necessary, of all the resources of Canada, including agriculture, industry and finance,-
I ask some of my friends to my left to listen to that last word.
-as well as man-power, and that our aim should be at all times to bring about so far as human means can achieve it, an equality in sacrifice.
Others of our party will perhaps deal more fully with the question of man-power and our armed forces than I intend to1 do on this particular occasion. It can scarcely be gainsaid that the government's policy on man-power has failed. There has been no courageous, no determined and no effective plan for a. complete and scientific utilization of our man- and woman-power since the war started. There has been no master plan. There has been no coordination. Indeed, it seems to me from watching affairs in the house that industry, agriculture and the armed forces, instead of working in coordination, have actually been in competition with each other for the man- and woman-power available in Canada.
The selective service policy, while it was pretty long in promises, has been pretty short in performance. Its enforcement, especially
in recent days, has been weak and timorous. The lack of a master man-power plan in Canada has had a disastrous effect, and has contributed in no small degree-this is the sad part of it-to the weakening of our general war effort. The haphazard, hit-or-miss system which has been followed throughout these critical years has resulted in a drift from agriculture into war work, and enlistment in the armed forces, thus creating one of the most dangerous problems in connection with food with which Canada has ever been faced.
Actually there are many to-day in rural districts who believe that we will face an agricultural production crisis in Canada in the months that lie ahead. In war time the necessity becomes apparent of every man and woman in the dominion doing the job which will enable him or her to make the maximum contribution toward the winning of the war. In this connection the responsibility of leadership rests very largely upon the government of the day. The failure of the government to adopt and to provide an adequate plan for the effective use of Canada's man and woman power stands as a serious obstacle to a full national effort at this time. It is late, and much of the damage has been done, but there is still time to retrieve some of the losses. I plead earnestly with the government to deal with this matter immediately and with determination, The omission from the speech from the throne of any measures to meet this urgent national problem is hard to understand, because the crisis is here.
I should like to preface my remarks on the subject of labour with a strictly personal note. Labour and agriculture have been responsible for my election to the House of Commons on two successive occasions. I have, I believe, a clear perspective of the problems of the working man and his family. I believe it is essential to have a personal understanding of those -who comprise that great section of our population. I have been fortunate in having lived in a working man's district in my home town, and I still continue to do so. So that when I speak of labour I speak of it not in theoretical terms; I speak of the working man as a neighbour of mine. The working man is a loyal and constant friend of those whom he trusts, and he realizes very quickly and very well those he can trust. His lot has not been what it should have been through these years, and in my opinion he has not enlisted the degree of sympathy and understanding in public men and the public at large to which he is justly entitled. Those of us who have pleaded his cause through the years in parliament have done so in the full knowledge that if ever a
The Address-Mr. Graydon

section* of our population needed active champions in the legislative halls of Canada, it was the working man. Far too often his efforts to band together with his fellows for the purpose of seeking justice for himself and his family have been misrepresented and misunderstood. Never let me hear any intelligent body of public opinion say that labour in Canada is dangerous. I deny that. Labour has never been dangerous to any true democratic principles, and if I know labour it never will be.
Leading the opposition for the first time, it gives me no small amount of satisfaction to raise my voice in the House of Commons as a champion of labour; and more than that, it is not a new experience for me to do so. Nothing pleased me more than to see the stand taken by the Progressive Conservative party at the Winnipeg convention. If I may refer again to that-in the hope that the Prime Minister will be listening-this is what it says:
In order that free enterprise may be retained as the economic system best calculated to provide stability, prosperity and security and as a necessary part of that system that freedom of association and organization may be guaranteed to workers and in order that confidence may be restored between industry and labour and that sound labour relations may be established, this convention recommends:
I think I had better call this to the attention of my friends to the left.


Mr. BLACK MORE:: Which ones?
Mr. GRAYDO'N: Well, as far as I know, all of you had better get under this umbrella. I want to point this out particularly to those who sometimes suggest that they are-which I deny -the special champions of labour:
1.	Uniform labour relations shall be established throughout the dominion by dominion-provincial agreements, appropriate legislation, or by vesting jurisdiction in industrial labour matters in the dominion.
2.	Collective bargaining is desirable and necessary in the interests of labour, industry and the social welfare of the people.
3.	Workers shall have full freedom of association, organization and designation of representatives of their own choosing for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment and, when requested, employers shall be required to bargain collectively with their employees.
4.	Well-defined machinery shall be established for the election and certification of the agency which is to be entitled to represent employees in collective bargaining negotiations, where there is a dispute as to the collective bargaining agency.
5.	Discrimination against any employee or prospective employee on account of his activities in respect of any labour organization shall be prohibited.

6.	The Department of Labour shall establish a comprehensive conciliation service for the prompt conciliation of disputes.
7.	A national labour relations board with equal employer and employee representation and with a chairman appointed to represent the public interest shall be created, such board to be judicial in its functions and leading to the establishment of a well recognized labour jurisprudence.
. 8. Industrial disputes which cannot be conciliated or otherwise settled, shall be referred for decision and report to the national labour relations board whose hearings shall be public.
9.	The national labour relations board upon complaint received or on its own volition shall have power to investigate any labour organization or employers' organization to ensure that its activities are not prejudicial to the interests of its members and do not interfere with the democratic right of men to work, and that they are not prejudicial to the national interest, and that coercion or domination of any labour organization or its members does not exist.
10.	Labour shall be accorded representation upon governmental boards and commissions

I shall say something further about that in a moment.
-which deal directly or indirectly with matters concerning the interests or welfare of workers.
11.	Governmental encouragement and assistance should be given to the establishment of labour-management production committees in the interests of maximum war production and permanently sound labour relations.
12.	Adequate holidays with pay shall be granted to employees where applicable.
The people of Canada of course have become uneasy over the restlessness of labour in certain industries; but too many of them are anxious to lay all the blame on labour. Let us be fair about that.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Hear, Hear.


Gordon Graydon: I am glad I have one supporter, at any rate, in that quarter of the house.	.


Angus MacInnis: They are all here, not over there.


Gordon Graydon: Then they had better speak up now. In any freezing arrangement, injustices and inequalities may readily be extended rather than adjusted. It is the duty of this government-and with great deference I suggest that that duty is not being discharged -to see to it that the causes of restlessness, sometimes ending in concerted action, shall not be allowed to exist or continue. I call upon the government to alter its policy with regard to labour, and to adopt and carry through a rational labour policy which will ensure maximum production and give to labour its rightful position as one of the m,ajor partners in Canadian democracy.
I come now, sir, to another of our very important national activities, one which pre-

The Address-Mr. Gray don
sents many of our thorniest problems. There are many in rural Canada to-day who feel that Canadian agriculture is actually one of our war casualties. The surplus products, excluding wheat, which were so widely heralded in peace time have now become a thing of the past in many sections of rural Canada. Is it not, Mr. Speaker, a shocking thing to contemplate that in one of the world's greatest agricultural producing areas, ration cards should be used for butter, with some hint that rationing of beef is to follow? I think I need do no more than simply point out the fact. Is it not a shocking condition of affairs? Every butter ration coupon that is handed to a grocer to-day is mute but irrefutable evidence of faulty planning by our agricultural and our war-time prices boards. I suggest to the Prime Minister-I hope I am not making too many suggestions to him-that he drop into a few rural homes in Canada, talk to some of the farmers' wives and see what they say of a plan which requires not only consumers to have ration coupons before they can get their butter, but the farmers' wives as well.
I ask the Prime Minister to get the right point of view with respect to that. I am sure it must have escaped his attention; otherwise he would not have allowed a thing of this kind to be done. It is one of the most monumental examples of lack of government foresight that we have had in Canada for many .a long day.
Someone has said that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, but certainly rationing is the last refuge of governmental inefficiency. I should have thought that the *conditions existing in agriculture to-day would have so greatly concerned the government that the speech from the throne would at least have mentioned it. Apparently, however, his excellency has been wrongly advised in the only advice which his ministers have given him. They have told him-and this is our plan for agriculture; this is what we are going to do for the farmers-that they have begun to explore the situation. Well, exploration is a good thing, but you have to have something more than exploration for agriculture just now. The speech says that the government-

have already begun to explore the international agreements and domestic measures *which will help to secure adequate incomes for primary producers and full employment after *the war.
It will not be very good news to the farmers of Canada if this means that the war must cease before these injustices are remedied. The farmer has felt, at any rate n good many of them have told me, as they have told other members of this house, that ihe is the forgotten man in Canada's economy.
I am sorry that we are not remembering the
farmer, more particularly in the speech from the throne.
When prices were frozen for the purpose of avoiding a spiral of inflation in Canada during this war-time period, that policy actually froze, so far as agriculture is concerned, an inequality in national income, in a way which left agriculture no longer in a position to make its proper contribution to our war effort. We should regard the production of food in much the same way as we regard any other sort of production of war materials.
If it has been so regarded by the government, then agriculture has been treated differently from other types of war industries. From the beginning of the war until now, experienced labour on farms has gradually but surely disappeared. It is almost a thing of the past to get an experienced man for farm work.
I do not know where you will find such a man; certainly you will not find him where I come from, and I do not think you will find him in any other area in Canada. The ceiling price on wholesale farm products has operated in many instances towards a reduction in the production of necessary agricultural commodities in Canada. I do not think hon. members, particularly those who come from rural sections, need to look into dry statistics, to establish the fact that farmers in the aggregate are receiving a ridiculously low and inadequate share of the national income. As a matter of fact, over thirty per cent of the population- for that is what agriculture represents-has less than fifteen per cent of the national income diverted to it.
It is, I think, a mild statement that there is grave dissatisfaction in rural Canada at the moment. It is all very well to say that the prices of farm products have gone up. Of course they have gone up in some instances. But I say to the Prime Minister that it is not a healthy thing for the Canadian farmer to pick up his newspaper and see the striking difference between the price he receives for his cattle and his hogs and that which his American farmer cousin across the border is receiving in the Chicago and Buffalo markets.
Right now the government's programme is of course for greater production in some lines of agricultural commodities, but the farmer looks with grave concern upon that appeal. Last year we were unable to meet our agreement with Britain, in certain periods in any event, so far as bacon and eggs were concerned; and meat and butter are now providing a serious shortage problem in the domestic field. The farmers, through their organizations and individually, have from time to time, since the war began, called for a reasonably long-term agricultural production
The Address-Mr. Graydon

policy. How many times must it be pointed out to this government that the farmer cannot plan for to-morrow with only a policy laid down for to-day? That is putting it in bold terms.
Subsidies have been paid; but in many instances they have not been paid in time or they have been too small. Because of that, pressure has been put upon the ceiling from time to time, and encouragement has almost been given to a black market.
Without making a blanket criticism of the wartime prices and trade board, which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) champions- he is watching me carefully and is noting every word I am saying on this subject-I think it is fair to say that its operations, so far as they affect farm products, have fallen far short of success. While the price ceiling programme has its advantages, a method of price control which results in shortages otherwise avoidable, endangers in my opinion the whole principle of the programme itself. The bald fact is that the farmers are belligerently dissatisfied with the present administration of the programme by the wartime prices and trade board. Having this well in mind, the government, in my opinion, would be well advised, and I strongly urge them, to set up without delay a food ministry in Canada. It would appear that only by this change of policy, for which there are examples in Great Britain and the United States, can there be any hope for a coordinated plan of production and distribution of farm products.
The wartime prices and trade board is not adequately equipped in its membership to handle efficiently these two problems, which automatically, if not officially, come within their jurisdiction-that is, production and distribution. It could never have been intended that the operation of the wartime prices and trade board should reach so far into the realm of production and distribution of the products of the farm. In my opinion, time must not be wasted in making this change if an abundance of food is to be produced for the varied requirements of a country at war. Looking further ahead, it seems to me that unless this problem of agricultural production is tackled now we are going to be faced with an even more serious problem than that of wartime shortages itself.
Our great leaders have said that when this war is over, we, with the other great producing countries of the world, will be under obligation to feed a war-torn hungry world to which peace will have come. If we do not develop our agricultural economy and production in such a manner as to enable us to do that, are we playing fair with the coun-
tries to whom we have given that guarantee?' We must have some plan for agriculture, and prepare it at once, which will meet the conditions which lie ahead. I believe I voice the opinion of a great majority of the farmers-of Canada when I say that the government has failed to provide adequate measures whereby Canadian agriculture can make its maximum war contribution and receive a fair share of the national income.
Before leaving agriculture I want to make another suggestion. I shall not enter into-any extended discussion this afternoon with respect to wheat; that can come later. But I do wish to mention a significant Canadian press dispatch which was carried in many of the papers this morning, emanating from the annual convention of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture at Calgary on Saturday last. It indicates that some improvement in the liaison between the agricultural organizations and the government is required. For that reason and for no other I read the following item:
Farm federation protests Ottawa's 1943 grain policy
Calgary, January 31.-Delegates to the annual convention of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture observed one minute's silence at their closing session Saturday in protest against the federal government's action in announcing its 1943 grain policy before consulting representatives of organized agriculture.
Main point of the announced wheat policy provides for the maximum delivery of fourteen bushels per authorized acre for the 1943-44 crop at a basic price of ninety cents a bushel.
The convention also sent protest telegrams to Prime Minister Mackenzie King, Agriculture Minister Gardiner and Mr. MacKinnon.
The wire said delegates regarded the action "as an indication of the government's intention completely to disregard the viewpoint of organized farm producers of Canada."
It said further that for the past two years directors and officers of the C.F.A. had met with the Prime Minister and government members immediately following their annual meeting. "This has provided an opportunity for farm representatives to bring before the government the considered opinion of organized agriculture from coast to coast dealing with its problems."
The telegram added:
"On previous occasions the Prime Minister and members of the government have stated that they welcome the presentation of our views. . . . We believe that at no time in the country's history has the need been greater for the closest possible cooperation between government and people.
"This will be .impossible to attain if government creates impression that it proposes to ignore reasonable representations of organized producers.	.
"If the 1943 food goals as recently announced by Canadian government are to be met, some upward revision of the income from grain should be considered."

