[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Mackenzie (Neepawa):
1.	(a) How many investigations into peat possibilities have been carried on by the dominion government, (b) in what years, (c) at what cost, (d) briefly, with what results?
2.	(a) How many peat bogs in Canada have been investigated, (b) in what provinces were these investigations made?
3.	How many tons of peat are estimated to exist in Canada?
4.	What known deposits close to large centres in Canada have been surveyed?
5.	Was the removal of water from Canadian peat successfully accomplished and maintained?
6.	Which methods of drying were successful in Canada?
7.	What has been the European experience in artificial drying and what conclusions did Hausding arrive at?
8.	(a) What companies have been formed in Canada for peat production, (b) what was their capitalization, (c) which were successful?
9.	What are the conclusions of the Department of Mines as to the economic possibilities based on experiments performed?

Mr. MARSHALL:: 1.	How many persons, firms and corporations have filed their forms hut have not yet paid their income tax for the years 1938, 1939, 1940 and 1941?
2.	What is the total amount due and unpaid on income tax?
3.	Of this amount, how much is entirely uncollectible?


Mr. GIBSON:: 1.	(a) 480,698 returns were filed in 1938; 504,417 returns were filed in 1939; 1,023,536
(Mr. Crerar.]

Questions
returns were filed in 1940; 1,234,428 returns were filed in 1941.	(b) Information not
available.
2.	Unknown as amount fluctuates from day to day.
3.	Up to date there has been transferred to head office as uncollectible $1,804,255.45 for all years from inception of act, out of a total collected of $4,159,089,585.00 up to February 28, 1943.


INTERNMENTS
Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	Does the National Registration Act of 1940 embody specific penalties for violations, and if so, what are they?
2.	Is Mr. Camillien Houde detained in an internment camp under the said act?
3.	If not, then under what other statute?
4.	If Mr. Houde is detained under an act other than national registration, what is the penalty imposed by such law?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:
1.	There is no national registration act of 1940. If this question refers to the national registration regulations 1940, these regulations were made under The National Resources Mobilization Act 1940 and the War Measures Act, and they provide specific penalties for offences described in regulations 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 29, the maximum penalties being, under certain of these regulations,
a fine of $500 and imprisonment for three months, and under others of these,
a fine of $200 and imprisonment for three months, and, moreover, to a further penalty not exceeding $10 for each day after the day upon which a person should have registered, during which he shall continue to be unregistered.
2.	No.
3.	Regulation 21 of the defence of Canada regulations made under the War Measures Act.
4.	Detention under regulation 21 is a preventative action and not punitive. When prosecutions are instituted for past offences, the maximum penalty for contravention of the defence of Canada regulations is, on summary conviction,
a fine of $500 and twelve months imprisonment and upon indictment,
a fine of $5,000 and five years imprisonment.


INTEREST PAYMENTS TO CHARTERED BANKS
Mr. SLAGHT:: At what rates and in what amounts will the government have paid the chartered banks in interest during the current fiscal year?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 
JAPANESE FISHING VESSELS DISPOSAL COMMITTEE
Mr. NEILL:: 1.	What are the names of the members of the Japanese fishing vessels disposal committee?
2.	For what purpose were they paid $19,000?
3.	How did the government become responsible for payment of $80,000 for damage claims re Japanese vessels?
4.	Of what did the damage principally consist and how did it arise?
5.	Give the details of amounts over $25 making up the item of $4,000 paid to "Fisheries" under the head of sundries?


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: 1.	This committee terminated its duties December 31, 1942. Its members were: Honourable Sidney A. Smith, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Chairman; Commander B. L. Johnson, D.S.O., R.C.N.R.; Mr. Kishizo Kimura.
2.	Members of the committee were not paid $19,000. They served without remuneration. The sum of $19,000 was allotted under the War Appropriation Acts, 1942-43, to meet, in part, administrative expenses to enable the committee to carry out its terms of reference. Revenue derived by the committee largely offset these administrative costs.
3.	Pursuant to report and recommendation of the Japanese fishing vessels disposal committee that there was a responsibility to the owners to make good certain damages and losses that occurred to vessels and equipment during process of immobilizing and while under impoundment.
Questions

4.	Damage and loss in respect of hulls and equipment suffered incidental to large scale impounding action under emergent conditions.
5.	Sundries item under heading "Fisheries", War Appropriation Acts, 1942-43, detailed as follows:-Canned lobster control scheme, $3,000; Wartime fisheries advisory committee, $1,000.


SYNTHETIC RUBBER
Mr. BENCE:: 1.	Are there any synthetic rubber plants in Canada?
2.	If so, where are such plants located?
3.	From what raw materials is such rubber being manufactured?
4.	Are any synthetic rubber plants to be erected in Canada?
5.	If so, where are they to be located?
6.	What raw materials will be used in the manufacture of rubber in such plants?


Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by 1.
3.	Answered by 1.
4.	Yes.
5.	Sarnia township.
6.	Butadiene-made from petroleum; styrene -made from coal and petroleum.


HAMILTON, ONT., NAVAL BARRACKS
Mr. MacKINNON (Kootenay East):: 1.	Have arrangements been made for the construction of a naval barracks at Hamilton, Ontario?
2.	If so, what is the estimated cost thereof?
3.	When will construction be commenced?


Air. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Land, $20,000; building, $211,000. Total, $231,000.
3.	Working drawings and specifications have been completed and passed to Department of Munitions and Supply for calling of tenders on 19th February, 1943. It is expected that tenders will be received not later than 17th March, and that a contractor will be appointed as soon as possible after that date.


J. GORDON FOGO
Mr. CARDIFF:: 1.	Is Mr. J. Gordon Fogo, barrister of Halifax, in the employ of the dominion government?
2.	If so, in what department?
3.	At what date did he enter the service and m what capacity?
4.	What salary does he receive?
5.	What amount of allowance and expense has he been paid to December 31, 1942?


Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Department of Munitions and Supply.
3.	(a) October 31, 1942.
(b) Associate Co-ordinator of Controls.
4.	None.
5.	$1,225 plus $55.35 travelling expenses.


PULPWOOD PRODUCTION AND NEWSPRINT PRICES
[Stage Direction]
Mr. O'BRIEN:
In view of the announcement in the press by the wartime prices and trade board that an increase of $4 per ton has been allowed on newsprint what provision, if any, has been made so that the independent primary producers of pulpwood may be reimbursed on pulpwood they produced and which is presently held by newsprint producers as inventory?
James Lorimer Ilsley: One of the major factors
contributing to the necessity of an increase in the price of newsprint was an increase in wood costs to newsprint mills. These increased wood costs were in part paid to independent primary producers of pulpwood. In view of these circumstances no provision has been made to increase payments to primary producers of pulpwood.


POST-WAR CIVIL AVIATION
Mr. GREEN:: 1.	Have explanatory talks taken place between Canada and the United States concerning postwar civil aviation?
2.	Has the government received any assurances from the United States that Canada will be kept informed of any agreements or negotiations between the United States and other powers relating to post-war civil aviation?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	In the frequent discussions which take place between officers of the Canadian legation in Washington and officers of the state department on questions of common concern, reference has been made to the problems of post-war civil aviation.
2.	No assurances have been asked for from the United States and none has been received that the United States will keep Canada informed of any agreements or negotiations between the United States and other powers relating to post-war civil aviation. The Canadian government, however, assumes, in view of the general nature of its relations with the United States government, that on questions of this character each government will keep the other informed of important negotiations which are being conducted with other powers on the subject of post-war civil aviation.

Questions


CIVILIAN PASSENGERS FLOWN IN CANADA BY UNITED STATES PLANES
Mr. GREEN:: 1.	Have civilian passengers been flown in Canada by any United States planes without the proper authority having first been obtained from the Canadian authorities?
2.	If so, what action, if any, has been taken by the government in regard thereto?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	The government has been informed that on one occasion a civilian passenger was flown in Canada by a United States plane without proper authority.
2.	This report has been brought to the attention of the United States government and is being investigated.


PERMITS FOR EXPORT OF FLAX AND COARSE GRAINS
Mr. WRIGHT:: 1.	Are permits required for the export of Canadian flax and coarse grains?
2.	If so, have any permits been granted for the export of Canadian flax and coarse grains to the United States since August 1, 1942?
3.	What are the names and addresses of firms to which such permits have been granted, and for what amounts?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes-the procedure is as follows:
Application is made to the Canadian wheat
board for a permit to export coarse grains. After satisfying themselves that the domestic market is properly taken care of, the wheat board approve of the export. It is then cleared through the agricultural supply board of the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Trade and Commerce issue the permit. No permits are issued for the exportation of eastern oats and barley.'
Applications for permits to export oil bearing flax are first considered by the oil and fats administrator before permits are issued.
3.	The application for an export permit bears the following quotation:
"The above information is for the confidential use of the Canadian government and it will not be, in whole or in part, given to any unauthorized person."
The release of such information would disclose to their competitors the details of business carried on by individual firms and as the information is furnished in confidence, that procedure is not considered to be in the public interest.


CANADA HANDBOOK
Mr. WINKLER:: 1.	How many copies of the Canada Handbook have been printed by years for the past five years?
2.	By years, how many were given away and how many sold during the above period?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: 1.	The following numbers (combined total English and French editions) were printed:
1938,	49,157; 1939, 39,093; 1940, 44,529; 1941, 31,199; 1942, 43,176.
2.	(a) The following (total free distribution for English and French combined) were distributed free of charge to public libraries, leading newspapers, contributors and the list authorized by order in council, etc., 1938, 5,562; 1939, 6,661; 1940. 5,935; 1941, 5,915; 1942, 6,042.
(b)	The numbers (combined total English and French editions) sold were: 1938, 43,495;
1939,	32,374; 1940, 38,339; 1941, 24,662; 1942, 31,188 (this last figure covers sales to Sept. 1942 when sales were still in progress).
The larger part of the balance left on hand, at that date, has since been sold, mainly to the United States public.


JAPANESE IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	What was the total population of persons of Japanese origin in the province of British Columbia at the time the order was made for the evacuation of the Pacific coast defence area?
2.	How many of such persons of Japanese origin were (a) Japanese nationals, (b) naturalized Japanese, (c) Canadian born, (d) citizens of other countries?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	21,975.
2.	(a) 9,382; (b) 6,497; (c) 6,084; (d) 12.


CLOVER SEED
Mr. LACOMBE:: 1. Is there a shortage of clover seed in Canada?
2.	If so, what steps will be taken to procure the necessary quantities for the use of farmers before seeding time?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	There is a shortage of red clover and alsike clover seed in Canada.
2. It is expected that purchases will be made in the United States to meet, as far as possible, shortages here.


ALFALFA SEED
Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	Is the government aware that there is a shortage of alfalfa seed in the country?
2.	If so, what is being done to meet the requirements of farmers for this class of seed?
3.	Will the government take the necessary measures to procure a supply?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	The government is aware that there is a shortage of alfalfa seed in eastern Canada.