The Address-Mr. Graydon
Without going into the policy in detail or expressing an opinion on it at the moment, I raise the point for the purpose of showing what organized agriculture seems to think about the necessity for a closer liaison between the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Trade and Commerce and the organized activities of agriculture itself.
In dealing with the reference in the speech from the throne to national social insurance, I shall not have much to say at present except this: I was surprised to note that the policy with respect to national social insurance, one of the most important problems injected into the dominion political arena for many a day, has been given to a select committee of <the house to determine. Perhaps the Prime Minister will be able to explain it-I know he will be able to explain it; whether successfully or not is the only question-but I should have thought the necessary legislation would be brought down in the form of bills, as has been done in the past, the bills, fitting as they would into a national plan, then to be referred to a select committee for review and report back to this house. I think the government should have presented to the house and to the country a policy of national social insurance, rather than leaving it to a committee of the house. I may be wrong in the assumption, but I know there will be a great many people in Canada who think the way I do. This would not by any chance be the answer, would it?-that there was no time after the adoption of the social security programme at the Winnipeg convention for legislation to be drafted for submission to the house? I leave the question with the Prime Minister, because it naturally arises and perhaps offers the explanation of the existing situation.
Having regard to the situation that has arisen out of this reference in the speech from the throne I think a great national plan for Canada is essential, a plan which will guarantee to all our citizens freedom from fear and from want. The less time we take to reach that objective the better for all of us. Right now democracy is going through a severe testing time. Democracy must show that it can meet modern conditions by the use of modern remedies. There is no reason under the sun why this democratic state cannot be in the forefront of world reform, and show the other systems, sometimes so highly praised, not only that they are not as good as ours but that they fall far behind the results that democracy can and will produce. We shall not be satisfied in Canada until we have worked out, not merely as good a plan of social insurance for our people as exists
elsewhere, but the best there is in the whole world. Our citizens deserve it, and the government must recognize their deserts.
The Progressive Conservative party has taken a definite stand with respect to several points in connection with national social insurance. I should like to take a moment to read one or two of those points:
1.	Every person able and willing to work must be assured 'of gainful occupation with sufficient means to maintain a home and family. The objective is full employment at fair wages under progressively improving standards. We oppose relief as a substitute for work.
2.	For the achievement of that objective-full employment at fair wages under progressively improving standards-and for the welfare and development of society, we strongly advocate the strengthening of the basic Canadian tradition of individual initiative and individual enterprise and opportunity, and the freeing of economic activities from bureaucratic controls. Government authority, however, should be maintained and exercised wherever necessary to protect primary producers, workers and consumers from exploitation through such abuses as price-fixing combines, monopolies and patent cartels.
To those ends we believe that government should seek to create conditions under which the maximum volume of employment and the maximum national income may be assured through the initiative and enterprise of the people themselves.
3.	It is the duty of the state:
(a)	to maintain at high level the income and standard of living of the individual citizen, whose interests must always be paramount.
(b)	to maintain the principle of private initiative and enterprise.
(c)	to initiate, undertake and control projects of public and national benefit in those fields in which private enterprise is precluded from serving or is unable to serve the public interest.
4.	Consideration should be given to the problems of the workers-on-their-own who comprise a large percentage of the people of this country and who lack the benefit of organization to protect their interests-the small retail merchant, the man or woman in services of various kinds, such as the carter, truck-driver and taximan, the odd-jobber, the handyman and the salesman on commission. Recognition must be given to their enterprise and initiative and to their threatened security and a way found by properly constituted authority to protect their interests as essential workers, consumers and taxpayers.
5.	(a) Youth should be educated, trained and given equal opportunity to equip themselves for life.
(b) Those of working age should be provided with ample opportunity for adult education.
6.	We believe that the reconstruction of postwar Canadian economy must be based upon the following principle set forth in section 5 of the Atlantic Charter:
"Fifth: They desire to bring about the fullest collaboration between all nations in the economic field with the object of securing for all, improved labour standards, economic advancement and social security."
The Address*-Mr. Gray don

A social security programme, the adoption of which we advocated, would include in a unified system:
(a)	Unemployment insurance;
(b)	Adequate payments for the maintenance of unemployables;
(c)	Retirement insurance;
(d)	The payment of increased old age pensions, at a reduced age, until such time as the retirement insurance scheme becomes fully operative;
(e)	Adequate pensions for the blind;
(f)	Adequate mothers' and widows' allowances.
7.	We advocate the appointment of a Minister of Social Security and Reconstruction, charged with the administration of social security in this country.
8.	The state's share of the cost of the social security system should be borne by the dominion.
9.	We recognize the obligation of government to make available to every citizen adequate medical, dental, nursing, hospital and pre-natal care, and to further advance public health and nutritional principles so that health may be safeguarded and preserved. This programme is to be financed under a contributory system supplemented by government assistance.
I think it would be of interest to the house and to the country also to have repeated here a paragraph from the nation-wide address of our leader, Hon. John Bracken, delivered on December 21, 1942; it is pertinent to the subject under discussion. Mr. Bracken said:
Every human being that is born into our society has a right to feel that he is welcome in it; that he has a share in Canada; that he is a member of the Canadian team, with a part to play in it, as a citizen in his Canada; that he will be expected to make the most he can of his own life and to make the maximum contribution he can to society; that he is entitled to a job and will receive a reward in relation to his enterprise, and that, in the event of old age, ill-health or other misfortune overtaking him, he will have the assurance of a reasonable standard of social and economic security.
All these minimum standards, however, guaranteed as they may be, are not sufficient. I believe on this occasion I should raise my voice on behalf of the industrial workers across Canada who have one thing very clearly in mind, and justly, I think; that is, if we as a country are able to keep the wheels of industry turning in order to destroy people and property, we must see to it that we keep the wheels of industry turning to provide goods which are not destructive in character, for the peace-time happiness of the people of the world. No matter who may be administering the government at the time, one thing is abundantly clear, namely, that the worker who is now employed must be kept employed when this war is over, making consumer goods instead of the destructive goods of war. Such

work will be just as necessary and just as urgent then as the work in which these men are now engaged. The worker must have the guarantee that the days of the dole, of relief and of national charity for him are over; that in a new plan our people will have work and will have wages, with good standards of living and happiness, under a democratic system, so that the war shall not have been fought in vain.
Something else must not be forgotten. There are hundreds of thousands of men and women in the armed forces of our dominion, both overseas and at home. Are we thinking of them? To-day these men and women are inarticulate so far as our public affairs are concerned. We do not hear much from the man who has donned a uniform, for very good reasons; but what is he thinking? When the war is over, his thoughts are going to crystallize into one or two very pertinent questions which will be asked of all of us. One of the questions he will ask when he takes off his uniform will be this: "While I was prepared to sacrifice life and limb if necessary for the maintenance and preservation of a democratic system which I thought worth while, what did you do at home which would measure up to a reasonable approach to equality of sacrifice?" Our plans must be so comprehensive and far-reaching that not one of these men, by virtue of having worn a uniform, shall, when he comes back, be in an inferior position, either financially or as to opportunity, than he would have been had he continued in civilian life. Rather he should be in a preferred position, and that must be part and parcel of our plan. If these objectives and many others are not attained, we may yet win the war and fail to win the peace. In the interests of a civilized state and in the interests of democracy it is important that the serious thought and consideration of the government, and of every person in this country, should be directed to what I think is this most worthy and most essential end.
I come now to a matter which has to do with those of us in this chamber; that is, the question of the position of parliament. The War Measures Act gives a somewhat new complexion in a war-time period to our parliamentary procedure. The enabling powers which the act confers upon the cabinet are, I take it, primarily intended for the purpose of meeting emergencies which may arise in the course of the war. Once the government has these powers, I fancy the temptation is great to use them more abundantly and more frequently than was originally contemplated. The result has been that while, theoretically, parliament is still

The Address-Mr. Graydon
in control-and I think no one will argue against that-for all practical purposes the position of parliament has deteriorated considerably from its peace-time position with respect to legislation. Few will argue against the enactment of the War Measures Act. I have heard no one question its enactment, but I have heard many question the use to which the measure has been put.
It has been my opinion that it is right and proper that the government should have extraordinary powers in an extraordinary period. But let us examine the manner in which legislation is to-day enacted. Only a comparatively small trickle is ever offered for the attention of parliament. Practically all of the major legislative changes in the past three and a half years have been brought about by order in council, sometimes when parliament was sitting, and sometimes when parliament was adjourned or prorogued.
The cabinet, however, has gone much further. It has allowed its boards, controllers and administrators to do a little legislating on their own, as well. With the situation we have to-day where, I ask, is the boasted supremacy of parliament? Theoretically, it is supreme, yes; but is it in practice? I ask every hon. member to examine the position. As a private member I had difficulty myself in trying to keep up with the legislation. How many hon. members have the time either to read or to digest the great numbers of books and gazettes containing war orders and regulations? I venture to say that if I were to take a poll of the cabinet I would find that even they are not entirely conversant with all the legislation that has gone through. How then do they expect private members in parliament to- be in a superior position?
We must watch most carefully {hat this trend does not increase. I know the Prime Minister has been most anxious to avoid the growth of certain customs and practices throughout Canada, but this is one custom or practice on which he had better keep an eye, himself. While perhaps in some instances there may be justification for a situation of this kind, we must watch that it does not get out of hand.
If legislation is to be passed by other than the people's representatives in parliament, then it seems only fair that great sections of our population-groups, if you like-should have adequate representation upon these new boards and new bodies which are to pass our laws.
Let us look at the cabinet. I draw the attention of the house to its personnel. Let us look them over. We find that nineteen 72537-3
men hold portfolios. Bearing in mind that labour and agriculture are two of our most important classes of citizens, let us see how they are represented in the cabinet which sits across the way. Well, the closest approach to a farmer among these nineteen men is, of course, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). I have heard it said that he was a much better school-teacher and politician than he was a farmer, even in his palmiest days. I hasten to add that I cannot subscribe to that extreme view.
Then, turning to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell), who, by the way, laughs at the moment at my reference to the Minister of Agriculture, we can say that the only representative of labour among the nineteen members of the cabinet is a man who was once closely identified with labour.


Mr. MITCHELL:: And still is.


Gordon Graydon: It appears there is one
man in the house who says he is-and that happens to be the Minister of Labour himself. We know that in recent years he was an employee of the present government and, if one were to listen to at least some branches of organized labour, it would seem that he does not voice the views of labour quite as accurately as perhaps he should. I have such high personal regard for both of the gentlemen I have mentioned that I hesitate to go further in my criticism. I call the attention of the house to this condition only to emphasize the fact that in war time and through the medium of the War Measures Act we have here a group of men who are doing much of our legislating. They are doing extensive legislating for farmers and working men across Canada. Is it any wonder there is much restlessness among these two groups, when they see the inadequate representation in the cabinet, or representation much less than that to which they are entitled? I do not make these observations with the thought of casting any reflection upon other members of the cabinet. This is entirely a question of occupational differences. I must point out, however, that unless this condition is changed, unless more responsibility is given to those who actually represent the people, and so long as this inadequate representation of these two great sections in our community continues, we are going to pay a big price, a dear one, in the days ahead.
I shall not discuss in detail the various boards and public corporations, but I might be permitted to refer to two examples in order to show what is happening. Since the wartime prices and trade board is perhaps best known, I shall deal first with it. This

The Address-Mr. Graydon

board functions actively under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley). It is a board consisting of ten members, including a chairman. Occupationally they run all the way from a leading banker to a former university professor who, I might add, is perhaps the nearest approach to an agricultural representative on the board. So far as I can see, however, labour is not represented. I ask this question: who comprise the great consumer population in Canada if it is not the working men and their families? Because production, distribution and1 consumption are to a great extent controlled by the board in a fashion which affects the everyday lives of these two great classes in the community, surely from an occupational point of view there should be a different set-up on the wartime prices and trade board. There are some excellent men on the board; I shall not make a single comment about any one of them. But I do urge that from the occupational point of view much is left to be desired, if the board is to hold the confidence of the producers-yes, and of the consumers in our country.	.
I now come to an organization which is the subject of discussion of people throughout the country and sometimes of hon. members. I refer to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Here is a body which ministers, or should minister, to the needs of the people I have mentioned. The majority of its listeners are to be found in those areas where working men and their families abound, and in the rural areas of the dominion. It is controlled by a board of governors, the personnel of which includes, first of all, its chairman who is a trust officer. Its vicechairman is a motion-picture man. There are on the board two men of the church as well as an authoress and, I believe, three lawyers. During last session the radio broadcasting committee brought down a report to this house, in which report the board of governors was censured. I believe the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. McCann) will corroborate me in this. They were not censured as much as I should have liked to see them censured. I think they should have been asked to resign. However, everyone did not see as I did, and the result was that they were not specifically asked to resign. Even at that, I think the hint should have been good enough.


Mr. HOMUTH:: Not with salaries like
that.


Gordon Graydon: I am not going to say that they get high salaries, because I do not think they do. That was not the point I was

trying to make. When they came to appoint a new general manager, these nine members of the board of governors could not find anybody in the whole eleven and one-half million people in Canada to appoint except one of their own members. The hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth) can now make his interjection about the high salary paid to that official.
The report of the committee went further and asked that on the board there should be adequate representation of farm and labour. Where is it? When Doctor Thompson left the board a vacancy was created which has remained ever since. No working man has been appointed to the board. When great authority is placed in the hands of government owned corporations, the government should be particularly careful about the composition of the boards from occupational and other points of view. This care has not always been exercised.
I ask the government to give consideration to a policy which will bring back the supremacy of parliament once more, not just in theory but in practice, in order that some abuses which apparently have grown up shall not be allowed to continue and to extend. For quite a long time a clamour has arisen from all parts of this house for a better distribution of work. That clamour has not arisen just from one or two members on a certain side of the house. It has not been confined to any one political party. It echoes pretty generally t'he feeling all over the house that appropriate use should be made of the membership of the House of Commons, to say nothing of the embarrassing position in which the members of another chamber find themselves during this time. If the government's policy for the efficient use of manpower is. demonstrated by the way in which it uses the man-power in this and in another chamber, then I think some criticism must be offered of this master man-power plan.
There is another matter which has been in my thoughts for a long time. As members of the house we have a responsibility which perhaps we do not always shoulder, which perhaps we do not always realize. With every ounce of emphasis at my command I say that we should try to elevate the prestige of this chamber to a point higher than it is to-day. If we are to be proper instruments of democracy, we should so conduct ourselves in this chamber-we are all sinners in this regard and what. I am saying applies to myself as well as to other members, but that should not stop me-that the men and women who fill these galleries, whether they be from the farming sections, whether they represent labour, or

The Address-Mr. Graydon
more particularly whether they represent the branches of our armed forces, may be proud of the proceedings of the chamber. This is more important now than it has ever been.
I have a feeling that in many instances people do not go away with that thought in their minds. If democracy is to approach perfection, I think we must go a long way yet. There never was a time in the history of Canada when the people watched this chamber more carefully and with more interest. Everything we do, everything we say is recorded in the minds and in the thoughts of great sections of our people. I ask the Prime Minister and you, Mr. Speaker: Can this chamber meet that test at the present time? If it cannot, then we must see that it does meet that test no matter what reorientation or changes may be necessary. It is essential for the strengthening of the democratic state in this dominion.
There are many reforms which members of this house could suggest. I cannot agree with the answer given to me last Friday by the Prime Minister when I asked for a modernization of the rules and procedure of the house. He said that we should not do it in time of war; but it does not make any difference whether we are at war or at peace, the obligation faces us. We cannot delay in bringing this chamber to the point where it will be an exact and perfect reflection of the men and women across Canada whom we represent. I am so completely convinced of this that I hope you will accept my apologies for being so vehemently insistent. This chamber should be the reflection of a great dominion, but is it the true reflection that we would want it to be? That is a challenge which we have to meet. We are anxious to contribute wherever we can to creating a condition whereby this chamber will be a more exact reflection of what the ordinary man and woman across Canada expect in their representative body. Therefore I say to the Prime Minister and the government, let us be very careful how we conduct ourselves in this house. All of us make mistakes. Perhaps, being an amateur as leader of the opposition, I shall make more mistakes than a good many others. But whatever mistakes we make, let them be honest mistakes. The people of this country do not mind mistakes, but they want to know that when they are made, they are made with good intentions.
In Great Britain the prestige of parliament is high, because the leaders have kept it high. Perhaps there is no closer relationship anywhere in the world between parliament and people than in Britain to-day. I do not wish to make comparisons between our own house and the British House of Commons, but we have an example over there which we should try to emulate. I should like to see the Prime 72537-3i
Minister and all members of this house make every possible effort to measure up to what is expected of the parliaments of the British commonwealth of nations.
I like to think of that peerless leader of Britain in this period of war. I like to think of the prestige he has given to the British house, and of what he has done for public-morale in his own country and others which are- fighting along with it. I recall the closing: words of the British Prime Minister's speech in the spring of 1940 when he assumed the leadership of that great nation, at a time when it looked as though the whole world were collapsing, when it seemed as though democracy were about to perish from the face of the earth, when Britain seemed in imminent danger of invasion. With the thunder of battle overhead, without a shudder, without a shiver, with the grim determination and courgae for which he -is noted, he lifted the British people, yes, he lifted the world, and he uttered a challenge which will go down through the halls of time and should, I believe, find an echo here:
We shall never surrender. . . .
We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. . . .We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and streets and in the hills. . . .We shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island, or even part of it, is subjugated and starving, then our empire across the seas, armed and guarded by the British fleet, will carry on the struggle, until in God's good time, the new world, in all its strength and might, sets forth to the rescue and liberation of the old. . . .
That, Mr. Speaker, is the challenge I leave with this parliament-with the Prime Minister and all of us-to see to it that the kind of leadership which produced that statement and built the morale of Britain shall be given by members and leaders alike in this House of Commons. I ask every hon. member to think carefully and seriously of our duty and our obligation as the people's representatives.
I move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) in amendment to the address in reply to the speech from the throne, that the following words be added to the address:
"We respectfully submit to Your Excellency that this house regrets that Your Excellency's advisers have failed:
(a)	to provide an adequate plan for the effective use of Canada's man and woman power:
(b)	to adopt and carry through a rational labour policy which will ensure maximum production and give to labour its rightful position as one of the major partners in our Canadian democracy: and
(c)	to provide adequate measures whereby Canadian agriculture can make its maximum war contribution and receive a fair share of the national income."

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, my hon.
friend the new leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon), at the outset of his remarks, stated -that he thought he would have to ask hon. members for their sympathy because this was the first occasion on which he has addressed the house as leader of the opposition. May I say to my hon. friend that I think all members of the house will agree with me when I say that they envied him his facility of utterance and of constructive criticism rather than of feeling that he was in need of any sympathy.
As one who has gone through the experience which my hon. friend is having to-day, I have quietly been recalling some of the sensations which I experienced at the time; and I must say that I should feel happy indeed if I thought I had made as good a presentation in my first effort as leader of the opposition as he has made to-day.
However, I do think he has fallen into one or two of the errors which I myself fell into at the time-no doubt, due to a certain immaturity and lack of experience of the way in which parliament views some things. One of those mistakes, I would say, was that my hon. friend had far too many grievances in his first presentation to the house. He rather spoiled his address by seeking to cover all the ground at once. And may I say that I think he devoted far too much of his time to the Winnipeg convention. I believe the country is still much more interested in the war, and the effective prosecution of the war, and more concerned that parliament should devote its time mainly to those considerations which are vital as respects the war, than it is in the platform which was drawn up by my hon. friend and his friends at Winnipeg and its presentation in this house. However, I do recall that -when I was leader of the opposition, I had a feeling that it was part of the duty one owed to one's party to see that its platform was spread out on Hansard in as extensive a manner as possible, since that was one way in which it was easy for members of a party to see that all parts of the country were supplied with copies of the platform at the country's expense. I imagine my hon. friend has had that consideration in mind himself to-day.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: A part of our platform is now in the speech from the throne.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, my hon. friends have taken about twenty-five years to catch up with the party on this side of the house in some of the policies which they are advocating to-day, and they are quite welcome
FMr. Graydon.]
to any satisfaction it may give them in seeing some things which they have been recently advocating set forth in the speech from the throne.
In that connection, may I say that I do not regard it as an entire misfortune that all the parties in the house to-day should be taking a more profound interest in questions of social security than some of them have in the past. If that were not so, I- should think that some of us at least had failed entirely to appreciate what is really fundamental in the great struggle which is taking place in the world to-day. It is a struggle which, above all, so far as the allied forces are concerned, aims at the preservation of freedom and, along with that, at a social revolution which will see that more in the way of equality of opportunity and more in the way of freedom from want and from fear shall become the lot of the great mass of mankind.
I appreciate very much my hon. friend's reference to the speeches of the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. He said that he did not altogether like the fulsome praise that is indulged in at the beginning of sessions with reference to speeches made by mover and seconder, and he thought it was just as well to get rid of some of these traditions that have grown up. I am quite in agreement with him on the question of fulsome praise; but though I may be Liberal and not Tory in my sympathies, I am not prepared to say that I should like to get rid of all tradition. I think tradition has its place, particularly in the affairs of parliament, and I believe that the tradition which permits to members on one side of the house an occasional opportunity to say something that is pleasant to those opposite is a very good one. I do agree with my hon. friend, however, that the speeches which were delivered by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Harris) and the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Halle) were exceptional in many particulars. They were exceptionally well delivered, and they were exceptional also in what they contained. I have read through both speeches since we heard them in the house; and I believe that, considered from the point of view of what, in a time of war, it is appropriate and most helpful for a member of parliament to say in the House of Commons, it would be impossible to find their equal in any speeches delivered on the address at any previous time.
I believe that this House of Commons was particularly proud to see two of its members wearing His Majesty's uniform, one coming from the old province of Ontario and the other from the old province of Quebec, addressing

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
the house at this time of war, at the opening of the session, using the words which they addressed to all who were here assembled. My hon. friends were right when they said that their selection was not a 'compliment merely to themselves, though it might well have been so merited, nor merely a compliment to their constituencies, which they were kind enough to suggest that it also might have been, but that it was first and foremost intended as a recognition of the service the armed forces of our country are rendering to Canada and the cause of freedom to-day. Not only that, it was also a recognition of the number of the members of the house who today are serving in the armed forces of Canada. We may all be proud that so large a percentage of the membership of this house is composed of men on active service at the present time.
What I felt most about the speeches of my hon. friends was that each brought us very close to the armed forces and to the services *which they are rendering. One hon. member had just returned from England; both are going overseas very shortly. Their addresses brought home to all of us, I think, in a more intimate way than would otherwise have been possible, the magnitude and the perils of war and the service being rendered not to our country only but to the world through Canada's war effort at this time.
Their speeches also, I felt, helped to remind us of the unity which our country has happily preserved through these trying times. Each of these speakers spoke wholly irrespective of the province from which he came, wholly irrespective of the race from which he is descended, wholly irrespective of his own native tongue. They spoke solely as Canadians, and in speaking as Canadians, they reminded us of the spirit which underlies the service of our men abroad, and which was so well expressed by Abbe Sabourin when, in giving an account of the spirit with which the men who served at Dieppe entered upon that great reconnaissance, he said, "We went there not thinking of our faith, not thinking of our tongue, or of tradition; we went there thinking of Canada, our country which we were seeking to defend, and the cause of freedom which we were championing at that time."
Members on all sides of the house will rejoice that that spirit of Canadian unity underlying the services which are being rendered at this time has been made so manifest and clear in the first speeches that have been delivered in this house.
There was one other thought that came to my mind as both hon. members spoke. It was what they felt service in the armed forces had
afforded members of those services in terms of a wider outlook. It was apparent from their remarks that, in their opinion, service in the armed forces had an effect upon all who had enlisted, in enlarging their outlook, in giving them a greater appreciation of common human needs and, in association with that, an enlargement of the expectation of what should await them when the war is over. In other words, they made clear to us that, while they are fighting at the front to help to preserve our country and our freedom, they have a right to expect that those in this parliament, those who remain behind in this country, will so conduct its affairs that when they return to Canada they will find a better condition awaiting them than has been possible heretofore at any time. Both have given us in their addresses the keynote for the discussion which we should have in this parliament during the session. If we can follow the example which they have set of avoiding recriminations, of stressing the real significance of this war and also the importance of the post-war period; if we confine our discussions along those lines, our service will be one which will long be remembered and appreciated by the country.
My hon. friend the leader of the opposition began and concluded his own remarks by reference to ideals in public life, and maintaining the prestige of parliament. May I say that with all that he said of that as an objective I am in most hearty accord. I think I can say in the presence of all who are here that in the twenty-seven years I have been a member of this parliament I have from the beginning sought, so far as it lay within my power, to maintain the highest traditions with respect to parliament and its proceedings. I think that, in the years when I was the leader of the opposition, some seven in all, and in the years I have been leader of the government, now nearly sixteen, I have throughout done the best I possibly could to maintain a high tradition with respect to public life, both within the halls of parliament, and on the platform in the country.
Perhaps my hon. friend while making that appeal did not altogether consider that in some ways it might have seemed to be a reflection upon the members of this house. The other day my hon. friend the former leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) spoke of his effort to maintain high traditions in debate and decorum in the house, and I said I thought he had succeeded in setting a good example in that respect, although all of us, as my hon. friend said, are liable at moments to slip a little. But I do maintain that if

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
one contrasts the proceedings in this parliament with those of any other legislative assembly on earth, they will be found to compare favourably with those of other assemblies.
My hon. friend referred to the British House of Commons, a noble institution. It has maintained high standards; but I submit that any one who has followed the discussions in the British House of Commons, even in this time of war, will have observed that, in many particulars, they have been more acrimonious than has been the case with discussions that have taken place here. And as far as comparisons with what takes place in congress or elsewhere are concerned, I think this House of Commons can stand on its own feet without fear. However, I am pleased that my hon. friend is going to do all in his power to see that this high standard is maintained, and I shall certainly do what I can to cooperate with him toward that end.
My hon. friend asked me to speak on a large number of subjects. I had rather made up my mind that I would follow a different course this session if possible; that I 'would not make speeches that were too -long. I have been criticized a great deal on that score, and I must say as I listened to my hon. friend to-day I began to see that such criticism may be very just. Therefore I hope he will not expect me to answer to-day all the questions he has raised. But at the appropriate time during the course of the session I shall do the best I can to give him the information he wishes.
He spoke at considerable length of what he referred to as dissatisfaction with the administration. He spoke more particularly of dissatisfaction with what is sometimes referred to as a growing bureaucracy. My hon. friend referred to it in different connections. He referred to it in speaking of the Winnipeg programme. He referred to it as a departure from responsible government because of the powers given to boards, and the orders passed under the War Measures Act.
No one deplores more than I do, and I am sure hon. members in the house generally do, that, in a time of war, it is necessary to establish. boards to do what responsible ministers in time of peace are able to manage without such additions to the administration. But in times of war it is simply impossible for ordinary government departments to hope to administer the different policies that have to be carried out except with the aid of boards of one kind and another to assist the ministers.
My hon. friends opposite have changed their attitude very much toward the government in

that particular. I remember in the first year of the war, and even up to late in 1941, we were being told over and over again that what the country wanted was not political control in matters pertaining to the war. What they said was wanted were independent bodies, bodies that would1 be free of political control altogether. The leader of the opposition of the day was continually saying that the administration was seeking far too much to control matters. Look at the financial papers of the country and see the extent to which they, at that time, were saying that the government was keeping the administration of all these matters far too much in its own hands; that we ought to have experts, leading men in industry and business throughout the country, enlist them in the service of the government, give them a free hand and not interfere with them, allow them to act independently.
But now that the government has enlisted very large numbers of business men and business experts in the administration of war affairs, my hon. friends say, No! no! these gentlemen should not be allowed to administer these things. The government ought to take into its own hahds the control through the responsible ministers who are the heads of the different departments; in other words, there should be more in the way of political control. It is easy to criticize, but I ask hon. members to place themselves in the position of the administration in dealing with war affairs. I submit that the only way in which it is possible for the government to carry on in time of war is to have allied with it in matters of administration such organizations as are necessary, organizations improvised in connection with carrying out the affairs of the administration. That does not mean that the government or any minister of the crown ceases to be responsible for the administration of affairs; the responsibility must always rest on the ministry.
In order to bring home more clearly to hon. members what I have in mind, may I say that when the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), dealing with the affairs of his department, has made the appointments of the military authorities, which he thinks are necessary and best, the generals and other officers who have command on the military side, he is still finally responsible for any mistakes which they make. The last thing, however, he would be expected to do is to be continually interfering with those who have been given a particular task to perform on the field of battle.
It is exactly the same with respect to the ministry in relation to the other departments which have to do with the administration of

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
war affairs. The government's responsibility lies in appointing men whom it can trust and giving them the authority to carry out their duties with as little interference as possible. If the government were to be continually interfering in the day-to-day administration, it would be impossible to secure men who would be prepared to serve.
I am not trying to excuse the faults that I know exist in human nature. It is impossible to get any organization of men and not find among the number some who will be arrogant, some who will be carried away with an exaggerated sense of their own importance, some who will do most absurd, ridiculous and arbitrary things. As these men are discovered I agree they should be let out of the administration, one by one, as rapidly as may be possible. But looking over the men who to-day are giving their services to this country as experts assisting the government in the administration of our war effort, I do say that it would be very difficult to find in any country a body of men rendering finer service.
The word "bureaucracy" is one that catches the public fancy; it is a word used very freely. But let me ask about the present position. A bureaucracy is usually understood as being a body of public servants who are permanently secure in their positions and therefore able to take an autocratic attitude. Are the men who are administering the war effort of this country confined to the civil service of Canada? As far as the civil service of the country is concerned, I am afraid that it has had far too few additions to its numbers during the course of the war. For the most part the civil servants have simply had to work harder and to work longer hours; and a more devoted body of men than there is in the civil service, particularly among those at the heads of departments, I say cannot be found in any public service. But the men who make up the larger number assisting the government in the war effort are men holding only temporary positions. They are not men who have come into the service of the government of this country, to remain there indefinitely. They are there for the period of the war, or for such time during that period as they may be prepared and free to give to the public service. They cannot be described as a bureaucracy in any true sense of that word.
But is there not another explanation behind everything else? Is not the fault that is being found with those administering the war effort of Canada to-day primarily an objection to the restrictions being placed upon people at this time, the controls which necessarily must be exercised over the public at large in time of
war? That is something which cannot possibly be escaped. We in this country have been freer, I suppose, than the people of almost any other country. We have had less in the way of control and more in the way of freedom of enterprise and of individual freedom. But in a time such as this, when a country is engaged in total war, that freedom necessarily must be restricted, and greatly restricted; and it is these restrictions that are causing the irritation.
My hon. friend has been referring to the duties and responsibilities of members of this house. I think there is an obligation upon every member of this house to help interpret that aspect of our war effort to the people of this country, instead of making it more difficult for the government or these administrators in the discharge of their public duties. We have a right to ask that this aspect of the question shall be present at all times in the minds of all in our discussions here.
Just in case I should fail to recall it later on, I should like to say a word at this point about the discussions in parliament during this session, and I do so after having reflected very carefully upon what I consider is likely to be the tendency in the course of this year's discussions. During the recent past we as a government have been told that we must not have anything whatever to do with politics; that this is a time of war and that, therefore, there must be no domestic politics discussed. Recently we had a convention of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, led by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), at which a political programme was brought forward. We have just had the convention at which my hon. friend opposite (Mr. Graydon) was present and which he helped to arrange, and a political platform was drawn up by that party. I do not know whether there have been conventions of some other parties recently formed; but, at any rate, we now have several parties in this house, each having a political platform of its own. There is a general impression in the minds of a good many that this probably will be the last session of this parliament, and consequently that they had better begin to educate the public with respect to the various contributions they hope to make to the public welfare. I suppose that may be an inevitable tendency; but, having regard to the position of the world to-day; having regard to the Very critical stage which the war has reached, may I express the hope that we shall not fall into the error of devoting too much time to discussing the merits of respective political platforms instead of keeping our thoughts centred, above everything