Questions

2.	Purchases are being made now by the agricultural supplies board of surpluses in western Canada for the purpose of meeting eastern Canadian needs.
3.	See answer to No. 2.


NURSING SERVICE FOR CHILDREN OF MOTHERS IN WAR INDUSTRIES
Mr. BRUCE:: 1.	Has the government taken any steps to provide a "nursing service" for the care of children of mothers engaged in war industries?
2.	If so, what has been done and when will such service be in full operation?
3.	How many nurseries will be opened?
4.	Where will they be located?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	An agreement has been signed with Ontario and Quebec under the terms of which the two governments are to provide day care for the children of mothers engaged in war industries on a 50-50 basis, the provinces assessing the needs. The provincial health authorities arrange with the local boards of health for the examination of the children before admission and for medical and nursing inspections, several times a week and on call of the nursery.
2.	Fourteen day nurseries have been approved by the two governments, nine of which are operating at the present time. In the other six the necessary alterations are under way and they will probably be opened between the 1st and 15th of April. Medical and nursing service is provided as stated in (1) above.
3.	Additional day nurseries will be authorized wherever the need arises and is presented by the provinces.
4.	Day nurseries now approved are located in Brantford, Galt, Oshawa, St. Catharines, Toronto (6) and Montreal (4).



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: How much scrap iron and/or steel has been shipped out of the province of Alberta during the years 1941 and 1942?


METEGHAN, N.S., FISHERMEN'S RESERVE
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: 1.	Has the government expropriated the Meteghan fishermen's reserve situated at Meteghan wharf in the township of Clare, Nova Scotia?
2.	If so, for what purpose?
3.	If the said expropriation has taken place, has the property been disposed of by lease or sale to the Clark Shipbuilding Company Limited? If so, on what terms?

4.	Has any settlement been reached with the proprietors expropriated on this area? If so, what are the terms of such settlement?
5.	How many proprietors have been settled with and how many remain to be settled with?
6.	Is it the policy of the government to use its power of expropriation with respect to private party and hand the property expropriated over to another individual or corporation?


PURCHASE OF BUILDINGS OR PROPERTIES SINCE BEGINNING OF WAR
Mr. REID:: 1.	How many buildings or properties has the government purchased in the city of Ottawa since war commenced and up to the end of February, 1943?
2.	For what particular branch of government or war department were the buildings or property procured?
3.	What amount of money was paid for each building or property?
4.	How many buildings or properties exclusive of air fields or military camps have been purchased in each province since September, 1939, and up to the end of February, 1943, with (a) the total cost of all buildings or properties concerned?


RECREATION AND HEALTH SERVICES FOR WAR WORKERS
Mr. BRUCE:: 1.	Was a plan for a recreation programme proposed by Lieut. Ian Eisenliardt?
2.	If so. at what date?
3.	Was it approved by the director of selective service?
4.	Was it approved by the Department of Pensions and National Health, as a health measure?
5.	Was it submitted to the Minister of Labour for his approval?
6.	If so, at what date, and did he approve?
7.	Was any action taken by the Minister of Labour to implement this plan and, if so, what action?
8.	Has provision been made by the government to enable the director of recreation to put into effect the health and nutrition services for war workers?


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. DORION:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence and other documents in the possession of the government, dated during the past two years, relating to the building of a road on the north shore of the St. Lawrence river between Tadoussae and the Atlantic military stations situated on Labrador coast.


Mr. RALSTON:: I spoke to the hon. member and he is going to send me some correspondence on the matter. I presume the motion can stand in the meantime.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Stands.

Canadian Navy-Sinkings in St. Lawrence


OLD AGE PENSIONS
Mr. KNOWLES:: For a copy of all communications and other documents, from January 1, 1941, to the present, exchanged between the government, including any department or official thereof, and the governments of the several provinces of Canada, relating to the following matters: (a) increasing the amount of the old age pension; (b) lowering the pensionable age; (c) the making of changes in the Old Age Pensions Act.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: It should be understood that it will be necessary to communicate with the provinces in the first instance and ascertain their readiness to have the correspondence tabled.


Mr. COLD WELL:: Is that the procedure which is usually followed? The provinces are not nations beyond this country involved in negotiations with the government. It seems to me that that is extending the ruling too far. This is a sovereign parliament.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend will realize that there is probably no matter on which the provinces are more sensitive than that of being ignored and action being taken by the federal government without any prior conference with them. I would think that it was most desirable, apart from all else, that we should avoid giving grounds for an impression of the kind being created. The provinces have their own jurisdiction and they are partners in the work of government of the dominion. As between partners there should at least be the courtesy of asking consent to tabling correspondence to which both have been parties, before having it brought down.


Mr. GRAYDON:: For the purpose of
clarifying this particular point, I ask, where a question of a similar nature is asked in a provincial legislature, does the provincial government seek the consent of the dominion government where there is correspondence of this kind to be brought down?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I could not say offhand, but I should say they ought to, if they do not. I might point out in any event that the administration of old age pensions is under the provinces. There is a special reason therefore for communicating with the provinces in the first instance.


ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, may I draw the 72537-72|
attention of the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald) to the question which I directed to him in his absence last Friday in connection with the debate in the Quebec legislature, and ask him if he is now in a position to make any statement in that regard. I raise the question only because there has been a further press report of proceedings in the Quebec legislature dealing with the same subject upon which he may want to say something to-day.
Hon. ANGUS L. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence for Naval Services): I could make a statement on the question now, but inasmuch as the matter seems to have developed into a difference of opinion between myself and the Hon. Mr. Gagnon of the Quebec legislature as to the number of ships sunk, I stating that there were twenty, and he stating that there were more than thirty-


Gordon Graydon: Upwards of thirty.


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: -I have suggested to him that the best way to deal with the matter would be to let the naval services department appoint one man, and let him appoint somebody, and have them choose a third neutral man to determine which is correct. I have made that suggestion to Mr. Gagnon; I hope he will accept it, and if he does I believe it will end the controversy one way or the other.
I could make a statement to the house today merely repeating what I have already said several times, that our records show twenty merchant ships sunk in the gulf and river St. Lawrence in the year 1942. That is all I know of and all that I can find anything about. I have asked Mr. Gagnon if he knows of other ships beyond that number, to give me their names and the dates and places at which they were sunk, and I would carry on an investigation. If he does not wish to give me that information, I suggest the only other way to determine the matter would be to have a committee appointed.


Mr. HOMUTH:: Waste money on a commission.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: It need not be a waste of money. There need not even be a commission. It can be a purely private matter. I will name a naval officer familiar with the river St. Lawrence. It will not take more than a day or two to ascertain the truth. Then the public will be satisfied.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: These twenty or thirty were sunk by Atlantic submarines. Is the minister not aware that Dr. Goebbels in a radio address forecast that Ger-
1130	COMMONS
Canadian Navy-Sinkings in St. Lawrence
many will have a thousand submarines in the service this year, and that one hundred were in the Atlantic last December and January? Washington stated before Christmas that a homeward bound Atlantic convoy met a whole pack of them and was attacked for four days continuously. Surely the minister must give the house this information. I will give him information later on in the day to show where these submarines in the St. Lawrence came from.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I did not catch what my hon. friend said. I believe he was referring to some statement made in the United States. At any rate it has nothing to do with the point before the house.


Gordon Graydon: If I may say so, I do not think that what the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services has said is an answer to the question which I propounded to him in his absence on Friday. It is not quite enough under the circumstances. I believe the house is entitled to a statement from the minister setting out his point of view and giving us whatever information he or his department is able to give on this particular subject. It may be all very well to speak of a commission or a commiUee or a private gathering of three people to determine this. But should the minister not be able to determine it himself with the facilities at his disposal? In to-day's Montreal Gazette appears a statement by another member of the Quebec legislature confirming the one which was made by the Hon. Mr. Gagnon. I do not want to go into the proceedings of the Quebec legislature, but the minister ought to give the house a full statement covering a matter which is so serious and which has had the public reaction which this appears to have had.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I shall make a statement, but it will not satisfy the Hon. Mr. Gagnon, or Mr. Langlais, who repeated Mr. Gagnon's statement. They know my view of the matter. I shall repeat to the house what I have already said several times in the press and elsewhere.
In one dispatch by the Canadian Press Mr. Gagnon was credited with saying that not twenty but upwards of thirty ships were sunk in the St. Lawrence river and gulf last summer. A dispatch which appeared in the Montreal Star of March 5 stated that Mr. Gagnon had said that not twenty but in reality thirty ships had been sunk by enemy submarines in the St, Lawrence. Another report contained in the French language newspaper L'Action Catholique under date March 5 quotes Mr. 
Gagnon as follows: "More than thirty ships were sunk in the gulf and river last summer." The Ottawa French newspaper Le Droit quotes Mr. Gagnon to the same effect.
I have stated several times that twenty merchant ships have been sunk in the St. Lawrence gulf and river during the navigation season of 1942 as a result of enemy action. I made that statement at a press conference in Ottawa on November 24. At that time I was dealing with and replying to somewhat similar charges made, I think, in some cases by members of this house, or made by public men of some sort or other, to the effect that forty ships had been sunk.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: What does the minister mean by "some sort or other"? To whom is he referring?


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: That is a derogatory statement.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I said that so far as I could recall, the statement concerning thirty ships having been sunk was made by a member of this house-I am not sure as to that, but if not it was made by a public man of some sort or other. I do not know whether he was a member of a legislature; at all events he occupied some sort of public position; he was in the public eye. In reply to that statement, I declared that the number sunk was twenty. It seems necessary to continue to make these denials indefinitely.
Going on a little further, Mr. Gagnon is quoted in the press as having said that on one day, September 10, five ships were sunk in this area. In that statement Mr. Gagnon is absolutely wrong. There is no record of five ships having been sunk in the river on that date.
Mr. Gagnon is further quoted as saying that two United States destroyers were sunk, presumably in the same area. In reply to that statement I can say that there is no record of any American destroyers having been sunk at any time in this area.
Mr. Gagnon says that he has a list of the names of the ships sunk and the dates on which they were sunk. I asked Mr. Gagnon to produce this list for my investigation. I have asked him by telegram and he replied that surely my own department has the information. My department cannot have this information on ghost ships having been sunk- flying Dutchmen or something of that sort. My department has information as to the sinking of twenty ships, and I have told Mr. Gagnon that if he has information to the contrary and makes statements to the contrary, it is his duty to make good those