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
else, upon the fact that to-day we are in the midst of the greatest struggle for survival with which any people have ever been faced.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If my
right hon. friend will allow me, he will agree that there is one way to avoid that, and he has it within his power to announce that way.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend that I thought it would not be long before we would see that we had two leaders opposite. But he and I will have a talk about it, to see if we cannot keep our young friend in order.
I want to emphasize this point, because today, with the great successes which fortunately have attended the arms of the allied powers; with what has taken place since the last meeting of this house in the improved position in Russia, in Africa, in the southwest Pacific, and, indeed, wherever the allied powers have been fighting, I think there is in the minds of a great many people the belief that this year is going to see the end of the war. It is not for me to try to discourage optimism in the mind of anyone; I think we need all we can get in the way of support for our continued efforts; but there could be no greater mistake in the world than to believe that we have advanced any further than this, that the allied and the axis powers are a little more evenly matched than they have been at any time heretofore. The power of Germany remains greater, I believe, than anyone in this chamber can begin to comprehend, and that power has to be destroyed before the liberation of the countries that have been oppressed can be brought about. But in addition to the power of Germany there is the might of Japan, which is great indeed; and these powers still have to be overthrown before any of us can begin to concentrate in the main on what is going to come in the post-war period. There was a remark made by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce in his address the other day which I thought very sound. He said he did not think there was any reason to fear what the conclusion of this war would be, but that we should take great care in any estimate we might make of its duration. This war may be and probably will be very much longer than any one of us begins to comprehend; and unless we direct our energies primarily to seeing to it that, first and foremost, we do those things necessary to bring it speedily to a conclusion, we are not going to help either ourselves or the allied powers. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I trust that so far as this session is concerned it will not be thought that I am seeking in any way to

abridge debate or discussion if, with my responsibility for leadership in the house, I do the best I possibly can to keep the minds of hon. members centred on the winning of the war-and that in as short a time as may be possible.
My hon. friend has asked me to speak about the conference at Casablanca. May I say that in all particulars it was similar to conferences which have taken place between Mr. Churchill and the President on three previous occasions when these two great leaders, one of Great Britain, and the other of the United States, met in conference together. As hon. members will recall the first meeting was off the coast of Newfoundland; the second was in Washington in December of 1941 and January of 1942, while the third was in Washington in June of 1942. The recent meeting, as hon. members are aware, took place at Casablanca in North Africa.
As I have said, the meeting at Casablanca was a meeting between these two leaders and their military experts, the civil and military leaders of Great Britain and the civil and military leaders of the United States. I was not invited to be present at the conference- and that, I think, for the best of reasons. My position or rather that of Canada is similar in all particulars, or at least in many particulars, to that of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and some other parts of the British commonwealth. Not only is it similar to the position of other parts of the commonwealth, but in many particulars it is similar to that of other of the united nations. The countries at war to-day are large in number. There are now some thirty countries forming what are known as the united nations. If one of the united nations is to be invited to a conference between two great leaders, there is every reason why other nations should feel that they were entitled to a like invitation.
From the beginning of the war I have had to face this question, and be prepared to malce answer to it:	As the leader of the government in Canada, am I in a time of war going to make more difficult than it is the situation which exists, or am I going to try to do all I possibly can to be as reasonable as it is possible for a man to be, and thereby make the situation easier than it would otherwise be?
I could this afternoon protest to the house that Canada had not been invited to the conference. Were I to do so, how much would I be helping the war effort of this country or the combined effort of the united nations? In the first place, as I have said, I do not see how it would have been possible to have singled out one country for invitation, and not to have invited others. But more than

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
that, I believe we have to do one of two things, when it comes to the matter of supreme strategy: either we must have confidence in those who are at the head of the united nations' war effort of to-day, do all we can to let the world see that we have that confidence, and assist them in every way we can, or we must take a different attitude, one which to my mind could only result in disaster.
But when I say that countries other than Great Britain and the United States were not represented at the Casablanca conference, it does not mean that the governments of those countries were not fully aware of the discussions that were going to take place there, and that they have not been informed with respect to discussions that have taken place. In connection with all matters pertaining to the war there is a certain procedure that has been built up-improvised, if you like. It has had to be improvised, because the war is something new, and the situation changes from day to day. And in that improvisation of the war effort of so many nations, tacitly if you like- and I think more . than tacitly; I could say openly-there has been a recognition of the fact that the Prime Minister of Great Britain and the President of the United States were the two men around whom all could rally in support of any policies concerning which they might give the final word. In the shaping of that policy every part of the British empire and all of the united nations, in so far as it is possible for them to be consulted and informed in the matter, have a part.
Our chiefs of staff in this city are in constant touch with the combined chiefs of staff having their headquarters at Washington. The war committee of the cabinet is informed of the discussions taking place there from day to day. We have a permanent liaison officer, an official of the government, who is there at the present time, and is there also throughout the year. We are entitled to follow discussions and to be heard respecting any aspect of the war situation we may wish to present. Canada's interests in these matters are placed fully before the boards that are continuously sitting and dealing with these matters.
A decision reached at Casablanca is not a decision come to suddenly by the President and the Prime Minister. Such decision is the outcome of discussions which have extended over many months, and which are finally crystallized in a formal way by the heads of these two great countries. So far as Canada is concerned, there is no man in any part of the world who has had more intimate and close association with the British staff than
has General MoNaughton, the head of the Canadian forces. On military matters, General McNaughton, I venture to say, knows the mind of the staff in Great Britain as well as any member of the staff knows his own. mind. And. they know General McNaughton's mind. And when British staff officers go to Casablanca they dio not go to support a .policy which they believe is superior to the views of General McNaughton; they go to support a policy which they know has been fully considered before the matter eveT came up in conference there.
I do not think I need go into detail in connection with that matter. However, expecting that the question would be raised this afternoon, I thought it best not to trust myself to express myself extemporaneously on the point, and prepared some notes which I intend to place on Hansard.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned at six o'clock I was speaking of the conference at Casablanca, and had just stated that having regard to the care with which any statement on a matter so all-important as that of the conference at Casablanca should be prepared, I preferred to read from notes which I had prepared rather than to trust to the expression at the moment of what I might say. Naturally this house will realize that anything that is said in any part of the British commonwealth, if it comes from the lips of the leader of a government in any of those parts, will be taken in all other parts of the world, including enemy countries, as something which is expressive of the policy of the united nations as a *whole. I make that statement because there are many questions I should like to answer, many questions that I am in position to answer but am not free to answer. I am not free to answer for the simple reason that they affect all the governments to which I have referred. Without the opportunity of conferring with them and obtaining their consent I would be venturing beyond what I think would be proper to attempt to answer in their name as well as in my own. For the present, therefore, with respect to Casablanca I shall content myself with the following statement.
The talks in Casablanca were discussions between the heads of the United Kingdom and



The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
United States governments and their principal military advisers, in direct continuation of arrangements made during Mr. Churchill's first visit to Washington for the establishment of combined United Kingdom-United States machinery for cooperation in various phases of the war effort. These combined arrangements were designed to effect closer coordination between these two countries, with each of which Canada maintains especially close and intimate relations. There has not yet been developed out of the combined United Kingdom-United States organizations the more comprehensive institutional organization which a total war effort of all the united nations probably requires. The difficulties in the way which will have to be overcome should be obvious to everybody. Nobody would wish to sacrifice the speed and efficiency which effective strategy demands to the formal exigencies of international representative institutions.
To wage war effectively, all our governments have had to assume unprecedented powers and responsibilities and have had to delegate unprecedented powers and responsibilities. There is constantly room for improvement in the plans by which we are mobilizing our own war effort and integrating it with the war effort of our allies. There has been a good deal of pretty successful improvisation to meet the means of war conditions. New types of joint arrangements, new agencies for mutual aid, new channels for communication and consultation, are being worked out. The framework of over-all cooperation is found in our association with our allies as members of the united nations. This framework is being progressively filled in and strengthened, but the job of constructing a workable international organization for the winning of the war and the maintenance of the peace is far from completed. There are obvious gaps and anomalies in the present arrangements to worry people who seek symmetry above all. I hope to see some of these gaps closed and anomalies removed.
We must somehow succeed in developing methods and instruments of cooperation which will strengthen the spirit of partnership in which all free peoples, large and small, are associated in our common struggle. In doing so we must not prejudice or compromise-in the slightest degree-the concentration of responsibility for strategic decision upon which the successful prosecution of the war depends.
I think that, statement will appeal to the common sense of members of this house. It will be apparent that however much we may desire to have organizations that may seem all-embracing, the form of organization which is likely to be most effective is something

which has to come into being as events help to determine the situation. When Mr. Churchill and the President met at Washington in December, 1941, and January, 1942, no one in any part of the British Commonwealth or in any of the united nations took exception to those two great leaders conferring together along with their military experts on the score that all other parts of the commonwealth or all the other united nations were not represented. The same was true when Mr. Churchill and the President met again in Washington in June of last year.
On one of those occasions, as hon. members will recall, Mr. Churchill visited Ottawa and was present at a meeting of the war committee of the cabinet at which he gave a statement to my colleagues and myself of the discussions which he and the President had had. I think I may recall also to the minds of hon. members that when the President and the Prime Minister of Great Britain first met at Washington I was invited by both to be present, and I was present at conferences that took place between them. I was not present at all the conferences, but I was kept very fully informed. Also at the time that the President and Mr. Churchill met in June, I was invited again to be present in Washington while they were there. I had many conversations with both of them individually and together in reference to the different matters they had been discussing.
I think I am at liberty to say now that, at the Washington conference in June, plans with respect to the invasion of North Africa were fully discussed. I had inside knowledge of those plans at that time. They were not carried out for some little time thereafter, but they were known to the military advisers of the governments of the united nations concerned, and later were made known to members of the war committee of our government in so far as it was desirable that they should be known.
In many of these matters of strategy there are obvious reasons why the information should be confined to military experts more particularly rather than made known generally to the civil authorities. I could mention other instances. Perhaps I am not disclosing a secret when I say that the President of the United States invited me just a month or two ago to visit him in Washington. I spent two days and a half with him as his guest at the White House. We were practically alone in our discussions in the White House at the time, and on that occasion I received from the President the fullest measure of his confidence with regard to matters pertaining to

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
the war. I have enjoyed a similar confidence in communications from Mr. Churchill. I am at the present time at liberty to say that when Mr. Churchill was in Russia having his conversations with Mr. Stalin he communicated with me fully with respect to those conferences. If there were any reason in the world to believe that the Canadian government was not receiving the fullest confidence of Mr. Churchill and his colleagues in the British government, or, as we have an equal right to receive it, in a certain measure, from the President of the United States and those who surround him, I would be the first one to take exception to a procedure which did not keep us fully informed. But I am sure hon. members of the house will agree with me that matters of the kind-the subjects w'hich are discussed, or matters incidental thereto-cannot be made known generally. But what I would like hon. members to appreciate is that some of these things place a very heavy burden upon whoever has to carry the responsibility of maintaining secrecy concerning them. I think I may ask from hon. gentlemen opposite that in so far as is possible for them to do so they will realize that I have a very great responsibility in the matter of confidences, confidences which have to be maintained if the war effort is to be carried on successfully; and I trust that they will not embarrass me by asking questions which it is impossible to answer without disclosing information that should not be disclosed.
My hon. friend has spoken about the importance of an imperial war cabinet. I thought that subject had been settled a year ago, if not before that. Since it was a subject of discussion in this house, Mr. Churchill himself has been here, and in this very chamber he has talked with members of all parties. I know that this question of an imperial war cabinet was discussed with him by various members of this house. Mr. Churchill has exactly the same view, I venture to say, as I myself have and as I have expressed in this house with regard to the position of an imperial war cabinet at this time. I may say that I have had the expression of the view of General Smuts of South Africa. It concurs in all particulars with my own. I have had personal conversations with the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Mr. Fraser; his view is the same as my own. I have not had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Curtin, but I happen to know that his views with respect to an imperial war cabinet and its functioning at a time of war are similar to my own. Indeed, I do not know anyone in a responsible position in any part of the British commonwealth to-day who takes other than the view that for the prime ministers to be . leaving their own countries to go and sit as 72537-4}
members of some imperial war cabinet in London would be the greatest possible mistake. Each country should, along with all else, attend to its own individual problems at a time like the present, and we can only -work and cooperate successfully in different parts of the empire if, first of all, each makes perfectly sure that matters which aTe of immediate concern to his own country receive the immediate attention of the leader of the government of that country.
But it does not follow that because there is not some outward and visible sign of an imperial war cabinet such as existed in the last war, and perhaps, to a certain extent, was necessary in the last war, there is not the most effective possible conference and consultation and cooperation between all parts of the British empire. The agencies of communication to-day are very different from what they were at the time of the last war. Anyone who reads Sir Robert Borden's memoirs will see the reason why he laid stress on an imperial war cabinet in London. He could not get any information from London; he did not know what was happening with respect to many of the matters which were being decided; he felt it very necessary that Canada should know on what grounds decisions were being made which were affecting her forces, and the only way that seemed possible to achieve that end at that time was either for Sir Robert himself to attend or for him to have one of his colleagues represent him at the council table in London.
The situation is very different to-day. Since Sir Robert Borden's day we have built up about as perfect a system of communication and consultation between different parts of the commonwealth as it is possible to have. Every day the government receives not one, but many dispatches, direct from the government of Britain relating to matters immediately affecting the war. There is not a major decision with respect to which Canada could be even remotely concerned that is not a subject of communication between us. There have been, I must say, one or.two occasions where decisions were reached very quickly in Britain and communicated to us immediately afterwards. Where those cases have arisen they have been matters which, in the opinion of the British government, did not permit the delay of so much as an hour or two in the matter of a decision. But may I say with respect to that and I could not give a better illustration of the importance of not resorting to the old method of consultation in the present war, with regard to any matter of real importance which is to be decided in Britain, if a prime minister attending an imperial con-

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
ference is to be other than an autocrat or dictator and to settle everything by his own word and decision, he would wish to communicate with his colleagues in Canada and get their views and the collective view, before he gave an official decision in the name of his own country. I have been at several conferences in Britain, and I know something about how matters are decided at the council table. I was present in the war cabinet in England, as hon. members know, a little over a year ago, and I must say that what I saw and felt as a member of a war council sitting in London only helped to emphasize what I am saying to the house at the present time, namely, the importance to a minister who wishes to be effective in decisions that he is required to make, of being able to say that he speaks, not in his own name alone, but in the name of his colleagues; and further, the importance of his having with him at the time he is making his decisions the expert officers of the departments which are immediately concerned. In attending a war cabinet meeting in London the ministers have, either sitting by their sides or in adjoining rooms, experts who come and give them the information on which they base their decisions; and these experts give the information as a result of long and carefully prepared consultation in advance. I go to London and take my place at a war cabinet, and unless I take the staff of military headquarters from the Department of National Defence, the staff of the Department of External Affairs, and officials from some other departments of the government, I am not in a position to say what the government of Canada is prepared to support in the House of Commons of Canada. But the way in which matters work out to-day is this, that if a question of importance comes up on which the views of Canada and the different parts of the commonwealth are desired, I may receive a cable at my office at eleven o'clock in the morning; I can have my colleagues together at half-past eleven; and in a great many cases I am able to send a reply at half-past twelve; if I am not, there is the best of reasons why that reply should be held over until there is an opportunity of getting expert advice from different sources here. But with respect to any decision that Canada makes it is important that we should have the decision made in the atmosphere of this new world in which we live and where we can take account not only of the feeling of Canada but also of possible relationships of questions arising that will be of concern as well to the United States. Time and time again, during this war, opinions have been sent from Canada on possible repercussions 
which would result in the United States or in some other part of the British commonwealth. I am sure that the British government would be the first to acknowledge that those opinions have been of the utmost service to the British government and to the common cause.
I say, therefore, that what we have to-day is a continuing conference between cabinets of the British commonwealth. Surely nothing could be better than that. Instead of a single war council at London to-day there is a collective cabinet, a cabinet composed of the cabinets of the nations of the British commonwealth. True, its members are not all sitting in one room, but you have a cabinet in Ottawa, one in Australia, one in New Zealand, one in South Africa, and one in London, all pooling their information there and in the different centres which I have mentioned; and out of that means of consultation and communication are evolved the different policies which are given expression to in one form or another. That is my answer to my hon. friend when he says that we have not the outward and visible sign of unity which we should have.
This is a world war, and methods that have proved adequate in the past are inadequate to-day. I am happy to be able to say that,, with one or two exceptions, I cannot see that we have suffered in the least by reason of not having further representation than we have at the present time in London.
May I add that we have in London a member of the Privy Council of Canada in the person of the Right Hon. Vincent Massey, the High Commissioner, one who has had a great deal of experience in public affairs and who enjoys the full confidence of the British government. Hon. members may not be aware that after important meetings of the war cabinet one of its members calls together the representatives of the governments of the different parts of the British commonwealth and advises them of what has been discussed in the war cabinet, and with respect to any matter that relates particularly to any one part of the commonwealth the fullest information is given on that particular subject.
Mr. Massey keeps in constant communication with myself and the Department of External Affairs and gives us this added information. In addition to that, we have in Ottawa a former member of the British government, the Right Hon. Malcolm MacDonald, than whom there could be no abler diplomat or one who has a better understanding of government, and he is receiving day by day from his government information which he imparts to our government. Further, I receive in regard