Canadian Navy-Sinkings in St. Lawrence
statements. Every time I have made the statement as to twenty ships having been sunk I relied for my information upon the records of the Department of Naval Service. I may say that twenty may be a high figure, because included in the twenty are at least two ships which might properly be said to have been sunk outside the gulf area proper.
Mr. Gagnon goes on to say that control from Ottawa is responsible for delay in attacking the submarines after they have been sighted. I say definitely that so far as the naval service is concerned any naval ship sighting an enemy submarine anywhere would attack instantly without awaiting instructions from anybody, because that is what they are there for. I say further that the general control of these matters is in the hands of the naval officer in charge either at Gaspe or Quebec or Halifax, and no direction or concurrence from Ottawa is needed to carry out an attack.
Mr. Gagnon also makes a reference to the Royal Canadian Air Force, which he criticizes in somewhat the same terms. I believe that what I have said about the naval ships would apply with equal correctness to the air force. In any case I think the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) some time ago dealt adequately with a charge of this sort.
In the debate in the legislature last week some reference was made to the fact that there might be refuelling bases in the river and gulf of St. Lawrence for enemy submarines. All I can say to that is that no trace of any such bases has ever been discovered although most thorough investigations have been made. Any one who reflects on the matter will realize that the difficulties of establishing such bases on the shores of the St. Lawrence are so great as to render such a proceeding very unlikely. I have said in this house, and I have said it several times elsewhere, that the fuel capacity of modem submarines is ample to allow them to cruise from their bases in Europe to the shores of the north American continent, to do their work there for some weeks even, and then to return to their base in Europe without the necessity of refuelling. A round trip from a submarine base at Lorient, for example, on the coast of Europe, to the St. Lawrence, is no more than six thousand miles. German submarines can cruise twice that distance, and some of them do even better than that. They can remain away from their base for many weeks. It is possible that refuelling is done from mother ships, as they are called1, somewhere on the sea, although we have no definite evidence of that.
I should like to point out that there have been many more sinkings in the gulf of Mexico area than in the St. Lawrence area. These two areas are comparable in that they are both bodies of water to which access can be obtained only through comparatively narrow straits and they are both protected by islands and peninsulas. Yet the gulf of Mexico, some two thousand miles further away from the European bases of German submarines than is the gulf of St. Lawrence, has had twice as many sinkings as the gulf of St. Lawrence has had, and I have heard nobody in the United States suggest that the whole United States fleet should be diverted1 from its other duties to protect the gulf of Mexico.
Some reference was made in the same debate to spies and to the fact that there might be some spies on the shores of the St. Lawrence.
I think that hon. members of this house, and I should hope hon. members of any house, would realize that it is very dangerous to begin to talk about spies at such a time as this. To publish information about spies or about the capture or the presence of spies, would be helpful to the enemy rather than helpful to this country.
I should like to say finally that in about two months time a new navigation season will open in the gulf and river St. Lawrence, and no one can prophesy what action will take place in that area during the navigation season. I believe I am safe in saying that every possible precaution will be taken by the Canadian armed services, the navy, the army and the air service, to deal with every situation which can be expected1 to develop. To cope adequately with a problem of this kind, however, involves the cooperation of citizens in the area and the cooperation of members of this house and of provincial legislatures. To disclose information which might be helpful to the enemy by asking questions in public or by making statements in public is not doing a service to this country. For the welfare of the parts of the country which are directly affected by this discussion, and for the protection of the lives of the men who must fight every threat which is made, I ask for all the cooperation that it is possible for hon. members of this house and for all the citizens of Canada to give to the armed services.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, the latter part of the minister's statement is very reassuring and I am sure that it will make an appeal to the people of Canada. I rise only to ask a supplementary question. Is there any truth in the report that at a certain period of time last summer
1132	COMMONS
Canadian Navy-Sinkings in St. Lawrence
one of our naval patrol vessels was absent from duty carrying a party from Rimouski to a fishing river on the north shore?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: That statement I think has been denied already within these walls. If it has not been denied, I deny it now completely. I wish to say that I have telegrams and letters from those who are accused of having used the naval vessel for that purpose and they deny absolutely that any naval vessel accompanied them on the fishing trip in question.


Thomas Langton Church: I would call the attention of the minister to one fact which he has not disclosed to the house and which we are entitled to have. At the very same time that these twenty or thirty vessels he speaks of were sunk in the St. Lawrence, a United States convoy was attacked off the Canadian coast. The news was given out in London and Washington, and the names of the ships were given. They were attacked by the same pack of submarines. The house is entitled to the information. I can give the information to the minister either privately or publicly because it has been given by a celebrated admiral and naval critic, H. G. Thursfield, who has written articles in United States and English papers. I shall refer to the article later. I can tell the minister Canada had better wake up. She cannot depend very much on General Winter for help.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Is my hon. friend asking whether more ships were sunk than those referred to as being sunk in the gulf of St. Lawrence? It is obvious that ships are being sunk in the Atlantic. It needs no naval expert to assure us of that. We know that submarines are operating there and sinking ships.


ST. LAWRENCE RIVER QUESTION AS TO OPENING TO SHIPPING IN COMING NAVIGATION SEASON
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. K. HAZEN (St. John-Albert):: The Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald) in reply to a question with regard to the sinkings in the St. Lawrence, said that in about two months' time navigation would open in the St. Lawrence. Can the minister tell us if it is the intention to open the St. Lawrence this summer to ocean shipping? The longshoremen in the port of Saint John would like to
	1
have information in advance if there is to be employment there this summer, because many of them do not live at the port but in other parts of the province, and if they go to their homes and engage in other work it will be difficult to get them back if their services are required.
Hon. ANGUS L. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence for Naval Services): All I can say is that no decision has been reached to close the St. Lawrence to shipping this summer. Beyond that I do not care to go. All these matters must be decided in the light of circumstances at the time.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell). On February 22 he answered two questions which I placed on the order paper. They are found at page 581 of Hansard:
1.	How many labour-management committees are functioning in Canada to-day?
Approximately 631.
2.	How many employees are engaged in the plants where such committees function?
Approximately 327,395.
Subsequently I asked for lists of the committees. To-day's issues of the Montreal Gazette and the Toronto Globe and Mail report that yesterday at a meeting which the minister attended he said, and the statement is in quotation marks as though they were the minister's own words:
"Labour management production committees were to be extended, and already there were 360 organized covering 325,000 workers."
My question is which of these statements is correct, and when will the minister table a list?


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: The first statement is correct. I was speaking from memory and I guess I got the figures mixed.


BONUS ON IMPORTATION OF CRUDE OIL FROM MONTANA INTO ALBERTA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. E. MICHAUD (for the Minister of Munitions and Supply):: Yesterday the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) asked a question at page 1075 of Hansard, the substance of which is whether a bonus is being

The Budget

Mr. Bence
paid on the importation of crude oil from Montana into Canada. The answer is that no bonus or subsidy is being paid on the importation of crude oil from Montana into Canada.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is it being contemplated?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: No.


RESOLUTION OF THREE RIVERS TRADES AND LABOUR COUNCIL AS TO RATIONING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. ROY (Gaspe):: I should like to ask a question of the government. I hold in my hand a resolution passed by the trades and labour council of Trois Rivieres, Quebec. It reads as follows:
Whereas the ration of butter actually available is totally insufficient for the worker who brings his meal at the plant;
Whereas such a rationing, besides allowing an insufficient quantity of butter might prove to be a serious impeachment to the war effort of the worker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Vien: I have heard sufficient of the question to understand the purport of it, and I suggest that it is one that should be placed upon the order paper.


MILITARY SERVICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: I desire to address a question to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) arising out of an item appearing in to-day's press, which reads in part as follows:
Labour minister Mitchell announced last night that, by order in council, the date for registration of single men under the military call-up has been extended to March 15. The final date for registration previously had been fixed for March 1. . . .
Mr. Mitchell said there still seemed to be confusion in some men's minds over whether or not they were "single" for military call-up purposes. The further extension, the minister said, will help these men to determine their status.
My questions are-


Thomas Vien: I think that is a question that should be placed upon the order paper.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask the question, sir, and then you can determine whether it is proper? The question I wish to ask is this. In view of what is said there in this press item, has there not been strict enforcement of the regulation against defaulters during the last few months? During what period has an amnesty prevailed, and after March 15 is it the intention of the government to go after the defaulters?


Thomas Vien: I think the minister may take that as notice of the question.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister is ready to answer the question now.


Thomas Vien: Although the minister may be ready now the questions asked would be just as much at fault. I think they should not be answered.


THE BUDGET
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, March 9, consideration of the motion of Hon. J. L. Usley (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Blackmore, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. A. H. BENCE (Saskatoon City):: When the house adjourned last night I was dealing with the problem which had arisen in western Canada in connection with the production of flax. My remarks in that connection are practically concluded. I referred to the fact that whereas on December 9 last it was decided to increase flax acreage in this country by one million acres, about the middle of January the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) announced that it was not desirable to increase the acreage. Subsequently a statement was issued from his department to the effect that the increase was desired, and subsequent to that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) stated in this house that they did not want the increase.


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: No, I did not say that.


Alfred Henry Bence: Well, I could give the
minister the exact words, but in effect what he said was that so far as they could tell at the present time there were no indications that the flax acreage was to be increased this year as compared with last year, which is exactly the same thing. Subsequently statements were made by responsible officials of some of the departments that the flax acreage was to be increased. All I have to say, Mr. Speaker, is that this matter should be cleared up as quickly as possible in order that the confusion which has been caused to the farmers may be removed.
The Budget-Mr. Bence

Before I leave this subject. I might say just a word in connection with the processing of flax in this country. It appears that Canada produces considerably more flax for oil purposes than we can process. This information was given to the house by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) on February 22, when he stated that the net marketable crop last year was 13,230,000 bushels, whereas the total capacity for flax processing in this country was only 6,395,000 bushels; and of course it may be that the explanation for the change in the policy of the administration with respect to this year's flax production is that we have not the flax processing plants on the north American continent. But, Mr. Speaker, in reply to the same question to which I referred a moment ago the information was given to this house that there were in operation, in Canada nine flax processing plants with one under construction. Three are in the city of Montreal; two are in the city of Toronto; one is at Baden; one is at Winnipeg; one is at St. Boniface; one is at Medicine Hat, and there is one under construction at Hamilton. What I should like to know, and what I believe many people in this country would like to know, is why a plant is being constructed in Hamilton, which is already surfeited with industries, where already they are having great difficulties in regard to housing and other matters, and where it will be many hundreds of miles from the source of supply. As I demonstrated last evening, the great bulk of the flax produced in this country for oil purposes is grown in Saskatchewan, which is the province more particularly interested in this problem than any other. But that province has no flax processing plant. I do not know the reason for this, but it does seem to me that if we are to have an effective and efficient war effort the government must have its mind continually trained on problems such as these. Here is the situation. We produce the flax in Saskatchewan, and we ship it to Hamilton or Toronto or Montreal or some other place in order to have it processed. If it were processed in Saskatchewan we would save a great deal of labour on the part of the employees of the railways; we would be able to use the freight cars for other purposes-


Mr. GIBSON:: Is the hon. member suggesting that the plant in Hamilton is being constructed by the government?


Alfred Henry Bence: No, I am not suggesting
that at all; I never made such a suggestion.
I said a plant was being constructed in Hamilten.


Colin William George Gibson: Not by the government.