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
to the most important matters direct communications from Mr. Churchill, the British Prime Minister, and I communicate direct with him. In addition to that I receive, as Secretary of State for External Affairs, numbers of communications which come from the British government through the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs on all matters pertaining to the war. The result is that every day, before the day ends, my colleagues and I have here in Ottawa as complete a record as it is possible to obtain with respect to matters relating to the war up to that moment. There may be some matters that have to stand over for a day or two; but so far as procedure has gone up to the present, and speaking generally, we have been amazed at the rapidity with which the government has been kept informed on most matters. It may be that my hon. friend is not aware of how complete the whole system of consultation and conference is, but I trust that what I have said will answer any doubts there may be in his mind on that question.
My hon. friend has spoken about the manpower problem in Canada. Well, we have a man-power problem. Every country that is at war, indeed, for that matter even if it is not at war, has that problem to a greater or less degree. There certainly is no more difficult situation to handle than that of taking people out of occupations in which they have spent their lives and putting them into entirely different occupations. There is nothing more disrupting to good feeling than to be obliged, as the government is, in a time of war, to make restrictions which will prevent people from carrying on the pursuits in which they have been engaged since their earliest days and to which they had hoped to devote their lives, and to tell them to do something else, to go somewhere else. There is nothing more distasteful than suddenly to be obliged to have an officer of the government go into the homes of citizens of our country and tell them that it is a part of government policy that not merely the men but in some cases the women as well in those homes must leave them in order to help in the war industries of the country or to take part in some other form of war service. This is the most difficult problem with which any country can be faced at any time, and the amazing thing to me is that we have been able to work out matters as smoothly as we have.
At the last session of parliament I gave the house a statement of what I thought the man-power requirements for this year would be. Hon. members will see in Hansard of March 24, 1942, my statement of the estimate of what would be required to fulfil man-power
needs for the fiscal year 1942-43. These were the figures given: war industry, 100,000; navy, 13,000; army, 90,000-100,000; air force, 70,00080,000, making a total of from 173,000 to 193,000 for the armed forces all told. I think these figures were also given, in part at least, by my colleague the Minister of National Defence.
Various revisions have been made from time to time in the light of changing needs of the war. The army estimates were raised because of the increased home defence programme. What are the actual achievements? I have given the estimates. The actual achievements for 1942-that is, for the calendar year-were these:	For war industries, instead of merely
the number estimated being provided, that is 100,000, there were over 300,000 added. That was the number of persons who entered war industries. As regards the armed forces, the number was over 200,000, a figure above that which in the earlier stage had been estimated with regard to the three forces. In other words, the achievements in the mobilization of man-power greatly exceeded the earlier estimate in 1942.
There may be a controversy with regard to methods, if you will. AH methods, particularly new methods, when they are adopted, are difficult. But what matters most is the result, and I have given the house the results of such methods as have been employed in t'he past year.
I made perfectly clear to the house in what I said that it would not be an easy matter to carry out the necessary measures. Speaking on January 26, 1942, I said:
The administrative machinery required to carry out the proposed measures equitably and efficiently will necessarily be intricate and complicated. The capacities of men and women cannot be weighed and measured and graded with the same certainty as the qualities of wheat, or cement or steel can be determined. To perform the complicated task of selection with success will demand both time and skill.
I also said:
Certainly no government is wise enough to decide the appropriate task for every individual in the nation. And, even if governments were all-knowing, the war would not wait while this stupendous job was being performed. What the government can do, and what we propose to undertake to do, is to meet the urgent needs by the best means we can devise.
And that I say we have carried out in the way I have indicated.
Let me repeat that the government does not claim that it has been able to do everything perfectly or even as rapidly as might 'be desired. Perhaps I might direct the attention of hon. members to this fact, that there has not been a single phase of the war effort-I

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
make no exception-in connection with which this government has not been charged from the very start that we were not going fast enough, that we were not getting the results that should' be obtained. The very first year it was, Why didn't we have more troops overseas; why didn't we have more clothing; why didn't we have more equipment? My colleague the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) was continually taunted with not *getting planes fast enough, not getting tanks, that we had no tanks, and the like. So it has been all the way. Little if any account has been taken of the fact that unless there had been very careful planning at the outset, all the rest might likely have been a muddle. I claim for the present administration that we have planned carefully from the start. We have resisted the pressure to proceed at a rate which would sacrifice quality for quantity. As a result, what we have done stands in good stead for this country and for the united nations to-day.
This afternoon the leader of the opposition ended his address with a peroration-it was not his own, it was one of Mr. Churchill's; it was all the better for that. It was one with which we are all familiar, telling how the British people were prepared to fight in the streets, to fight on the beaches, to fight on the hillsides, prepared to fight everywhere, and my hon. friend said, Now I present that as a challenge to hon. gentlemen opposite in regard to their war effort. Well, I am going to answer that challenge to-night. I answer it by asking him to survey what is taking place to-day in different parts of the world as a result of the services of the armed forces of this country. I ask him to stop and think of the position of this country on the day this parliament met and decided that we would enter the war. At that time Canada was not prepared for war any more than were any of the other countries now fighting the axis. We started practically from scratch, but today we have one of the finest navies in the world. We have two army corps overseas, the best trained and best equipped of any corresponding number of men in the world. We have an air training plan in this country which has turned out pilots and air crews that will be found over every theatre of war in the world, an agency of war as great as any other to be found in any country to-day. And we have in proportion to our population greater war production than can be shown relatively I believe for almost any other country. Not only have we armed forces engaged in active combat to-day in all parts of the world, but we have in addition been assisting in arming and supplying the other united nations that have been taking a great part in the war. {Mr. Mackenzie King.]
In answer to my hon. friend's challenge, let him ask himself what Canada has done for Russia, for China, for many of the united nations that are to-day fighting in this war. In the answer to that question he will find the answer to the question whether we have been doing our part in the war.
My hon. friend has asked for facts and figures. I shall make a brief statement. I had thought that I would leave this to another occasion, but as he has asked me to give something concrete I shall at once give a brief statement of the growth of the armed forces in the past year, 1942.
Here may I pause to join with my hon. friend in the tribute he paid to our heroic men at Dieppe. Nothing has happened in the past year which has touched so deeply the hearts of the Canadian people as the spirit shown by the forces who were engaged in that combined reconnaissance at Dieppe in the middle of the year. Their resource and ingenuity, their skill, their bravery, the valour and heroism they show7ed; all this and much else has helped to make the name of Dieppe stand out in the history of our country as one of the memorable names blazoned on the banner of war honours of our land. And may I say that I do not think full justice has ever been done in this house to the memory of the men who fought at Hong Kong and sacrificed their lives, or their health there in. an equally brave endeavour to preserve the safety of their country and the freedom of the world. In our thoughts at this time above all are those who have made the supreme sacrifice, the families that have lost their loved ones, those who to-day are suffering as prisoners of war in different enemy countries, those who have been wounded, those who are away from their homes; all of them are present in our thoughts at this time, and I hope word will go out to the living among their number that the House of Commons, whatever differences it may have in its parties, is one in its thought for them and its determination to see that everything that is in its power to do will be done to help and support them.
Now, Mr. Speaker, to come to facts and figures. A year ago the navy comprised over three hundred and fifty ships and over twenty-seven thousand men. At the beginning of the present year there were more than five hundred ships and the personnel had almost doubled, the number exceeding fifty-two thousand.
At the beginning of 1942 the active army included some 260,000 volunteers and an additional 20,000 men called up under the Mobilization Act. At the beginning of this year the number of volunteers had risen to about 360,000 and the number of men serving compulsorily

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
to about 55,000. A considerable portion of the men called up during the year had volunteered for general service.
In the air force the number of men rose in 1942 from about 100,000 to about 150,000.
In addition to the armed forces, about 38,000 Canadian merchant seamen are serving on vessels of Canadian or foreign registry. Some 400 men are serving in Britain in the corps of Canadian civilian firefighters.
Just a word about the war effort of these forces. The Canadian navy has three tasks. It shares with the army and the air force in guarding Canada's shores. It shares with the British and United States navies in protecting merchant shipping on the Atlantic. It cooperates with the sea forces of the united nations. In engagements with the enemy, officers and men of the Royal Canadian Navy have borne themselves gallantly. Several enemy submarines have been sunk by Canadian naval forces. I pause to ask hon. members if their pride and the pride of the country has not been stirred by the announcement made within the last few days that a Canadian corvette bearing the name Ville de Quebec had torpedoed a German submarine and sunk her in the waters of the Mediterranean, and the report which has been published to-day that another Canadian corvette bearing the name Port Arthur has sunk an Italian submarine. And, Mr. Speaker, while these announcements are not made from day to day, it is a fact that something like eight or nine or ten of our corvettes or other ships have succeeded in sinking U-boats during the course of this war.
That is only one phase, but I say it is something of which Canada may well be proud. I ask the members of my party and others in this house who come from the province of Quebec if they are not proud that a corvette manned by Canadians and bearing the name of the city of Quebec, the capital of old Canada, was able to sink an enemy ship in the waters of the Mediterranean. I see my hon. friends at the far end opposite, to whom I am addressing my remarks particularly, smiling. May I make this statement; may I say to them that proud as I have often been of this House of Commons, I was never prouder than when I heard two of our members ini uniform speak as they did about the defence of Canada being accomplished through the defence of freedom in all parts of the world; coming here to this house while on active service to proclaim the larger vision, the only vision that counts for aught in a war like this, that the safety of Canada is bound up with the safety of freedom throughout the world. Yet at this critical time, of all times,
hon, gentlemen in the far corner opposite find it necessary to separate themselves from colleagues in their province in order to support an isolationist view with regard to the war effort of Canada! Their action does credit neither to themselves, nor to their province or to our country.
To continue with respect to Canada's war effort. A programme of expansion in the navy has been followed continuously since the outbreak of war. Only a part of Canadian shipbuilding capacity is devoted to the needs of the Royal Canadian Navy. The total shipbuilding capacity is divided between the construction of cargo ships and naval craft. A considerable number of ships of both kinds are constructed for Britain, the United States and others of our allies. At the same time British shipyards, as well as our own, are building ships for the Canadian navy. A considerable increase in the number of ships, including several destroyers, is anticipated in the present year. The enlistment and training of naval personnel is keeping pace with the increase in the number of ships.
The Canadian army in Britain has continued to guard that island citadel and to prepare for offensive action against the enerhy. In the combined operations at Dieppe the valour and heroism of our troops as I have said has filled our country with pride. May I pause here to say that I sometimes think we do not sufficiently estimate the part which our troops in Britain have played from the beginning of this war. We have, for example, been attaching considerable importance to the visit which Mr. Churchill had with the President of the United States in North Africa. At different times we have been stirred by similar visits to Washington. How has it been made possible for Mr. Churchill to travel as he has to different parts of the world in this time of war? If you ask the people of Britain they will tell you to-day that this is due in very large part to the sense of security which Mr. Churchill and the government of Britain feel because of the presence of the Canadian forces, along with the British forces, in the British isles. Our men have not merely been prepared at any moment to meet the assault of the enemy should he seek to attack Britain. They have been equally prepared to cross the channel and be the spearhead of an attack upon the German forces there. Moreover, the effect of the presence of the Canadians in the British isles has been to keep locked up in the mainland opposite, in occupied France, divisions of German troops which would have been available for service in Africa or elsewhere.

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
In addition to hard training and ordinary duties of life in the field army, the army in Britain has done many other things. I should like to describe some of those activities in the words of General MeNaughton. I intend to do so in a few moments because I wish also to have the challenge which my hon. friend has thrown out answered in the words of General MeNaughton himself.
In connection with the army overseas, the Canadian active army of two army corps announced a year ago has completed its formations in all its major components. Ancillary-units are month by month proceeding overseas. Thousands are in training as reinforcements wherever required. The programme of army expansion in Canada, announced on March 25 of last year, is being carried out. The 6th and 7th divisions and the brigade groups of the 8th division are mobilized. There are in addition troops on garrison duty on our coasts and in our vulnerable areas. In addition to the troops in Newfoundland, Labrador and the West Indies, the Canadian army is cooperating in the defence of Alaska. Behind -the active army are -the tens of thousands of citizens who are effectively devoting their time and energy to the important work of the reserve army. Then also there has been the important voluntary work carried on by many tens of thousands of our citizens in air raid precautions and civil defence.
The Royal Canadian Air Force continues to develop its threefold activities: air training, territorial and coastal defence, and active combat against -the enemy in all parts of the world. During -the year the agreement which set up the original British commonwealth air training plan was renewed and extended. Royal Air Force training in Canada has been coordinated with the commonwealth plan in a greatly enlarged combined training organization. The expansion of the home war establishment, forecast a year ago and set out in greater detail on March 25 last, is being actively advanced. The growing submarine menace along our eastern coast and in the St. Lawrence, and the combined operations with the United States forces in Alaska have increased -the combat activities for the squadrons of the home war establishment. Canadian bombing squadrons of -the Royal Canadian Air Force and the Royal Air Force have been engaged in steadily mounting numbers in operations over Germany and German-occupied Europe, Italy, North Africa and -the middle east, India, Ceylon and the southwest Pacific. A Canadian bomber group was formed in Great Britain in December last. During next year -the number of Royal Canadian Air Force squadrons will be increased to thirty-eight. The Royal Canadian Air Force is

undertaking increasing responsibilities for the maintenance, equipment and welfare of Canadian airmen serving in combat areas overseas. Royal Canadian Air Force squadrons serving overseas will be fully equipped and maintained by Canada. In addition, Canada is undertaking to provide the pay -and allowances of the Royal Canadian Air Force personnel serving in squadrons of the Royal Air Force.
I should like now to say a word with regard to war production. There is perhaps no more graphic way of indicating the progress of Canada's war production in the past year than to cite a few figures of production in 1942 as compared with 1-941. First, as -to shipbuilding: in 1941 Canadian shipyards built eighty-five corvettes and minesweepers, and in 1942 we built seventy-four, -a decrease of eleven. But in 1942 many of -the larger shipyards were devoted to the building of cargo ships. Over eighty cargo ships were built as compared with one in 1941. The output of military aircraft in 1941 was under 1,700. In 1942 i-t was almost 3,800. In 1941 Canada manufactured some 3,000 armoured fighting vehicles including tanks, universal carriers, scout cars and armoured cars; in 1942, well over 12,000. The ou tput of mechanical -transport numbered' less than 120,000 vehicles in 1941 but over 200,000 in 1942. The increase in the output of field guns, naval guns, machine guns and small arms -and ammunition of all kinds is even more spectacular. In money value Canada's war production in 1942 had increased some 159 per cent over 1941, from over $800,000,000 to over $2,100,000,000. The number of men and women employed in war industry at the close of 1941 was some 700,000. At the end of 1942 the number had risen to well over a million. These figures should be a source at once of pride and of encouragement to Canadian industry and to -the working men and women whose labours made possible such production.
Canada's war production was not confined to ships and aircraft, machines, weapons and ammunition. Primary production -was also greatly increased. Aluminum, nickel, copper and other base metals; steel, timber and- other essential war materials were produced in greater quantities. Canadian agriculture responded splendidly to the increased need for foodstuffs. Shipments to Britain were greater in all lines. Cheese increased from 112,000,000 pounds in 1941 to 125,000,000 pounds in 1942. Bacon increased from about 425,000,000 pounds to over 600,000,000 pounds, in this case over a slightly longer period; dried eggs, from some 15 million dozen to 38 million dozen. The programme for 1943 calls for 675 million pounds of bacon, 63 million dozen eggs and at least as much cheese as last year.