Alfred Henry Bence: I did not say that. I sug
gested that if we were to have an efficient and economic war effort the government must train its mind1 on the problem of having these plants where they will be most effective; and surely if we are to solve some of the labour and transportation problems we now have on our hands the government should decide where these plants should be located in order most economically to produce these very necessary materials. Would it not have been far better to locate this new plant in the province of Saskatchewan, rather than in Hamilton, in order to avoid all these transportation difficulties? I dp not know how it came about that the plant was located in Hamilton, but what has the government done about it? What attempt has been made to solve these problems? To me this is a demonstration of a waste of man-power and effort which we cannot afford to have at this time, to which I shall refer more particularly in a moment.
I do not propose to deal specifically with anything set out in the budget speech of the Minister of Finance, except to make some brief reference to the pay-as-you-earn plan. The whole question of the budget and all its ramifications was admirably covered in the speech delivered by the hon. member for Danfortb (Mr. Harris), and it gives me a great deal of pleasure indeed to congratulate the hon. member upon the diligence with which he prepared that address and the manner in which he delivered it in this house. In reference to the pay-as-you-earn plan I merely wish to emphasize that it is not the Ruml plan. As I see it, the difference between the Ruml plan and1 the plan which has been introduced by the Minister of Finance is that under the Ruml plan we would skip one year's taxes, while the minister's plan merely provides that we must pay two and a half year's taxes in the space of two years. The mistake the administration has made lies in the fact that last year they put into effect what I would refer to as a half-baked sort of Ruml plan, whereas if they had adopted the principle in toto last year we would have it on a proper basis this year. In my judgment the Ruml plan appealed to the people of Canada, but I rather fear that they will be disappointed in the plan that has been presented by the minister because, as I said before, in effect what it means is that over a period of two years we are to pay two and a half year's taxes.
During .the current year we shall be required to raise the sum. of $5,500,000,000, and whatever anyone else may say about it, I believe this is going to be a tremendous financial

The Budget-Mr. Bence
burden, particularly upon the small people of this country. Further drastic restrictions will have to be imposed, which will bring about a further lowering of our standard of living and in some cases, particularly in connection with those having small and rigid incomes, there will be a certain amount of want and suffering. And, Mr. Speaker, because the people of Canada are so vitally affected by the budget; because their standard of living is being reduced so drastically; furthermore and particularly because their loved ones and their friends are offering their lives in all parts of the world in defence of freedom, they are determined that the war effort of this country, from a production point of view, must be as efficient and as economical as it is humanly possible to make it. I do not desire to make any charges or to suggest that anything is wrong in the sense that there has been corruption, but in my opinion there has been a great deal of wastage in our war effort due to a lack of foresight and a lack of planning on the part of the administration. The flax situation, to which I referred a short while ago, is one small example of lack of foresight and planning so far as saving man-power, energy and material is concerned. As I see the picture there has been a lack of cohesion, a lack of coordination and a lack of long-range planning in connection with many phases of Canada's war effort. The position is this, that in many cases things have been done the hard way, and when they have been done the hard way they have been done the costly way. Many problems have not been squarely faced until they have been right upon us, and the methods then adopted to cope with them necessarily have been hastily conceived and badly carried out.
I have in mind at the present time one striking example, namely, the construction of temporary buildings in Ottawa for the purpose of endeavouring to house practically the whole of our administrative effort in this beautiful city. I referred to this before when I spoke in the debate in reply to the speech from the throne, and I intend to refer to it again, because it is the kind of suggestion which hon. members should make to the government in order to relieve some of the unnecessary wastage that is going on.
First of all I would point out that there seems to be an attitude of mind that it is necessary for every part of the administration to be housed in Ottawa, and the person who is in control of any administrative effort seems to feel he must be down here at what he considers the head of affairs. If the situation is considered carefully, and if these people would only look at the whole picture, they
would realize that they can carry on their work just as easily in some other part of the country, and if they did there would be no necessity for the erection of these temporaiy buildings at tremendous cost.
In a return to the house on June 1 last it was shown that since the beginning of the war there had been constructed or there were then under construction in Ottawa eleven temporary buildings and one annex, at a total cost of $5,411,099.76. On the first of June of last year only half of those buildings had been built; the rest of them were still under construction. This was the condition, mark you, practically three years after the beginning of the war, when labour and materials were getting scarce; yet half of the buildings were being constructed at that time. That might have been all right at the beginning of the war, when we had plenty of labour available and an abundance of materials; but every possible step should have been taken to avoid that unnecessary expenditure and that unnecessary condition at a time when the material was so badly needed for other purposes.
Not only that, but the condition is continuing. On March 8 there were tabled the answers to some questions I had asked earlier. One question was as to how many more temporary buildings were to be erected in Ottawa, and at what cost. I received the answer, with respect to the Royal Canadian Air Force, that land and buildings for certain constructions were to cost $312,000. Land and buildings for another department were to cost $54,205; and in addition to that, for the purpose of office accommodation for the wartime prices and trade board, there was to be a building costing $450,000.
At the same time may I point out that there appeared in the press of February 26 the statement that the government approved the building programme under the National Housing Act, and that in Ottawa and vicinity a million dollars was to be spent on the construction of houses. Of that amount a quarter of a million dollars was to be paid by the government.'
I suggest that in large measure the reason for this lies in the fact that there has been such over-congestion in Ottawa, and so much of the work has been done here that it is necessary to go on putting more nails, more steel, more lumber and more energy into coping with problems which have been created by the government's action. We need that labour, we need that lumber, we need that steel and those nails for other purposes, and I suggest to the house that there should be no
The Budget;-Mr. Bence

building in Canada to-day which is not absolutely required for our war effort. I say that because I believe we have sufficient buildings in this country to take care of our war programme, and we must make the most of what we have. We need this labour to make munitions of war, to produce foodstuffs, and for dozens of other essential things. We need, indeed, the labour and the lumber for the preservation of our own people.
The other day we received an announcement through the mail, one which had been given out by the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) indicating that the wood fuel situation in Canada is desperate. It showed that next year there was likely to be a worse condition, because not only are we using up last year's supply, but that lumber which was being cut and was intended for next year is already being used in order to heat houses and to do necessary cooking. We know, too, that there has been a desperate shortage of coal this winter, and that that shortage will be even greater next winter.
If this extra labour is available it should be used to produce what is necessary to keep our people from freezing. The labour should be directed to other purposes than erecting more buildings in Ottawa. If the situation had been properly canvassed many of those buildings would not have been necessary. In Canada to-day many buildings are being used for non-essential purposes. Many factories are still producing non-essential goods. Why was not the whole situation canvassed thoroughly by someone with over-all authority who could say to these various departments: That building is not necessary, because we can send you here, or we can send you there? Why is there not someone who would have the job of investigating and determining whether or not certain factories could be used for these purposes, if at the present time they are not producing something essential?
The buildings being erected in Ottawa are temporary, and they are intended as nothing else. Many stores are curtailing their hours of sale because of lack of goods to sell and lack of labour. Several examples can be found right here in Ottawa. Along some of the main streets one can see cards in the store windows stating they will not be open until such-and-such an hour. Why can we not work out a plan under which some of these store buildings could be used for housing administrative workers? Why could not stores be doubled up? There is no necessity for having two stores open a half day when one could be open a whole day and the other be made available for other purposes.

Large department stores find that their counters are bare because they have not the goods to sell. I am not criticizing anyone because the goods are not there. We cannot continue to produce non-essential consumer goods. This is a necessary result of our war programme. There is no reason why all these stores should be operating when one building could do the work now being done by four or five. Some of them could then be used for the purposes for which the temporary buildings are being constructed. I do not think this is an unreasonable suggestion. It may be the kind of thing which would be considered drastic in peace time; but when we are in a life and death struggle we can put up with inconveniences. We shall have to put up with many more before we have finished.
There are many possibilities which could be canvassed with a view to providing necessary office accommodation. Let us go outside of Ottawa, to the various cities across Canada, and utilize the buildings that are available. But even in Ottawa I think more diligence could have been shown in finding available accommodation.
I believe members of parliament could be asked to put themselves to some small inconvenience. In many cases we have comfortable private offices. Many of them are now accommodating only one member. Surely we could make some kind of arrangement to double up-and I am sure the senators would agree to a similar arrangement. They would probably agree to come from the other side of the building, and we could make some provision whereby we could provide accommodation for some of the additional workers now in Ottawa.
Every possible step should be taken to avoid unnecessary construction at the present time. This is not a question of money; it is a question of man-power and material. If there is already office space in the country which can be used, then certainly we should not be constructing new buildings in Ottawa.
A moment ago I referred to the fuel problem, and I shall conclude my remarks by making a further reference to it. As I stated, the Minister of Munitions and Supply issued a press release from his department in which it was asserted that the wood fuel situation was serious, and he made certain suggestions as to how the problem might be solved. One was that the government was going to pay an additional dollar per cord to the fuel dealers. Another was that farmers might go to work cutting fuel in their off season, and that they would not thereby lose the privileges they have at the present time under the national selective service regulations. I

The Budget-Mr. MacKenzie (Lambton)
presume that some legislation is to be introduced or some order in council passed to make that official. At present it is merely a statement that the selective service officers will consider farmers doing this work as not losing their exemption under the regulations. But I do not know how that is to be accomplished officially. In any event the problem will not be solved in that way, because the farmers are just getting ready to put in their crops, and this wood fuel problem is one that must be solved now. Next winter will be too late. The fuel problem is a very serious one, and the people will suffer unnecessary hardships if it is not tackled immediately, and with courage, and with some measure of efficiency and effectiveness. The problem is of first importance and its solution is the job of those who have been given a mandate to carry on the affairs of this country. The only solution as I see it is a proper plan of allocation of labour which will take out of unnecessary production workers who can be put at this particular kind of labour. We have not yet effectively tackled this question of taking workers out of non-essential work. But when we face the danger of our people suffering and even freezing to death next winter, something should be done without further delay.


Mr. H. A. MacKENZIE (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to discuss the budget I first want to pay tribute to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) for bringing down the budget so early in the session. It must have meant long and arduous hours of labour to bring down a budget providing for the raising of such a colossal sum of money. It is very difficult indeed to allocate the burden of taxation fairly among the taxpayers of Canada when taxation is called for upon such a stupendous scale, but I believe that the people as a whole regard this budget as a very good one and are prepared to accept the challenge to work and save which the Minister of Finance made to the people in his closing remarks the other night.
I wish to discuss particularly some problems pertaining to agriculture. A return that was brought down the other day was interesting to me. It showed that in the fiscal year 1942-43 only about 1,500 farmers paid income tax to an amount of approximately $150,000. The minister's estimate of income tax receipts for the fiscal year 1942-43, which ends on March 31, 1943, was approximately $842,000,000. That means that the farmers paid approximately five cents each in income tax, because according to the census of 1941 the farm population comprises 28 per cent of the total
population of the country, or about three million people. If this is a fair estimate of what the farmers are supposed to pay in income tax, they are not getting a fair share of the national income. If we are ever to settle the problems of agriculture satisfactorily the remuneration for the products of the farm must be raised to a comparable basis with the products of industry. We must also provide some relief from the drudgery of farm work, and make farm homes more attractive, with conveniences more in line with those found in the homes of city dwellers. We are asked to produce, but the farmers get very little encouragement to produce. It is true that in most long wars food products play an important part in the long run, and that is true of this war. It is probable that the foodstuffs of the world will play an important part in the final outcome of this war. That is why our farmers are being asked to produce more of all kinds of farm products.
In the matter of hydro extension, the farmers, and I am speaking particularly of Ontario, have been discriminated against. About two years ago an order was issued that no new installations of hydro should be made in rural communities. Three factors entered into this picture. There was the hydroelectric power commission, the power controller and the metals controller. The order provided that no new installation of hydro could be made, except under permit, if the home was more than 250 feet away from the transmission line. During this time houses were being built in towns, cities and incorporated villages and hydro was installed there without any restrictions at all. Fixtures also were allowed to be installed. But all this was denied to the rural people. In many of the rural districts the hydro transmission lines run down the concession lines, but the farmers were denied the privilege of hydro. At the same time this right was extended to city dwellers. I say, Mr. Speaker, that the farmers of rural Ontario are more entitled to the use of hydro power than people who live in incorporated villages, cities and towns, because our farmers have to work long hours before daylight and after dark and have great need of hydro power. I am glad to note that the hydro commission is now cooperating with the controllers on a scheme whereby hydro can be extended to the rural people. Less than thirty per cent of the people in rural Ontario have hydro or running water in their homes, and until we can make these conveniences available to people in the rural districts we can never solve the problem of a happy and contented rural population. I
1138	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. MacKenzie (Lambton)
shall discuss agricultural problems further, probably on the estimates of the Department of Agriculture. But for the moment I wish to talk about economies on parliament hill, in the houses of parliament as now constituted.
The question has been raised in this chamber by hon. members of practically all groups, by the press throughout Canada, and by individuals in public speeches and addresses, that the cost of government services is too high. Even prior to the present war the matter was one of public discussion. To go back a few years, around 1906 to 1908, the expenditure at Ottawa was approximately forty to forty-five million dollars. In 1939, the budget which was approved before the outbreak of war, and which made provision for a large expansion of national defence, was about $550,000,000. The provision for expansion of the Department of National Defence was made because war seemed inevitable, although some groups in this house did not appear to think so. Many hon. members will recall when old age pensions were first discussed in this house, and also pensions for the blind. Everybody admitted that there was merit in those demands, particularly those on behalf of people who were so unfortunate as to be blind, but the invariable answer from the government of the day, from the then Minister of Finance and his colleagues on the treasury benches was, "We appreciate all that, but where will you get the money from?" We are now in the fourth year of the war, and war, at best, is waste, not only of material things but of life itself, and that of our own soldiers as well. The peoples of Europe, Africa and Asia are sacrificing their lives by thousands if not millions. In the fourth year of the war we are budgeting for an expenditure of five and a half billion dollars, or practically ten times as much as we budgeted for in 1939. Therefore it is pretty hard for the people to go back to the belief that if the occasion demands, whether it be a national crisis or a specifically economic crisis, the money cannot be procured if it has to be got. But the people would feel more satisfied if they were assured that money was being carefully expended and rigid economy practised with respect to government expenditures. We should turn from habits of extravagance to habits of saving. As it is, the fear is expressed by many people throughout the country, particularly where large construction work goes on, that the money is not being carefully expended, that rigid economy is not being practised, and that the country's savings are being wasted. We are asked to save; we are even forced to save. We are expected to refrain from luxuries and to be content with the necessities of life.

I do not intend to enter into a general discussion of whether Canada is overgoverned. If I did, I think the answer would be emphatically, yes. In this dominion, with approximately eleven and a half million people, there are over four thousand money-spending municipalities. Apart from that, in this dominion and nine provinces there are over eight hundred and fifty lawmakers-more than in any other country in the world with the possible exceptions of the United States and Great Britain. It is true that Ontario, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia have made moves to lessen the number of their legislators, and we here could very well follow their example. Following the 1931 census, provision was made for two hundred and forty-five members of the House of Commons. In accordance with the census of 1941 the number will be reduced, particularly from Saskatchewan and Manitoba, but there could very well be a further reduction by a general reallocation of seats throughout the dominion. I do not propose to discuss at any length the position of the upper chamber, because it was a subject of debate at some length both last year and this year. In fairness it must be recognized,
I	believe, that the upper chamber is composed of honourable and capable men. But if we go back we shall find that in 1891 the Liberal platform contained a plank called "senate reform". The subject was debated in this chamber at some length in 1909 and 1910, and at that time the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen voted for senate reform. Since that time he has been in the upper house and out of it, but there is no record that he made any reference to it while he was there. It was, I believe, in 1942 that the hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Gladstone), speaking in this house on July 7, said, as reported at page 3991 of
II	ansard:
The other house should be used or disbanded altogether. There are highly qualified and experienced men in that house who should be given an opportunity to render service to Canada. We are paying them and letting them die of dry rot.
This House of Commons was in session for six months last year, and during that time the upper house met only twice for short periods. It is true that just recently, when the 1942 war appropriation supplementary estimates of around $858,000,000 were passed in this house, there were at that time, according to the press, only twenty members of the upper house who thought it important enough to assemble to discuss that matter of a mere $858,000,000.
Again, we find that last year, as reported in Hansard of May 6, at page 2183, the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Ross) said:

The Budget-
-Mr. MacKenzie (Lambton)
Mr. Speaker, in view of the urgency of the situation and the desirablity of strengthening in every possible way our parliamentary institutions by recruiting thereto men and women of outstanding ability, will the Prime Minister tell the house when he will be in a position to announce the appointment of men and women of ability to the Senate of Canada to fill the many vacancies at present existing?
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) replied:
I shall be glad to take note of my hon. friend's desire to be considered in that connection.
Why should such appointments be necessary? If we have any thought of reducing government costs in this country and in the House of Commons, should they not be reduced in the other chamber as well? Either the number of members should be reduced or that house should be abolished altogether. As the hon. member for Wellington South said last year, they should be given some useful work. Why can they not institute some useful work of their own? I notice that this year they are appointing some committees to study rehabilitation and reestablishment, and also social security. That is fine, but I believe they should also be able to do something useful to help the House of Commons in the problems which annually confront us in this chamber. For instance, a war expenditures committee appointed by this house has been operating for the last two years. It is composed of twenty-four members. They have done some useful work. A question was asked in the house recently about the cost of that committee. I am not in a position to say how much it is, but it must be considerable. The members of the committee get $15 a day, and there are additional expenses in connection with stenographers, stationery, and so forth. Is there any reason in the world why the upper house should not perform the duties of that war expenditures committee?


Mr. SENN:: The $15 a day is not taken by all the members.


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: That is what is provided. Whether they take it or not, I do not know. For several years we have been talking in this house about appointing a committee to study the estimates, but nothing has been done. Every session since I have been here the Ottawa Journal or the Ottawa Citizen has commented on the millions that are passed in a minute or two in the closing days of the session. Is there any reason why the upper house should not study these estimates, so that
when they come here for final adoption we shall be able to vote on them at least intelligently? It is true there is an opposition, and it is rather amusing to watch them at times feebly asking questions about this or that expenditure. The information given is supplied by the departments, and those asking the questions get very little information.
These estimates are prepared by the different departments. In reality most business is done by orders in council and the estimates are prepared by the civil service. In my opinion the upper chamber is not given any useful or contributory work to do. On different occasions the Prime Minister has stated that he favoured senate reform. In view of the fact that there are eleven vacancies, I suggest that he pull the plug and let them all go. It would mean a saving of at least $380,000 a year, besides saving other expenses.


Mr. MacNICOL:: This house cannot abolish the senate.


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: True, we cannot abolish the senate, but if we refrain from appointing them it will abolish itself in time. Last year the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean) said, something about government costs. I am quite in accord with what he said. If we are asking the people of this country to save and conserve, to exercise economy, I think we should set our own house in order and practise economy here, thereby giving an example to the Canadian public. Speaking in the house last year, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) said;
In my judgment, parliament is more and more on trial at the bar of public opinion. There is something wrong with this House of Commons. I am not reflecting on the house and I do not know what is the cause, but there is something wrong with it and I have asked myself, "is it the fault of the government in any way?"
Let me offer some suggestions which I think will help to solve some of the problems that confronted the Minister of Finance when he asked that question. I believe, and I think many other hon. members agree, that far too much of the time of the house is taken up in asking questions of the members of the government who sit on the front benches. Much of the information asked for in these questions could be obtained from the departments without taking up the time of the house. I quite appreciate that some questions have to do with matters of national urgency, but there are many others that should be directed to the departments.
Many of the speeches made in this house are made for home consumption, for the pur-
U40	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. MacKenzie (Lambton)
pose of getting them on Hansard. On February 25, 1892, an order in council was passed regulating the franking privileges enjoyed by hon. members of this house and of the senate, as governed by section 43 of the Post Office Act. This section reads as follows:
Letters and other mailable matter addressed to or sent by the Speaker or Clerk of the Senate or of the House of Commons at the seat of government shall be free of Canada postage, and letters and other mailable matter addressed to or by any member of either house at the seat of government during any session of parliament, or to any of the members at the seat of government as aforesaid, during the ten days next before the meeting of parliament, shall be free of Canada postage.
These franking privileges have been abused from time to time by the members of this house and the members of the other house. Reports have come to the Post Office Department-this is definitely on record-to the effect that members have abused this franking privilege by conducting their private business under the frank. It is also true that members and senators living outside Ottawa have sent mail in bulk to the Speaker of the House of Commons or the Speaker of the Senate respectively to be mailed under the frank.
The reading of speeches is still adhered to. The rule should be either that we should be permitted to read them or that we should not be permitted to read them. When some hon. members make speeches-the house knows this is. correct-they have thousands of copies printed which are mailed free on government stationery to their constituents.
Mr. MaeNICOL: The hon. member knows that we have to pay for the printing of those speeches.


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: I said that they were sent out on government stationery and mailed free of postage to constituents.
Mr. MaeNICOL: The postage is free.


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: And the stationery is free. They go out in Hansard envelopes, which are supplied free.
Mr. MaeNICOL: The member pays for the paper.


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: The
member does not pay for the Hansard paper.
Mr. MaeNICOL:	Oh, yes; and for the
printing.


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: I will come to that a little later. Some members or groups of members in this house use the House of Commons and the Post Office De-

partment as a clearing-house through which to spread their political propaganda and doctrines to their constituents at the public expense. There is no doubt about that. I have seen rooms of members filled with stenographers and messengers stamping envelopes which would be sent down to the paste room to be sent out to the post office.


An hon. MEMBER:: They would be Liberal members.