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
Most of the food Canada exports is sent to Britain, but Canadian implements and munitions of war have found their way to all our fighting allies and have been used on almost every front. More than two-thirds of our total munitions output is supplied to other of the united nations. While our munitions programme has now reached full capacity, within the limits of available man-power and materials, we may expect the output for 1943 to exceed substantially that of 1942. In volume and quantity, it already compares favourably with that of any allied country.
' And, speaking about food supplies I would ask my hon. friend the leader of the opposition to recall a remark he made, to the effect that it was a reflection upon the government of this country, and one of which the farmers in particular should take full account, that we find to-day that butter and beef are being rationed in Canada. Why are butter and beef rationed in Canada?


Mr. ILSLEY:: Beef is not yet rationed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thought my hon. friend said beef.


James Lorimer Ilsley: He said beef might be.


Gordon Graydon: I said there was a hint
that there might be.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then I beg my hon. friend's pardon. He did not say beef was rationed, though he thought there was a hint that it might be. Well, why is butter rationed at this time? The answer is-and I may say that if my hon. friend were helping the war effort of the country to the degree to which he professes he desires to help, he would tell the farmers of this country it is because Canada is providing the enormous supplies of food which she is sending to the people of Great Britain, from the supplies of foodstuffs of this country. We have made an agreement with Great Britain to supply her with foodstuffs. She has given us this opportunity in service above that of any other country. We had gained for the farmers that sure market, and I am certain there is no farmer in this country who, if he were told that it was to serve two purposes, namely to help sustain the armies and the people in Great Britain and give employment to those on his farm, would not very gladly have that extra supply go to Great Britain, even if we have to ration it here.
Now, Mr. Speaker, may I say a word about the financial measures connected with the war effort.
Because of the success achieved in preventing inflation and maintaining the purchasing power
of the Canadian dollar, the real extent of Canada's war effort can be fairly accurately measured in financial terms.
In the calendar year, 1941, direct war expenditures amounted to more than $1,100,000,000, and an additional $900,000,000 was necessary to provide the Canadian dollars to meet the United Kingdom deficit. Canada's total war costs for 1941 therefore exceeded $2,000,000,000. In the calendar year 1942 the corresponding total was more than $3,600,000,000.
The splendid way in which the financial burden of war is being borne by the Canadian people is evidenced by the fact that in addition to over $2,000,000,000 collected in 1942 in taxes and compulsory savings, cash subscriptions for victory bonds and war savings certificates exceeded $1,900,000,000.
There is my reply to my hon. friend's challenge as to how Canada fights; how Canada is carrying on its war effort.
And referring to Mr. Churchill, I do not think he would mind my saying to the house what he said to me on different occasions when I have had conversation with him. He has said, "How does Canada manage to do what she does? It is beyond me to understand how she has been able to do what she has done and is doing in the war." That is Mr. Churchill's estimate of Canada's war effort. I add that, with no fear of contradiction whatsoever.
But now, lest it might be thought that what I am saying does not represent exactly the position of our armed forces and more particularly our armed forces overseas, I should like to read the following communication issued by General McNaughton, the commander of our army, as a greeting to his troops and to the people of Canada at the Christmas season and the beginning of the New Year. For some strange reason-and I cannot account for it-this very important message seems to have received very little publicity in our country, either over the radio or in the press.
I believe I heard only a paragraph of it over the radio one evening, but I searched in vaim through the press of the country to find any reproduction of the statement. I am not reflecting in any way. There are lots of things which go over the air and appear in the press which I may miss. However, I do think that this important statement should have its place in Hansard, and for that reason I place on Hansard 'this statement of the commander of the Canadian army overseas which will indicate whether or not in his opinion there has been any lack of energy or efficiency or sufficiency so far as Canada's war
. COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
effort is concerned in relation to the troops overseas. This is General MoNaughton's message:
This is the fourth Christmas which the vanguard of the Canadian army has spent in England, for it was on December 17, 1939, that the leading elements of the first division arrived at a northern port after an uneventful voyage across the Atlantic under the sure escort of the Royal Navy. At that time our numbers of trained soldiers and experienced officers were very few indeed and our equipment consisted of little more than the rifles we carried and the clothing we wore. But this caused little anxiety, for during our period of organization we were to rest under the shield of the British expeditionary force, and of the armies of our allies in France and all the facilities of the British army in the United Kingdom were available to help us in our training and development. Moreover, we had behind us Canada's magnificent young manhood and our great peace-time industry, both potentially very formidable and, we were confident, readily adaptable to the preparation and making of war. Our cause was just, our participation necessary, and there was certainty that the government and people of Canada would see the struggle through to a victorious conclusion.
In the months which followed, this confidence was amply justified, for in Canada preparations were pressed forward with energy and decision and soon there was a steady flow of men to us, limited only by the capacity of the ships we could obtain. And gradually at first, and then in rapidly rising tide, now approaching the flood, came our arms and vehicles and equipment of every sort and kind.
So to-day, our first few have become many tens of thousands and they now are firmly based on the vast arsenal which our country has become, we count ourselves most fortunate both in the quantity and, best of all, in the high quality of the supplies which Canada has sent to us.
In the three long years we have stood guard within the British isles there have been many periods of intense activity when battle against the enemy seemed imminent, the anxious time of Dunkerque when we were witness of the miracle of the salvation of the British expeditionary force, our expedition to Brest as a forlorn hope to support the last stand of our ally France, the Battle of Britain when we watched the air force in their glorious defence, ourselves half-armed and ill-equipped but ready to meet invasion should it come, Spitzbergen in the Arctic and Dieppe across the channel and other far-flung designs most carefully prepared at the behest of those who rule these matters with all the repeated meticulous precision and all the vast expenditure of time and energy that is required, only to end in nothing through some proper change of strategy as circumstances arose which called others, with alternative roles equally prepared, to carry their allotted task forward in satisfaction to fulfilment.
And always throughout, by day and night, in fair weather and in foul, unending training in all the varied aspects of modern war, continuous development to a settled plan, and as each day passed, the units and formations growing stronger and our men and officers more fit in body and in mind, and more adept with their weapons and skilled in leadership for the hard tasks which lay ahead.
[Mr. Mackenzie King.l
Meanwhile, and over and beyond the ordinary duties of life in the field army itself, there have been many things to do. Camps and roads and airfields to build; depots for stores and workshops to erect and operate; waste to be eliminated and salvage to be collected; help to give in the quest for key minerals needed for war production and tunnels to drive for power to aid in manufacture; forestry operations in Scotland to supply great quantities of timber when its import would have needed the use of precious shipping otherwise required; military schools and courses to organize and conduct; the central administration patiently evolved, by those entrusted with this task, to regulate our dealings with the civil power and with the great departments of state with whom our daily business has been adjusted in harmony. Likewise, and of very great importance, the widespread detailed systems, some army, some civilian, built up to secure the complicated task of caring for the individual in all his many wants and needs. To transport and house, to feed and clothe, to issue out the arms, to promote and pay, to minister to our spiritual requirements, medical and nursing services and hospitals and the Canadian Red Cross to look after the sick and other casualties, dental services, postal services, education in which we gratefully acknowledge the help so well given by our comrades of past wars, hospitality so generously given by the people of these isles, canteens and sports and recreation and welfare provided to us by the legion, the Salvation Army, the Y.M.C.A., the Knights of Columbus and all our many friends who have worked with them.
In all of these, devoted service has been given, not only to our own troops but also and on occasion to the civil population as well.
Those years in England have not been easy, nor do we seek their long continuance. The men and women with the Canadian army overseas are far from home and kith and kin to whom they would return, but there has been no wavering in the steady purpose which brought them here and they watch and wait for the proper time to strike with that quiet patience which bespeaks a high morale. When that time comes, be it soon or late, the army of Canada will go forward with reasoned confidence to discharge its duty to the cause we serve.
There is the answer to the challenge, if challenge there be, as to whether Canada's war effort in these past years has been worthy of our country. There is one clause in that statement of General McNaughton's which I wish to emphasize and draw attention to. General McNaughton points out that from the beginning they have been able to get all the troops that they could find ships to bring them in. May I say to this House of Commons that the only limiting factor today with respect either to troops or supplies for overseas is the limit of the ships available to transport them. There is the answer as to Canada's war effort. Does anyone dispute that?


Richard Burpee Hanson: What
about the man-power question?

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am answering it; my hon. friend is getting an answer. I repeat what I said, that the only limiting factor on supplies or men going to Britain to-day is the ships available to take them. My hon. friend is seeking to raise a commotion in this country over the man-power difficulties which would undoubtedly be apparent in any movement of people here and there as I have described already, but is neglecting altogether what the commander in chief of the Canadian army says is the position to-day in Great Britain. I say that we owe a duty to the people of Canada, we owe a duty to the united nations to see that Canada's war effort is presented in the true light of its accomplishments and not in the light of some domestic struggle we may be having in regard to man-power.
Speaking of man-power, may I say that I was a bit surprised at my hon. friend, the new leader, this afternoon when it seemed to me he was seeking to embarrass the government in its war effort by directing a veiled attack at the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell). My hon. friend said that there was a need for change in Canada's labour policy and rather sought to add what he could to the efforts that have been made to stir up added difficulties for the Minister of Labour. May I say, to begin with, that no member ever came into a government in Canada with higher encomiums from all sides than did the present Minister of Labour. These were pronounced by men in all parts of this dominion. If one will look at the press of this country, he will see what was said about the appointment of Mr. Mitchell as Minister of Labour and will find that I am perfectly within the mark when I say that there was but one note and that of praise from one end of Canada to the other. That note of praise was given in equal measure by persons of all classes. It was given by hon. gentlemen opposite, in sparing measure it is true, and it was given by the labour men of this country.
When I was seeking to obtain a minister who I believed would be the best minister that I could get to head the Department of Labour, I offered the portfolio of Minister of Labour to Mr. Tom Moore, president of the Trades and Labour Congress. Mr. Moore told me at that time that he was ready to do anything in his power to assist the government, but he did not think his strength was such that he would be justified in taking on a portfolio in the administration. More than that, he reminded me of something I had , said to him years ago to the effect that at
the time of the last war Mr. Samuel Gompers in the United States had played an even larger role in the way of assistance to the government by remaining at the head of his organization than he would have been able to play had be been a member of the administration. Mr. Moore told me that he believed he could assist the government in a more effective way if he remained outside. But he said to me, "You cannot get a better man than Humphrey Mitchell." It was on Mr. Moore's recommendation and on what had been said by members of other labour organizations throughout this country, because of the regard in which Mr. Mitchell was held as a labour man and as a former labour member in this parliament that I asked him to accept the portfolio of Minister of Labour and believed that I was securing the best man that could be found in Canada for that position.
Why has there been an attack upon Mr. Mitchell such as has been made in different parts of the country? It has been due, above all else, to the simple fact that Mr. Mitchell has tried to uphold the government's policy of wage stabilization and price control. I want to put this very clearly to this parliament because it is a question we shall have to face through the whole of this session. The government will have to be supported in its wage stabilization and price control policy if we are to control inflation in this country. If that support is not forthcoming and we have to change that policy, then whoever is responsible for that change of policy will have to be responsible for the consequences if they lead to a complete breakdown in price control and to inflation in our country at this time of war.
This is a very difficult policy to maintain; nothing in the nature of restriction is easy in a time of war. I have been repeating that over and over again. There are restrictions that w7e shall all have to put up with, and if we are going to control prices there has also to be a stabilization of wages. I am not saying for one minute that any stabilization of wages which is unjust or unfair should be maintained. I would be the first to resist anything of the kind and demand that injustices should be remedied. But I do say that no class in the country has as much to lose through inflation as the working classes. I think they will be the first to admit it.
May I point out that this parliament has already approved that policy. Last session we did not have an attack upon our wage stabilization and price-ceiling policy. Members generally conceded that this country was

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
not only doing what was good for itself but was setting an example to other countries in dealing with a situation arising out of inflation such as Canada and other countries were faced with in the last war. As nearly as I could judge, this parliament seemed to be almost of one accord with respect to maintaining the price-ceiling policy. As I have said, you cannot maintain a price ceiling without having wage stabilization. Because the Minister of Labour has had to refuse certain demands that have been made by labour in the way of increases in order to maintain the price ceiling, because he has stood firm in support of the policy of the government, he has been constantly attacked and his position has been made more difficult than it otherwise would have been. If there is another explanation I would be glad to hear it, 'or perhaps, I should say, I would be sorry to hear it. I honestly believe that that is the explanation of the feeling which has arisen in certain quarters in an effort to bring about a change in the portfolio of Minister of Labour.
Speaking of ministers of the crown, may I say this, because we had a new theory of government, of which I am going to speak in a moment, pronounced by my hon. friend1 this afternoon-the theory of the occupational basis of government: when a minister of the crown is sworn in as a member of a cabinet he becomes the representative of the people as a whole, no matter what his occupation may have been theretofore. He does not represent a class; he represents the people of Canada, and his responsibility is a part of the responsibility of the cabinet as a whole. When Mr. Mitchell came into the cabinet he had to assume his share of responsibility for the policy of the government; and- if to-day he has to refuse certain demands that may be made upon him because of the policy of the government, the choice before him is to decide for himself, "Is it to be what in the end will be the greatest good for the greatest number by standing by a policy which for the moment makes me a bit unpopular?" or "Shall I resign from the ministry and thereby help to destroy a policy which will do more good to labour and others of my fellow men than could possibly be achieved in any other way?" Labour has no more right to think that the Minister of Labour represents labour only in the government than bankers or financiers have the right to think that the Minister of Finance is only their representative or than lawyers have to think that the Minister of Justice is exclusively 'their representative. When a minister of the crown takes the oath of office, by that is meant that he becomes one of a

. group which have a united policy and collectively are responsible to parliament and through parliament to the people. That is the meaning of responsible government; and I hope that any efforts which are being misdirected against the Minister of Labour on any score such as that he is not doing his full duty in supporting government policy will not be pursued further unless there are grounds which will substantially support them.
My hon. friend spoke this afternoon of the government's national social insurance policy of which special mention is made in the speech from the throne. I am glad to feel that members of all parties in this house are more or less in accord1 that the time has come in our country's affairs when we should be giving all the thought we possibly can to these great questions of social security. The chief objection which the leader of the opposition raised to the social security policy as outlined was not to the policy itself but to the government's method) of proceeding. He asked why in the first instance we should ask for a select committee of this House of Commons to study the whole question.
Well, there have been many reasons for that. One reason is that the question of social security, of any policy of social security which is to be a national policy for the whole of Canada, is a very large one. It is a question the proportions of which cannot be properly appreciated unless it is studied very carefully and with the aid of expert advice and information. For years to come the membership of this house will be concerned more with social and economic security than with any other question which will be to the fore, once the war is concluded. Anything that is done to-day in the way of making possible a further development on the lines of social security after the war will be of service to the war effort itself; because the men who are at the front are looking to us who are here to see that when they return they are not only given employment of a character befitting their worth, and ample opportunity to work, but that the conditions under which they will have to live hereafter will be different from those they have experienced! before.
The government has felt that this question, as I have said, can be appreciated in its full significance only after a very careful study made on the part of members of not only one party but of all parties in the house. It is of very great importance that it should not become a matter of party discussion any more than can possibly be helped. It has been suggested that we should have introduced a bill. Had we introduced a bill what would have

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
been the result? Immediately the whole question would have become one of party discussion. The bill would have been criticized for containing this and for not containing that. My hon. friends know very well how these matters develop in the House of Commons. But presenting the question in a broad way to a committee of this house affords ample opportunity for the study of all aspects of it. It is a matter which affects, in Canada, not only the dominion but the provinces; and, as hon. members well know, there are in these matters of social legislation financial difficulties, matters which relate to sources of revenue and possible changes in the sources of revenue; and constitutional difficulties, matters which relate to the powers of the provinces and the dominion respectively. All these matters lie at the root of efficient administration of any social security measure, and they are questions which can be studied by a committee of this house better than they can be discussed in the first instance on the floor of the house.


Gordon Graydon: At what stage of this national social insurance is it proposed to consult the provinces with respect to any dominion-provincial scheme?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, that is not for me to say. That is one of the things which I should think the committee would be in a better position to say than I would. The provinces will certainly have to be consulted; and that is one of the reasons I think that the matter ought to go before a committee of the house in the first instance. We shall then learn, in the light of the discussions in committee, what in their opinion is the order in which certain steps should be taken and the best time to take them.
May I say to my hon. friends that there is another reason why I feel that this matter should go first of all to a committee. None of us knows the particular trend that this war is going to take. But we do know that this year is going to be the most serious for the Canadian forces of any since the war commenced. What may be happening in April, May or June, sooner or later, no one in this house can say. I for one should be very sorry indeed if either between now and the months I have mentioned, or at that time, or later, or whenever the time may be, while this house is in session, that all our armed forces were engaged in mortal combat with the enemy it should be found that we were or had been spending most of our time discussing in this house whether or not certain aspects of social insurance should be passed immediately; or, worse than all, that we should be convening or having at the same time a conference between the provinces and ourselves on this matter. Everything this year will have to be done in the light of what developments the war takes; and the government, in planning its programme, has had that very much in mind. We want to expedite our programme, but the matters we wish to discuss first and foremost are those which are related immediately to the prosecution of the war. There is a very large financial programme to be considered, the. war appropriation bill, the programme with respect to allocation of supplies to the united nations, other policies which bear immediately on the war effort of our country as it is to-day and will have to be taken up before any other questions are begun to be discussed at length. But that does not prevent a committee holding its sittings on the same days, obtaining expert advice, and being in a position before the session is over to come back to this house with recommendations which will help to expedite the legislation which ought to be passed. That is one of the reasons why the matter has been referred to a committee.
I have gone on at greater length than I should have. I will close with just a reference to what seemed an extraordinary statement on the part of my hon. friend in the discussion this afternoon. In his veiled attack on the Minister of Labour-which was equally a veiled attack on the government itself-by mentioning the Minister of Labour, and also the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), the one as having been associated with labour in the past, and the other with the farmers in the past, while the rest of the government were not either farmers or working men, my hon. friend put forward a new theory that, namely, of government on an occupational basis.
Let us go over the government as a whole, my hon. friend said; but he picked out just these two. The implication of what he was saying was that there are in the government a number of hon. members who belong to other callings or professions and that we ought here to have a government formed on a basis of occupation. No doubt we shall hear more of that from other members. Well, if that is to be the theory of government from now on, perhaps it would be well at once to point out certain fallacies with respect to it. My hon. friend spoke about himself as a great friend of labour and of the farmers. These were the two groups in the community with whom he had associated all his life. They were the ones to be considered first, and anyone who

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
did not rub shoulders with one or the other of them could not possibly be equal to the task of filling a position in the ministry as it ought to be filled.
I am afraid my hon. friend is not as widely read in social movements and reforms as he ought to be. Speaking of labour, as I think of some of the names that in the past have stood out as beacon lights in the path of reform there comes to my mind first of all the name of Lord Shaftesbury. Lord Shaftesbury has been upheld in all countries as one whose life was devoted to the welfare of the working classes. He was not himself a working man, and most extraordinary of all perhaps is the fact that he was a member of the House of Lords. That at the time was going about as far in the other direction as anyone could possibly go. But according to my hon. friend's doctrine, Lord Shaftesbury would not have made a good minister of labour because he was not a working man; nor would he have made a good minister of agriculture because he had not been brought up on a farm.
I might mention many other names, but I might refer to one name that stands out as perhaps few others in the history of the world, the name of the great emancipator, Abraham Lincoln. He belonged to the same profession as my hon. friend. He was a lawyer. But he had a heart and soul for the well-being of the masses of the people, as great as that of any man who ever lived. Take the Prime Minister of Great Britain to-day. He is neither a farmer nor a working man, but will anyone say that Mr. Churchill is devoid of sympathy for the masses of the people, devoid of any knowledge of their interests, and that the sort of talents that Mr. Churchill possesses are not the talents very much needed by men, women and children on farms, in the workshop and everywhere else to-day?
Let me mention another name which my hon. friend very naturally is fond of citing, and which comes equally to the minds of all of us. What about the present President of the United States, Mr. Franklin D, Roosevelt? Mr. Roosevelt also belongs to the legal profession. He is a lawyer. Will anyone say that Mr. Roosevelt has not played his full part in the public life not only of his own country but of the world, and that he lacks sympathy for and understanding of the lot of those who work with their hands, those who work on the farm, in the forests, in the mines, on the railways, or in the workshops, or those who go down to the sea in ships? Did it, I wonder, occur to my hon. friend that he was reflecting on every leader his party has had 	*
with the exception of two? There have been eight Conservative Prime Ministers in Canada's history, and with the exception of Sir Mackenzie Bowell, who was a journalist, and Sir Charles Tupper, who was a doctor, all the rest have been lawyers. Did my hon. friend think, when he was speaking, of the friend who is sitting immediately to his left and who so generously provided him with the seat he occupies to-day? That hon. gentleman is also a lawyer. I imagine he has sympathy with labour and with the farmers. He has always told me he had, and I believe he has. I cannot imagine that he would be ruled out of a position in any government if his party ever came back into office.


Gordon Graydon: I hope my right hon. friend is not being unduly exercised over something which I said with respect to the inclusion of more farmers and labour men in the government. I was very careful, as my hon. friend1 knows, not to make any reflection on any other members of the government or on these two gentlemen. I simply made it clear that I thought it would strengthen the government to have more farmers and labour men among its number, and I wish to make that clear to the Prime Minister in case he is under some misapprehension.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not under any misapprehension. When it comes to choosing men for government I believe the first essential is character, and that what above all else the people desire in their representatives in a government is heart and brains. These are the qualities which I believe count for most in public life. Nor should my hon. friend rule himself out of any future cabinet because he, too, is a lawyer. I think he does possess broad sympathies, but he should not seek to trade on them for political purposes.


Gordon Graydon: I think my right hon. friend, in all fairness to me, should withdraw that because I did not have any such design in mind. I was not trying to make political capital, and I think my right hon. friend has overdrawn the picture.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I can see I have touched a tender spot, and as my hon. friend has taken on new duties I certainly wish to assure him that I was not reflecting upon him. But he took great care to call attention to the fact that in order to merit the support of labour and of the farming community it was very desirable that one should belong to one or other of these classes.

The Address-Mr. Coldwell
May I say this in conclusion, as something which it might, perhaps, be well for all of us to keep in mind. A man is not known in his service for others in any more effective way than by his acts and deeds. His words may go a certain length, but the real test of a man is what he stands for in his community irrespective of the particular calling or profession to which he may belong. I share the view first expressed by my hon. friend. I should like to see in this parliament a larger number of men who have grown up in the ranks of labour and who have taken their part in labour's struggle to better its condition. I should like to see a larger number of farmers and a larger number of the representatives of other callings. That will come in time. What particularly I should like to see when this war is over is a larger number of men returned to this parliament who have served their country overseas and have fought for the preservation of freedom. They should be here to help shape the future in which their children will grow up. Above all, I should like to see in this parliament men of broad human sympathies, with hearts large enough to understand something of the pulse of the world to-day, and sympathies broad enough to feel for those who are less privileged or fortunate than themselves.
My hon. friend closed with a quotation from one of Mr. Churchill's speeches, and a very stirring quotation it was. As he spoke to-night about the different classes and as I thought of what counts for most in public life and service, there came to my mind lines which will be familiar to him also, and which I would ask the house to permit me to quote in conclusion. The little poem I should like to quote is by Leigh Hunt. It is entitled "Abou Ben Adhem." It helps to illustrate what I mean.
Abou Ben Adhem (may his tribe increase!) Awoke one night from a deep dream of peace, And saw, within the moonlight in his room, Making it rich, and like a lily in bloom,
An angel writing in a book of gold:- Exceeding peace had made Ben Adhem hold, And to the presence in the room he said, "What writest thou?"-The vision rais'd its head,
And with a look made of all sweet accord, Answer'd, "The names of those who love the Lord."
"And is mine one?" said Abou. "Nay, not so," Replied the angel. Abou spoke more low,
But cheerly still; and said, "I pray thee then, Write me as one that loves his fellow-men."
The angel wrote, and vanish'd. The next night It came again with a great wakening light, And show'd the names whom love of God had bless'd,
And lo! Ben Adhem's name led all the rest.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: We have listened to-day to two quite long speeches. My time is more limited than that of the speakers who have preceded me, so that I shall be able to touch upon only two or three phases of the problems that confront the country at the present time. I want briefly to congratulate the mover (Mr. Harris) and the seconder (Mr. Halle) of the address in reply, because I think, as Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Graydon) said, they made notable contributions to the debate. Also I want to add my word to that of the Prime Minister and say that the new leader of the opposition this afternoon seemed to have all the assurance of an old-timer in the position he now occupies.
This afternoon the Prime Minister suggested that we should keep away as far as possible from anything savouring of party politics. I think the Prime Minister had a good time in his speech to-night, and I noticed that he could not resist the opportunity of taking an occasional crack not only at the new leader of the opposition but at the little group that moved across the floor of the house and now occupy seats to the extreme left in this chamber.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why not?


Major James William Coldwell: No reason whatsoever, except that the Prime Minister was not following his own advice.


An hon. MEMBER:: He never does.


Major James William Coldwell: To-night I want to
follow rather closely the speech from the throne. First, let me say that I think we all meet at this time with a feeling of some relief, because the war situation during the time the house has been in recess has taken a decided turn for the better. That does not mean, I believe, that the war is nearing its close. I am in agreement with the Prime Minister when he said that he thought this war was going to be much longer than most people anticipated some time ago. If I may say so, I think when we have Germany and Italy beaten and suing for peace, we shall still have a sizable job to do in the Pacific. Therefore I am not under any illusions as far as the war goes.
I have read the speech from the throne carefully several times since its delivery last Thursday. It is long, and except for occasional statements of obvious facts, is filled with platitudes, which like all platitudes may be nothing more than empty words. If "freedom from want should be the assured
The Address-Mr. Coldwell

possession of all", as the speech from the throne says, then I suggest that "the early appointment of a select committee to examine and report on the most practicable measures of social insurance" should be accompanied by the immediate raising of the pittances paid to our old age pensioners, the veterans of the last war and their widows, and the dependants of those who have lost their lives in this war, and of the beggarly provision of $9 a week for single men and $13 for married men who have already been discharged from the forces.
My knowledge of the record of governments headed by the present Prime Minister makes me very suspicious of proposals to appoint select committees to examine and recommend policies and programmes of social significance. We have had many such committees since 1921. We examined unemployment insurance, for example, in the early 1920's, and an act reached the statute books in 1940. We were promised senate reform in 1921, and in 1943 the senate remains with thirteen seats vacant and is as undemocratic, useless ands expensive an institution as could be found anywhere in the civilized world.
Thus the trite statements about the necessity for a comprehensive national scheme of social insurance and a charter of social security for the whole of Canada leave me cold, particularly when I know, as everyone in this house must know, that a comprehensive national scheme like those now in existence in New Zealand, under consideration in Australia, or a consolidation and expansion of social security measures as outlined in the Beveridge report in the United Kingdom, is impossible of enactment by this parliament without a new division of constitutional powers between the federal and provincial governments. I have said, and I repeat to-day, that the government has allowed this problem to continue when an attempt should have been made long ago to find ways and means of straightening out the difficulties and modernizing our constitutional relationships.
These difficulties should be faced by all of us. I know of course there is a fear in some quarters that any change in the constitution might interfere with the preservation of rights which are the very basis of the confederation agreement. It seems to me that such rights could be adequately safeguarded by the enactment of a statute of this parliament, or a Canadian hill of rights, recognizing clearly the rights of the minority, and of the majority as well if you will, as fundamental to the existence of confederation and thereby being the means of setting at rest once for 
all the very natural fears that exist. But the passing of a comprehensive national social security plan must be preceded1 by an agreement between this parliament and the provinces that we shall have the right to enact it and put it into effect. A piecemeal plan depending upon grants in aid by this parliament and concurrent legislation by the provinces will in my opinion be ineffective and, indeed, may lead to difficulties between the provinces and the dominion and therefore may produce a dangerous spirit of national disunity.
To a truly comprehensive national plan this party will give its undivided support. Indeed, I think I can say without fear of contradiction that our movement, and particularly our late leader, J. S. Woodsworth, pioneered for old age pensions, unemployment insurance, socialized health services and other forms of social legislation. But because we have asked from time to time on behalf of the Canadian people for bread we are not prepared to accept the offer of crumbs.
Nor do we deceive ourselves into believing that even the most comprehensive plan of social services would solve our post-war
problems.
The speech from the throne states that the government has begun to explore the international agreements and domestic measures which will help to secure adequate incomes for primary producers and full employment after the war-again the kind of pious platitudes with which the lengthy speech abounds. Have we learned no lessons from our experience during the war? Surely everyone can see that we are doing things to-day that some of the ministers who surround the Prime Minister at the present time said could not be done in the days of peace because we could not find the money with which to do them. Now, with some 700,000 of the fittest of our young folk in uniform, we are producing more than twice as many goods as we produced a few years ago. Indeed, on the estimated production of 1942 we are producing more than jwo and a half times as many goods as we produced in 1933, when those same young people or their parents rode the rods or languished in unemployment and want. What we are doing to-day to win the war we can and must also do to provide for the welfare of the Canadian people. Our country has been transformed from a land of idle factories, many unemployed1 and wasting resources, into a country with almost full employment, vastly increased production, and a rising national income. When the war ends, pretence of poverty or an alleged lack of money will be no excuse for intolerable conditions, nor must we allow this excuse to be made although