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: I am not saying what particular members they were. I have seen trucks loaded with this stationery to such an extent that one would think they were moving the stationery department. These trucks are filled up with literature being sent to the paste room to be mailed at the taxpayers' expense. The stationery supplied to the members of the House of Commons during the last few years has cost from $35,000 to $40,000 a year. According to a report which I received, 400,000 Hansard envelopes were supplied to members of the House of Commons in 1942. Surely the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) does not contend that he is paying for these Hansard envelopes.
Mr. MaeNICOL: I said that I paid for the printing of any speech that I mail out.


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: The hon. member may pay for the printing of his speeches, but they are sent out on government stationery and mailed free of postage at the taxpayers' expense.
Mr. MaeNICOL: If I may correct the hon. member again. I believe that in paying for the printing of such speeches, I pay for the paper upon which they are printed, as well as for the printing.


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: And the Hansard envelopes?
Mr. MaeNICOL: No; I get those free, the same as every other member.


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: If this franking privilege granted to the members of the House of Commons and the Senate were abolished, it would reduce the length of the session by months and the stenographic and messenger staffs could be reduced by one-third. It would save tens of thousands of dollars of the taxpayers' money. Imagine the cost of transporting all this mail that goes out free!
I feel sorry for the rural mail carriers who have to deliver this mail up and down the country because it is all sent out free of postage.

The Budget-Mr. MacKenzie (Lambton)
Then there is another factor that we must remember. A man might want to start a leadership league, and he would advertise in all the papers and send them free to members of the House of Commons. The house will remember that two years ago hundreds and thousands of letters came to this house because they were free of postage. If the two post offices in the houses of parliament were amalgamated there would be a great saving. At the present time there are two post offices, under the jurisdiction of the respective Speakers. They should be amalgamated and placed under the direction of the Postmaster General. It is claimed by the post office authorities that the franking of mail matter of the Senate and the House of Commons each year would amount to approximately $55,000 or $60,000 if postage were paid. I admit that in the original plan the intention of the franking privilege was that members of the House of Commons should be able to conduct their correspondence relating to government work free of postage. And in view of the income tax that hon. members have to pay, it probably would be a hardship to abolish that privilege. They should be allowed a small amount for postage on their mail while parliament is in session. The present legislation regarding franking was enacted many years ago, and it applies to the other government departments as well. It reads as follows:
All letters and other mailable matter addressed to or sent by the governor general, or sent to or by any department of tlie government at the seat of government, shall be free of Canada postage under such regulations as are, from time to time, made in that respect by governor in council.
Post office officials to whom I have talked at different times regarding this are of opinion that the abolition of the franking privilege of the House of Commons and the Senate would do more for economy and save more than any other single factor. To be sure, if none of the departments were free from postage it would probably mean taking money out of one pocket to put it in the other, but it would more than any other factor induce them to conserve and save. A few years ago the cost of mail sent out from the departments was approximately $750,000. That has increased to $2,500,000 and is increasing daily. So that if this franking privilege were abolished it would help more than any other factor to solve the problem of extravagance at Ottawa.
If freedom of speech is the bulwark of democracy, let us not talk it to death in this house. It is true that in the United States congress the members may send their speeches
to the Speaker and have them printed in the record without the trouble of delivering or reading them in congress.


John Ritchie MacNicol: They are not allowed to read them in the United States congress.


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: But I understand they may be handed in.


John Ritchie MacNicol: If a congressman wishes to speak he can rise in his place and make his address, but he is not permitted to read it.


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: Also if he wishes to have it taken as read he can hand it in. I am confident that seventy-five per cent of the speeches made in this house are not listened to at all except by the Hansard reporters.
Can one imagine why we should have two post offices in this building, manned by two separate staffs, one under the jurisdiction of the Speaker of the Senate, and the other under the jurisdiction of the House of Commons? If we do not change our rules regarding these houses of parliament, a wave of sentiment throughout the country will change our rales for us. I think that of all systems of government, ours, which is copied from the British parliamentary system, is the very worst. It was invented two hundred and fifty years ago to break the power of a parliament which was not disposed to do anything but compete for places on the treasury benches and raise money for war against Louis XIV.
I shall offer a few suggestions to the Minister of Finance and to this government which I think would go a long way to solve the question of what is wrong with our houses of parliament here in Ottawa.
The first is the amalgamation of the post offices in the parliament buildings into one and to place that one entirely under the jurisdiction of the Postmaster General. The second is the abolition of the free franking privilege of members of the House of Commons and the Senate as well as of all government departments. The third is the abolition of the senate or at least the reform of it. Members of the senate should retire at least at retiring age.


Thomas Vien: I would remind the hon.
member that the rules do not permit speaking disrespectfully of the Senate.


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: I did not think I was speaking disrespectfully of them.


Thomas Vien: It is pretty close to it.
The Budget-Mr. Johnston

(Bow River)


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: Let me qualify it. I said at the start that I believe they are an honourable and capable body of men, but they are like a fifth wheel on a coach.


Thomas Vien: I think the hon. gentleman is going further than he intended. I suggest that he should not make any such reference.


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: Then I say that public sentiment believes that at least there should be a retiring age for the members of the senate, because every other public body has a retiring age. And fourth, I would say that there should be a change in the rules of this house so as to provide that private members must confine their speeches to twenty minutes instead of forty as is now the situation.
I am sorry if I have transgressed the rules, but I make these statements because I believe that we are abusing the privileges and rights that belong to us as a parliament.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am rather amused at the remarks of the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. MacKenzie) who has just taken his seat. He went out of his way to reprimand other hon. members for speaking in such manner as would tend to give them publicity in their own constituency; yet I would think the speech of the hon. member would be a proper one to have been made in a Liberal caucus. That is where he should have his fights; after all, a Liberal government is in power and it is up to them to take measures to counteract the things of which the hon. member is complaining. Further, I wish to say that the members of our group never do speak for home consumption; they try to give something constructive.
It would appear from the budget speech of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) that farmers are to receive no increase in income despite the universally recognized fact that all costs of agricultural production have gone up. It must be remembered, Mr. Speaker, that agriculture is this nation's basic industry and that without a prosperous and virile agricultural population this country will never reach the height of prosperity that is so essential to the welfare of Canadians and so necessary to our war effort. Agriculture is also a vital war industry, just as truly as are those other industries which are producing the munitions of war, and I believe that unless we recognize that fact and face the problems of agriculture immediately, there is grave danger of an economic collapse on our food
I Mr. Speaker.]
front. That is why I wish to direct my remarks this afternoon more particularly to agricultural matters, because in my opinion such a collapse on the agricultural front would be just as disastrous as a collapse in the manufacture of the munitions of war.
Such direction as the government has given agriculture so far has, in my opinion, resulted only in confusion, not only among the farmers but among the ministers of the crown themselves; and on account of this lack of proper direction the farmers are becoming desperate, for they see no solution of the problems with which they are faced. I think it is a well known fact that many leaders in agriculture are now coming to the point where they are implying, if not suggesting, that the only way in which agriculture can bring its problems definitely to the attention of the government is by going on a sitdown strike. That is not the best solution, yet for some reason or another it seems to be the only way in which not only agriculture but-industry itself, and especially organized labour, can get results, either by the threat of a strike or by actually striking. That may not be the best thing to do, but I do not see how else the government is to be moved. That is not a healthy condition to have in this country.
One of the matters in which I am particularly interested is the problem of man-power. With this in mind I have gone over the speech of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) as well as the budget speech of the Minister of Finance to try to find out what is the proposed man-power policy in regard to agriculture. I must confess that it is very confusing to me, as I am sure it must be equally confusing to the farmers of western Canada and, in fact, to the farmers throughout Canada as a whole. I am amazed at the attitude of the Minister of Agriculture toward the manpower problem. I think it is safe and fair to say that he does not fear the man-power problem at all, in fact that he sees no shortage of man-power on our farms. He is peculiar in that regard; certainly he is the only western man I know of who does not see that difficulty looming before us. On February 9 the minister made a speech dealing with this problem, and in the course of his remarks he referred to the large number of farmers and farmers' sons and daughters who had left the land and gone into other occupations, particularly in war industries. I wish to quote a few of his words, as they appear at page 269 of Hansard: Although we did that, what has been the result? Not long ago I was speaking in Saskatoon to a group of farmers. I had been asked the question that has been asked in the house on numerous occasions since this debate began: Is there going to be a labour shortage

The Budget-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)
this year? I had to say that we had been building up our objectives year after year while the number of persons on the farms has been going down year by year; we have not yet reached the peak of production under these conditions, and until we have done so I cannot say with absolute assurance that lack of labour will prevent us from reaching our objectives this year.
I do not think I can be accused of being unfair when I say that the minister does not view the labour problem with alarm, for he says he is quite sure we shall reach our objectives this year without any additional farm help. He goes on to say:
I have this to say as well, and every member of this house, on both sides of the house, knows it is a fact. For eight years before this war started, boys and girls brought up on farms never intended to remain on the farm. They had been directed, from their childhood up, towards some other activity, but they found it impossible to get off the farm.
It is probably quite true that large numbers of people, particularly young people, were extremely anxious to leave the farms, but why? I think the answer should be obvious to the minister or to anyone. The reason was that there was not a decent living to be had on the farm for the farmer and his whole family. Agricultural conditions were such that they could not maintain a decent standard of living, and consequently they sought employment elsewhere. Then he goes on to say:
With regard to overall production, our farms to-day, with these 250,000 gone, are producing more than they ever produced before.
He is again emphasizing the fact that there is no danger from a man-power shortage, and he is so emphatic in that regard that he concludes his remarks with these words:
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that those of us who have been speaking on agriculture have been emphasizing the necessity for labour during the coming year. I am oing to repeat that I have not been convinced y any arguments I have heard in the house, nor am I convinced by our experiences of the past, that we cannot reach the objectives which we have placed before the farmers of this country for this fourth year of war.
With that summary he definitely concludes his argument, saying that although we have asked for a much greater production from the farms in this, the fourth year of war, he sees no difficulty whatever in reaching that objective with the present labour on the farms, despite the fact that more than 250,000 people have left the land. But the Minister of Agriculture seems to have overlooked the fact that the only ones now left on the farm, as a result of government policy, are the more elderly people. All the young men have been conscripted for the army, and the young women have joined the armed forces as well.
In some instances, of course, they have gone to industries. The result is that the only ones left are those people who are no longer young, who are not mechanically minded and who have never had any experience in operating tractors or combines. These are the developments in agriculture, and as a result farmers will face difficulties this year.
The Minister of Agriculture may say that we do not want our people to raise too much grain, and that he would like them to devote their time and energy to stock-raising. But if he takes that view I think he is definitely showing his ignorance in regard to farming because, without question, there is a great deal more work, especially in the winter time, when a farmer has to feed and water stock, whether it be cattle or hogs. If farmers are to increase their cattle and hog production, then they will have a great deal more labour than ever before was required on their farms. It seems strange that the minister does not realize that in the west to-day the farmers face a peculiar situation. I believe I am conservative when I say that at least forty-five per cent of crops are still out, and unthreshed. The reason why the grain is still out is that, through government policy, the young men have been taken off the farms. Last fall, when threshing operations were in progress, there were not sufficient young men to make full crews on threshing machines. The result was that the rate of threshing was greatly reduced. With the early fall-and I am not blaming the government for that-over forty-five per cent of the crop was left to lie under the snow.
But the minister disregards that entirely. He says quite definitely the farmers do not need to worry about help on their farms, because they have sufficient help now. That is his statement, despite the fact that over 250,000 have been taken off the farms. That is one point of view.
I said a moment ago that there has been confusion in the government itself, among cabinet ministers, in regard to the man-power problem. I should like to prove that assertion, and I believe I can do it to the satisfaction of the house. I have set out the view of the Minister of Agriculture in regard to this problem. Now for a few moments I shall refer to what the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) has had to say. As I read the minister's statements in regard to man-power I believe the remarks made by the last speaker were appropriate when he said that much of this stuff was just for purposes of propaganda. I believe the proposals of the Minister of Labour were mostly that.
1144	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)
Hon. members will recall that whea the minister spoke on February 26, as reported at page 741 of Hansard, he referred to his concern about the question of man-power, and read a special letter on this subject from Mr. MacNamara which had been sent out to the boards. The minister was turning his attention here, there and everywhere in an endeavour to find men for the farms. Why? Why was the Minister of Labour so anxious to get men for the farms this summer when the minister in charge of agriculture-the Minister of Agriculture himself-says there is no danger whatsoever? It would appear that the Minister of Labour has not consulted the Minister of Agriculture in this regard-either that or he is woefully ignorant of the facts.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not think a statement like that is very elevating, when the hon. member does not even know what he is talking about.