The Address-Mr. Coldwell
even now the government's own agencies are circularizing the employees of the government, warning them that they ought to buy annuities in order to avoid) becoming objects of charity from their relatives or the community in the future. '
In spite of the pious platitudes about adequate prices for primary products and full employment, there are unmistakable signs that unemployment and perhaps also ruinous farm prices and poverty are in the offing unless we do more than explore international agreements and domestic measures in the hope of making some undreamed-of discoveries. We dare not delay in formulating policies and programmes that will protect our citizens from the scourges of unemployment relief and poverty. We have found billions annually for the destructive, wasteful and yet very necessary purposes of war. We must assure our people that we can and will find billions annually for the constructive, lifegiving and equally necessary purpose of the peaceful development of our land.
Let us not put off the doing of it any longer. Instead of merely appointing a select committee on reconstruction and reestablishment, let us appoint a representative body-and by that I mean really representative, one representative of labour, agriculture, industry and all the principal fields of endeavour in our country-and let that representative body be a body of national planners, as it were; with this addition, the definite commitment by this parliament that Canada is prepared to accept from that body a programme of national social economic development upon which this parliament will spend, in cooperation with the provincial authorities-and I mean that this parliament will appropriate the sum of money -an amount, let us say, of not less than $5,000,000,000 in the first two years after the cessation of hostilities. With that national appropriation in sight the exploration of appropriate domestic policies could proceed with reality, and the boys now fighting our war would have an assurance that we were in earnest regarding expressions of faith in a new and better world. This, may I say, is not a proposal for priming an economic pump. On the contrary, it must be part of a national policy formulated for the social development of our resources and to prevent a return to pre-war capitalism which will mean inevitably a return to pre-war poverty. We dare not continue to allow this nation to remain under the control of monopolistic private enterprise, the power of which has grown apace during this war.
Two things, then, are necessary: first, the pledge of the appropriation of funds sufficient
to enable us to undertake immediate post-war national social development projects of housing, electrification, irrigation, reforestation, road building and so on; second, plans for the post-war conversion of publicly-owned war industries and machines for the production of peace-time goods and services. These together with monopolistic industries and financial institutions, which must be socialized, and the development of cooperative institutions, would provide us with the means for the long-term planning of our economic life for the benefit of all.
But can we even hope that the present government will plan constructively for the postwar period? Even during the present war we have had no over-all plan for the effective mobilization of our resources. We have the conscription of man-power for the army, but we have failed to apply the same policy to industry and wealth. The report of the war expenditures committee of this house, presented on Thursday of last week, should not only give us food for thought but jolt us out of our complacency. On the subcommittee which drafted the recommendation to which I wish to draw attention there was no member of this party, but the report confirms the misgivings we have expressed from time to time since the war began. Note this recommendation:
That as soon as company financial statements are available for the year 1942 a special study should be made of profits, accelerated depreciation and corporate taxation. The question of excess profits and accelerated depreciation has caused the subcommittee considerable concern. Very substantial profits are being earned in some instances far in excess of normal profits and while the Excess Profits Tax Act should result in no one being allowed to retain any excess profits which have been earned yet in many instances we found, as a result of rulings which have been given, companies will at the conclusion of the war own valuable physical assets which have been entirely paid for out of money which would otherwise have been payable as excess profits. Steps should be taken now to prevent sale of physical assets and company reorganizations during the postwar period to escape taxation or to provide for the sterilization of physical assets whose cost has been completely written off through permitting very drastic depreciation write-offs as are now in effect with respect to plant and equipment of war-time industry.
I want particular attention paid to this last sentence:
The subcommittee found that in regard to industries engaged in war production rulings have been given in most instances permitting plant and machine costs to be written off in three years.
In other words, the cost of these industries and the machines is written off in three years. The Canadian people pay for them in the
The Address-Mr. Coldwell

prices they pay for war goods, and at the end of the three years the corporations own the plants and the machines.
I have often said and I want to emphasize that the profits of industry in this war not only are going to appear in the annual balance sheets of the corporations, but will be much more material, though hidden from our view, when drastic depreciation write-offs have given monopolistic industry the new factories, power plants and machines for which this nation has paid. My opinions have now been confirmed by the report of the subcommittee, which I have quoted.
I am not going to belittle what this nation has done in spite of the lack of any over-all production plan, but the thousands of trucks and the equipment covering acres of railway sidings from Windsor to Montreal are eloquent testimony to what I mean. Over two years ago we were told that this country could not build ocean freighters. Afterwards we went into merchant shipbuilding. To-day we have acres and acres of trucks and other equipment -I have seen them, and so have some hon. members who come from southern Ontario- piled high, because we lack shipping. This is the condition, partly because of the submarine menace, and partly because we had no plan of our own to build ships to transport the goods we were about to make.
Had we had a war-planning body to organize our industry and guide the use of our man-power, we should not now be suffering from acute shortages in so many directions, and have such surpluses in some others. The trouble has been that our country, at the beginning, was encouraged to believe that Canada's main contribution would be made in the raising of armies, whereas we are now beginning to understand that Canada's main contribution must be made in other fields, while we maintain the army approved by parliament, fully reinforced in the theatres of war.
. 0n September 9, 1939, in my speech supporting the declaration of war, I took a line which was then unpopular but which time is vindicating in several particulars. I said, as reported at page 57 of Hansard for 1939, second session:
We are the nearest dominion to Europe. We have tremendous resources. In modern war huge masses of men are being replaced by mechanized units which require vast quantities of supplies to maintain them in the line Frenzied demands for the enlistment of more and more men, if granted, may defeat the very object in view, success in this struggle.
Then I quoted a letter from Sir Wilfrid Laurier dated May 15, 1917, in which he said:

There is a shortage of labour in agriculture and industry, in fact in every field where brawn and muscles are needed, and in the face of this condition there are still people yelling for more men being taken away from occupations in which they are so much needed.
Those were the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1917. And with that before us in 1939 we failed to make the inventory we should have made of our resources, our machines and our man-power, and' failed to adopt an over-all plan which would have assisted us in meeting some of the difficulties which have overtaken us.
Now again, as then, our farms are depleted of labour badly needed for the production of bacon, dairy and poultry products for overseas. Grain lies under the snow unthreshed, and t'he government discourages production of wheat which in my opinion will be needed in the future to prevent further mass starvation in many countries when the war ends. This incidentally might be utilized now, and, indeed ought to be used as soon as the submarine menace has been sufficiently overcome to feed our Russian allies, who are putting up such a magnificent fight on behalf of the united nations, and our Chinese allies, many of whom today are suffering the pangs of starvation. Yet we adopt a policy of restriction of a foodstuff which is the most easily stored foodstuff of all. Grain, too, which is stored on the farms is made a burden to producers, while elevator companies are paid storage for the wheat they have received from the farms. The government by order in council decreed last March that essential farm workers should not be drafted into the army, but-and I say this without fear of contradiction-that order is being entirely disregarded by some of its own national war services boards. Young constables of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are sent out to investigate the claims of men applying for postponement and, although they know nothing of the needs of agriculture, their word is accepted instead of the statements of reeves, councillors, doctors and ministers who know whether the applicants are essential on the farm or not.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not to
speak of members of parliament.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, not to speak of members of parliament, as the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) has added. The whole man-power question has been mishandled from the beginning, and grave injury has been done in many instances. The government's industrial labour record is also bad, but I intend to leave that record for a thorough discussion by some of mv colleagues.

The Address-Mr. Coldwell
I wish now to move an amendment to the amendment. This afternoon the leader of the opposition moved an interesting amendment. The three clauses dealt with the use of Canada's man- and woman-power; it asked for a rational labour policy, and it sought to provide adequate measures for the assistance of Canadian agriculture. We are in agreement with those three aims; but in spite of the professions of the party sitting with new garments in this house, I think it is altogether significant that the amendment deals only with human power and agriculture, complaining that these have not been sufficiently mobilized. It fails to make any mention of what I have just referred to in this house, the necessity for the mobilization of industry and wealth. If you are going to demand a labour policy, if you are going to demand an industrial policy on a compulsory basis, then at the same time you must also demand something which is more necessary at the present time because compulsory mobilization of man-power is already in effect. I refer to the compulsory mobilization of industry and wealth. I read the programme of the Winnipeg convention and I think I noticed two little words. After calling for the mobilization of man-power, the leader of the opposition, this afternoon, called for the mobilization of industry and wealth, "where necessary." I suspected that there was a joker in the policy adopted by the convention which was attended by my hon. friends, and therefore I want to move the following amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis):
That the motion be further amended by adding to the amendment the following words,

"And further we regret that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to take the necessary action to achieve a total war effort by neglecting to apply the powers contained in the National Resources Mobilization Act to war industries and financial institutions in the same manner as they are being applied to the mobilization of man-power for military service."
I am not going to deal to-night with the pressing need for a reduction of farm debt because, as I said before, my time is not unlimited. I shall not deal with the question of adequate parity prices for agricultural products, because this will be dealt with by some of my colleagues. But I do wish to say a few words about the Casablanca conference about which the Prime Minister made some explanation to-night. This was a conference between the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the President of the United States. We share the satisfaction expressed in the speech from the throne; but we regret, because of circumstances of course, that
Premier Stalin and Generalissimo Chiang-Kai-Shek were not present. We feel that if they could not have been present themselves, they might have been represented there.
The remarkably successful invasion of north Africa by Anglo-American armies was one of the most remarkable feats of organization the world has ever seen and one to which we should pay tribute. But the situation which developed thereafter, I believe, filled everyone with any sense of democracy with grave apprehension. I know it did me. Nor has that apprehension been allayed by the retention in places of great power of former French collaborationists with the nazis. The appointment as Governor of Algiers of Peyrouton, the friend of Pierre Flandin, the former minister of the interior of the Vichy government and former minister to Argentina, if I am not mistaken, has strengthened this feeling of misgiving across the world.
For example, we know that Jewish refugees from nazi aggression and volunteers who fought against the fascist and nazi troops in Spain when this war was being rehearsed are still languishing in north African prison camps under conditions which are reported to be particularly vile. It seems to me that Canada, as one of the united nations with her sons and her materials fighting in every quarter of the globe, has earned the right to make herself heard on behalf of persecuted democrats and oppressed minorities wherever they may be found. I want to go further than that and say that in my opinion the time has arrived when Canada as one of the smaller nations sharing the sacrifices of this war should demand on her own behalf and on behalf of all the small nations a voice in the inner councils of the united nations. I realize, of course, as the Prime Minister has said, that it is impossible to call together the representatives of all the nations involved in this war on every occasion, but I certainly think a meeting of the nations should be held in the near future, at which meeting the nations themselves could appoint a small executive council to carry on with the conduct and strategy of the war.
I know that at least one of our great allies, China, feels the need for the formation of an executive council of the united nations. Such a body is essential if we are to achieve greater unification and closer cooperation in the formulation of a more effective war strategy, a clearer understanding of war aims and a more regular exchange of views regarding the post-war world for which the democratic peoples are fighting. I take it that the democratic peoples know, in a vague sort of way it is true, the kind of world for which
The Address-Mr. Coldwell

they are fighting. Such a council should be concerned, too, with evolving an international instrument capable of dispensing justice and enforcing law and order in the post-war world.
These are not Anglo-American problems alone; they are the common problems of all the united nations. It is sometimes argued that we are represented now by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. That is not my view, nor is it the view of Australia, as Prime Minister Curtin's speech to the people of the United States made abundantly clear. Those of us who heard that speech last week will remember the unmistakable manner in which he expressed his views over the air, speaking not to the government of the United States, not to its great President, but, as he said, appealing directly to the people of the United States. I suggest that Canada should join her voice to those of China, Australia and the other nations who are urging the formation of an executive council of the united nations. A united purpose to win the war, a united purpose to rebuild the world is essential to the well-being of mankind, but it is manifestly impossible to go into these matters at length to-day. I am asking the Prime Minister now to arrange for an early debate on the place of Canada in the council and strategy of the united nations.
It is, I think, significant that last year the speech from the throne made no reference to the fate of our army which we had dispatched to Hong Kong, and this year no reference is made to the gallant and major part played by the Canadian soldiers at Dieppe. I understand that the Dieppe attack was reviewed carefully at Westminster. It should be reviewed equally carefully by this house, because in the main our own men were involved. This house, too, should be made aware of the extent of the submarine menace to our shipping, of the steps taken to defend our coasts and coastal waters, and to what extent, if at all, we rely on the United States army for the defence of any of the vital strategic defence areas of this country or just beyond it. The government must decide whether all this should be done in open or closed session, but the time has come when hon. members should insist on a complete report to this parliament. In view of Canada's contribution to the common cause we should not allow ourselves to become the mere satellite of any of our major allies. Because of our peculiar position between the two great Anglo-Saxon nations, because of the fact that we are not interested in the building up of any sort of imperialism, and because of the fact that across the north 
of our country stretches the main air route between the great populated areas of the world, Canada's voice may be of more importance in the future than most of us can realize now.
My time is just about up, but in my concluding remarks there are one or two other things that I want to say. I am glad to note that the Prime Minister is thinking of relieving his ministers of some of the work and duties in this house. We are told in the speech from the throne that assistance will be given to them. I have suggested on more than one occasion in former years that the government adopt in this house the British system of under-secretaries, not only because I believe it would relieve the ministers, but because I believe it is good that the younger members of the party in power should have an opportunity of gaining that experience which is essential in an institution of this description. I therefore am veiy glad to welcome the proposal of the Prime Minister. It has been made before; it has been supported in this house from all quarters of the house before; and I sincerely hope that this time the suggestion will be carried out, not only as a war measure but as a policy of future governments in this country.
I was disappointed, however, to hear the Prime Minister say that he thought a revision of the rules of the house ought not to be undertaken during this period of war. I saw, as did the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght) who is sitting right opposite me tonight, His Majesty the King read the speech from the throne in Great Britain at eleven o'clock one morning. We went to the commons gallery and we heard the mover and .the seconder of the address; we heard the leader of the Labour opposition, we heard the leader of the Liberal party; we heard the first ten minutes of Mr. Churchill's speech as Prime Minister; and we were on our way to luncheon shortly after one o'clock. In two hours that business had passed through the British house. I have read the rules of some of our sister nations, New Zealand, for example, where the rules have been changed in comparatively recent years; and in my opinion if we would modernize the rules we could do very much in this house without interfering whatsoever with freedom of expression or freedom of speech.
After what I have said, I do not want to transgress the rules of the house by going beyond my time limit as I am apt to do; but I want to say again, Mr. Speaker, that other matters connected with the government's proposals will be dealt with by my colleagues when they have an opportunity to speak.

Criminal Code-Female Jurors


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as this is the first full day of the session and I am sure nearly everyone is weary, I wonder if it would be tusking too much to ask Your Honour to call it eleven o'clock.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is rather hard for Your Honour to call it eleven o'clock, but if my hon. friend would like to move the adjournment of the debate I do not think there would be any objection.
On motion of Mr. Blackmore the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 1050 p.m.
Tuesday, February 2, 1943