Charles Edward Johnston: We will just see about that. Let the Minister of Labour keep his ears open, and he will find out. I think the Minister of Labour will agree with me that the Minister of Agriculture does not view with the least bit of alarm the man-power problem on the farms. I do not hear the minister make any remark on the point, and accordingly I take his silence as consent.


Humphrey Mitchell: And you do not need to do that, either.


Charles Edward Johnston: I do not know whether your opinion would be worth very much, when contrasted with that of the Minister of Agriculture. But I am trying to show the contention of the Minister of Labour, and I hope he will-


Humphrey Mitchell: To be fair-and you started this argument-the conclusion in my hon. friend's mind is not in the mind of the Minister of Labour.


Charles Edward Johnston: I will put the facts on Hansard, and hon. members can judge for themselves. I do not think anyone will doubt what I said with regard to the stand taken by the Minister of Agriculture.
Now then, let us see what the Minister of Labour had to say in regard to the regulations concerning man-power. I have said he was looking here, there and everywhere else; and I am convinced it was mostly propaganda stuff. I say that because this is his solution: He is going to take boys and girls from the schools, and put them on the farms. Why put boys and girls from the schools on the farms if they are not needed? Anyone who has worked on a farm knows it is not a summer

resort. We tried that plan out to a degree
last year, and it was- successful only to a certain extent. But those of us from the west know that the young people who went from eastern Canada to work on the western farms, despite their willingness-and I am not questioning that for a moment-just did not know how to go about their work. If the Minister of Labour thinks for a minute that these young and inexperienced people, some of whom never saw a cow in their lives, and the great majority of whom did not know how to run a combine or how to work efficiently, were sufficient to answer the need, then I say he is mistaken. Some of them did not know how to handle a fork. True, they were earnest, and some worked almost to the point of exhaustion; but even then they did not accomplish much.
Despite their work, over 45 per cent of the crop is now under the snow. I believe I have given sufficient proof that that policy will not work; and yet that is where the Minister of Labour is to get his help for the farms. If that does not work, what will he do? He will put prisoners of war and internees to work on the farms. I suggest that in doing so, he is just beating around the bush, and that he is not really serious in his attempt to solve the problem-if there is a problem, because the Minister of Agriculture says there is not.
It may be necessary to put some of those people on the farms, but I suggest that the Minister of Labour will have difficulty in doing it. There might not be the same danger from using prisoners of war on farms as there would be from using them in industrial plants. But certainly the element of danger is not eliminated. We know that a prisoner of war could just as effectively interfere with agricultural production as he could with production in industry. For instance, it would be very simple for one of them to ruin a tractor in ten minutes. He could destroy a combine and thereby impair the efficiency of agricultural production. There again I fear the Minister of Labour will have difficulties. Whether he believes seriously that either of the two procedures I have mentioned are sufficient to settle the man-power question, or that they will be effective, I cannot say. But from a practical point of view his suggestion does not appear sound to me.
If that does not work-and, you see, these are all so vague; all these propositions by the Minister of Labour are just straw men to take care of a problem the Minister of Agriculture says does not exist-the Minister of Labour will try something else. If that does not work he will draft the conscientious objectors. If that does not work he will take men from the

The Budget-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)
reserve army who can establish that they are urgently needed on the farms. It is not up to the farmers, but up to the individuals themselves, to establish that they are urgently needed on the farms. These men whom he will take and put to work on the farms are men in the lower medical categories who have been rejected for the army on account of physical unfitness. In all seriousness I suggest to the Minister of Labour-I cannot believe that he has ever been on a farm-that a farm is no health resort, and if the farmers are to be compelled to take these men who are physically unfit the minister will find himself in difficulty again. I can speak from practical experience, and I wish to assure him that work on the farm requires a healthy body. It is exceedingly heavy work; the hours are very long. If a man is not in good physical condition he simply cannot stand up to the strain, and agricultural production will suffer in consequence.
I come now to the last suggestion, and it amuses me as I am sure it did the Minister of Labour himself when he put it down. His last suggestion is the temporary closing of manufacturing plants. Surely, Mr. Speaker, we have not reached the stage where we have to close down our production plants in order to take care of the man-power shortage on the farms. Does that indicate careful planning? Surely the Minister of Labour is not serious in his suggestion that our production plants must close down. If so, why? It is true that at Calgary two or three hundred men have been laid off work at the Ogden shops and it is likely that more men will be laid off there. But if we have to start to close down our production plants to take care of the labour shortage on the farm, then definitely there must be something wrong with our production planning. I cannot think that the Minister of Labour is serious in that suggestion. I have a clipping here from the Ottawa Journal of February 25, 1943, which, discussing the minister's emergency farm labour plan, says:
Most drastic feature of the farm labour programme was the plan for the calling up for agricultural service men now in low medical categories. It was believed that the men drafted for this work would draw army pay-not less than $45 per month and full maintenance-to be paid by the farmers employing them.
If that is true, and I do not hear the Minister of Labour contradicting it - the Minister of Labour can take this as a joke, but the farmers do not consider it a joke-


Humphrey Mitchell: I am not taking it as a joke. It is my hon. friend.


Charles Edward Johnston: I do say that either the Minister of Labour or the
Minister of Agriculture cannot be serious about this man-power shortage on the farms when he would make this recommendation. He is going to make the farmer pay $45 a month, plus all maintenance charges, for men in low medical categories who take up farm work despite the fact that we cannot have any increased prices for agricultural products and despite the fact that the farmer is able to sell only so many bushels under the quota system. If that does not work, the minister will then see what he can do about sending the women out to work on the farms. If that does not show a sad state of confusion over this manpower shortage problem I should like to know what would. I suggest to the Minister of Labour and to the Minister of Agriculture that if they want to learn the best way to solve agricultural problems, let them consult the farmers themselves. Then they will get a solution. It is not sufficient for these two ministers to disregard the farmers as not knowing how to handle their own problems. When an industrial problem comes up you go to the industrialists, and properly so. I wonder what the business men, the industrialists who are producing war supplies, would say if the government went to them and said: If you want any more help, any green hands to train in your factory, you must bear all that expense alone-you must pay them so much per month, plus their maintenance. Why, they simply would not pay any attention to the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Agriculture or anybody else because that is not the way in 'which business is done. That is not the way in which business has been done since the beginning of this war. When we were training men for war industry, almost without exception every war contract was on a cost-plus basis; when green hands were sent into these war industries to be trained, that expense was added1 to the cost of producing the product, and the industries got their profit on top of those costs.
I should like to read a letter in regard to the difficulties of agriculture with respect to man-power. This letter comes to me from men who are right at the source of the trouble and know what they are talking about. It is from the Drumheller board of trade. These men are business men and farmers. They are right on the ground and know their own problems, and I would suggest that the Minister of Labour pay some heed to this. The letter is addressed to myself, and is dated, Drumheller, February 6, 1943. It reads:
Our board have written Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture), Hon. J. A. MacKinnon (Minister of Trade and Commerce) and Hon.
1146	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)
Humphrey Mitchell (Minister of Labour), pointing out the serious situation in the big Drumheller agricultural district as regards the unharvested 1942 crop and seeking their cooperation in having sufficient men released from the Canadian forces to assist in taking off the balance of the 1942 crop as soon as it is possible to get at this work.
A survey of the situation would go to show that there is about 45 per cent of the 1942 crop in this district yet to be harvested, while some of the farmers were only able to harvest 10 per cent of their 1942 crop before the early winter set in and made further harvest work impossible.
Of course, so many farm workers enlisted or took war jobs, while the outstanding record of enlistments from this valley and the shortage of coal miners made it impossible to replace these men on the farms. Then, again, labour from outside was impossible to secure. Bad harvest weather and an extra early winter put the finishing touches on one of the most disappointing harvest seasons in our district's history.
However, you know the situation in Alberta and it is not necessary to elaborate further, but the main point is that the only solution, in our board's opinion, is to release a sufficient number of men from the Canadian forces to make possible the harvesting of the balance of the 1942 crop and that arrangements should be made right away so that when it is possible to do this work there will be no delay in dispatching the necessary men to the various points in the prairie provinces.
This work must be done before the regular spring work and if a plan is adopted now and the machinery created so that when the call goes out for men, then things will run smoothly.
Naturally, the problem is being considered at Ottawa at the present time-
They ought to know in what manner it is being considered.

but it must not be forgotten that there is a shortage of men on the farms right now and even if no more farmers or farm workers are called up the farmers will not be able to cope with the 1942 crop situation unless they get the assistance along the lines our board suggests. The unharvested 1942 crop is too vital to the nation not to be harvested in its entirety.
Thanking you in advance for your usual kind cooperation in this urgent and important matter, I am, upon behalf of our board,
Faithfully yours,
John A. Mackay,
Secretary.
These men realize the difficulty and are pointing it out to the government. Here we have one cabinet minister saying that there is no danger at all; that we shall produce this much larger crop than we have ever asked for before; that we shall reach the maximum of production for 1943, and that no more farm help is needed. But these men who are right on the ground know differently. The other day the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) outlined a questionnaire which was sent from the municipal district of Wainwright, in a different part of the country altogether, and they have the same

idea. I will not take time to put the questionnaire on Hansard, because the house is already informed of it.
I wish now to turn my attention for a while to parity prices, because I find just as much confusion in the government ranks over this matter as there is over the man-power problem-and goodness knows that is bad enough. Let us see what has happened in this country regarding agricultural prices since this Liberal government took office in 1935. I recall that when we came to this house in that year the price of wheat was S7J cents a bushel. But immediately this government reduced it to 80 cents. Then an act was brought down to make it 60 cents; then it was raised to 70 cents, and afterwards it was changed from 70 cents to 90 cents. Those hon. members who were in the house a few years ago will recall that Professor Hope, of the university of Saskatchewan, who carried on an investigation of farm prices, stated that when you took into consideration the interest charges which farmers have to pay, the price of wheat should be at least 95 cents a bushel at the point of production.


Mr. GARDINER:: The hon. member will agree with me when I point out to him that, when he says there was an "act" brought down, it will be interpreted to mean that the house passed a bill which became an act. There was a bill before the house, but it did not become an act or legislation.


Charles Edward Johnston: I accept the minister's correction; he is right.
The social credit party has on the order paper a resolution asking that at least one dollar a bushel be paid for wheat at the local elevator. I think that is only fair. The amount is not sufficient; it should be more, but at least that should be a basis to start upon. The Minister of Agriculture knows that that is not very much to give our farmers. I have under my hand a clipping from the Western Producer of January 21, 1943, which I will not take time to read, but which states that in the United States they are paying $1.13 a bushel, including some storage charges, at the local shipping point in the form of an advance. Note that that is only an advance, and the situation of their farmers bears no comparison to ours, who receive only 90 cents. It must be understood, too, that the 90 cents is for wheat at Fort William, and the freight in some districts is as high as 21 cents. That is not an average, but I understand it is even higher than that at some points. On everything western

The Budget-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)
farmers sell they have to pay the freight; that is, it is taken out of the price they get; and to everything they buy, freight is added.
1 ask the minister how long our munitions industries would put up with conditions like that. He knows as well as I do that no industrialist in this country would consider for five minutes a set-up of that kind. They have told the government, and they told me when I visited their plants, that they intend to have the cost of production, and when they speak of the cost of production there is no fooling about it. All the freight charges, depreciation, insurance, and everything else one can think of-even the heating and lighting of the plant-are included, and on top of that they get a clear profit. Surely such discrimination is bound to end in disaster, and the government is directly responsible for such neglect and anything which may result from it.
I was interested in the minister's proposal to appeal to the government for increased prices, because I am sure he realizes that the farmers are not getting enough; otherwise he would not have said that he intended to appeal for an increase in prices.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not what I said.


Charles Edward Johnston: Parity.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not say "prices".


Charles Edward Johnston: Increased revenue, was it-income? Well, that is money anyway. But the Minister of Agriculture knows he is knocking his head against a rock wall. Nobody knows that better than he does. He says, as reported in Hansard, at page 273:
I am going to make an appeal to the government-and 1 am sure it tvill be listened to-
I do not think he was serious in that.
-to give as high returns as possibly can be given for the commodities that are produced-
And this is the sticker:
-always keeping in mind the fact that funds must be found for other things as well as for paying for food.
Surely the Minister of Agriculture has not forgotten the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) not so long ago when he said that money was not going to stand in the way of production. He has not forgotten that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) said that the only limit to our production will be the natural resources, the materials and the man-power. Yet the minister is trying, I was about to say, to put
a little propaganda across in his constituency, but he would not do that; he is holding up the bait, the carrot, in front of the farmers, and he says "I am going to appeal to the treasury for more money for you." But he knows quite well that he will not get it. He knows quite well that the Minister of Finance, speaking in Toronto a while ago, is reported to have said that Ontario farmers could not get adequate prices for their farm products without this causing disastrous inflation. If we stabilize farm prices, I would ask the minister, would that ruin our financial system? He knows better than that. Certainly it would not. If it does, it is a complete condemnation of our financial system.
Let me read for the guidance of the Minister of Agriculture what the Minister of Finance had to say in his budget speech. He said, as reported in Hansard, at page 845:
Receipts from the sale of farm products are reported to have reached a higher level in 1942 than in any year in the past two decades. Receipts from the sale of farm products are not equivalent to farm income. Farm costs have also risen but there is very evidence that farm incomes are at more remunerative levels than in any but the record years.
The Minister of Finance is definitely stating that the farmers do not need any more because they have a higher income than they ever had before. He continues:
Average weekly earnings of employed persons are at higher levels than they have been since the inflation boom following the war of 19141918. Thus there has been a far-reaching and important change in the distribution of income in the country. On the whole, the directions of the change have been desirable and the government has welcomed and facilitated it. The increases, by and large, have gone to those who needed them most.
He does not say that they have gone to agriculture. But this is the point:
But we have reached the point where the demands of some labour representatives and of some farm representatives cannot both be satisfied.
When you combine with this the statement which the Minister of Finance made in Toronto, I am afraid the Minister of Agriculture knows he will have no success.
I wanted to deal with the argument which the Minister of Agriculture put up in regard to parity prices, and in the little time which remains to me I wish to put on Hansard two statements on this matter. One is the definition of the Minister of Agriculture. This is what he said, as reported in Hansard, at page 272 as regards parity definition, and I quite agree with him:
Parity price is the price of the commodity which will give a purchasing power with respect
114S	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)
to articles the farmer buys equivalent to the purchasing power of such commodity in the base period.
I do not think there is any argument on that definition. But I will now state, right after that, what is contained in the Searle Grain company's letter, their index with regard to parity prices:
The Searle index of the cost of things farmers buy (147 items) now stands at 153-7 (1913-14 equals 100). This means that these same things cost farmers of the west at the present time 53-7 per cent more than did similar items of the same quality in 1913-14. (These costs have risen 17-3 per cent since August, 1939.) The price of wheat is now 5-5 per cent higher than it was in 1913-14. The purchasing power of a bushel of wheat is now, therefore, only 68-6 pel cent of what it was in 1913-14.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: The hon. member has spoken for forty minutes.


Charles Edward Johnston: I shall conclude with these remarks, Mr. Speaker. The minister's definition of parity may be quite sound, but when you compare that with the Searle index, which has been carefully compiled for years past, even the hard-headedness of the Minister of Agriculture should permit him to see clearly that agriculture cannot continue producing under the cost of production. No industry, I do not care whether it is agriculture or munitions or anything else, can carry on indefinitely under the strain that agriculture is under without at least having its cost of production. As long as that condition exists you will have people leaving the farms, and this situation will be aggravated all the more. Therefore I suggest to the Minister of Agriculture that he get in touch with the Minister of Labour and come to an agreement on this man-power policy, and then get in touch with the Minister of Finance and arrange to give the farmer his cost of production plus a fair commission.


Mr. F. W. GERSHAW (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that this budget has been received favourably by the people of Canada from one ocean to the other. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) stands high in the estimation of the Canadian people, and I believe he will stand even higher when the purport of this budget is thoroughly understood. His last words in his budget speech were, as reported at page 864 of Hansard:
Our soldiers, our sailors, or airmen "will do their part. They are well trained; they are well equipped; they are well led; their courage and devotion are beyond praise. But what they achieve, they cannot achieve alone. It must be shared by the farmer at his work, the mechanic

in the shop, the housewife in her home-in short, by every Canadian. Their achievements will be shared by each Canadian who, this year, and to the end of the war, carries out unswervingly, skilfully, relentlessly the watchwords of this budget: work and save.
I desire to bring to the attention of the house one or two problems which I believe are important at the present time. The output of the average Canadian worker in every sphere of industry is lessened by one factor which definitely can be reduced. I refer to ill health. The national industrial conference board in the United States estimates that the average worker loses about ten days a year on account of sickness. The "Personnel Journal" of November, 1943, estimated that the cost of these losses to the industry and the worker is around S70 a year.
Here in Canada we have the health league which has estimated that the average Canadian worker loses about nine days a year on account of sickness and industrial accidents, and about one-half day a year on account of occupational accidents. In Alberta the workmen's compensation board kept careful records for years of the causes of accidents, and then measures were taken to eliminate those causes. In that way the number of accidents has been reduced greatly. Macy's store in New York put into operation a sickness prevention programme which reduced absenteeism from 4-56 per cent in 1928 to 2-44 per cent in 1937. The cost of such a preventive programme was about $4 per worker.
Every war industry in Canada should have trained supervision, and causes of illness and accidents should be carefully recorded. In one plant absenteeism from ordinary colds was greatly reduced just by shutting off drafts. Nutrition should be supervised as well as rest periods, sanitation, hours of work, the ability of a worker to stand the stress and strain of his work, the causes of infection and all such matters. Every industry should arrange for periodic medical examinations because it is only in that way that men can be kept up to efficiency.
Modern research has reduced mortality and morbidity in typhoid fever, tuberculosis, appendicitis, scarlet fever, diphtheria and so on, and these diseases no longer are the dread things they were. The new sulfa drugs when given under supervision usually have a magical effect in lessening the virulence and shortening the duration of such things as tonsilitis, pneumonia, meningitis, gas gangrene and a long list of infectious troubles. Cancer has been the great scourge of the human race since the dawn of recorded history. If reported

The Budget-Mr. Gershaw
early, provided it is in an accessible place, X-ray, surgery or radium will generally bring about a cure.
In ending this portion of my remarks, I want to bring to the attention of the house one disease which at the present time might well be called the captain of the men of death. I refer to heart disease. Statistics do not always give a true picture, but one large life insurance company found that of 100,000 policyholders the death rate in 1922 from heart disease was 92-6, whereas in 1938 it had risen to 195-1. The three structures, the heart, the arteries and the kidneys, are subject to the same diseases and usually there is the same tragic end. Statistics have been assembled from 190 life insurance companies, and it is shown that from twenty-four to thirty-nine per cent of deaths are from heart trouble. The causes of heart trouble are given as overeating, overdrinking, lack of exercise, lack of rest, anxiety, noise, focal infection and the stress and strain of modern life. Undoubtedly each of these causes has some effect, although the precise effect has not been demonstrated. Therefore careful records should be kept to estimate the effect of each of these causes upon this very serious disease. I believe I am voicing the opinion of millions of men and women when I say that man's years upon this earth are far too few, and that the days of youth and usefulness pass all too rapidly. The frailties of age, the effects of disease come on before the fulfilment of many worthy tasks, and therefore the experience and skill and knowledge of many people are lost before their work is completed.
To turn now to another point, at this time there surely can be no argument against the statement that irrigation is very necessary in order to make agriculture as productive as it should be. It is nearly one hundred years since large irrigation schemes were started in the United States. During the last fifty years irrigation has been developed on a large scale. We can take the Grand Coulee scheme in the state of Washington where a million acres have been put under water. We have heard lately a good deal about India. Britain's greatest accomplishment in India was the building of irrigation schemes. The same applies to Egypt. The Arabs have a saying that "all sunshine makes a desert", and we know that where the sun shines almost continuously very little will grow unless other factors are brought into play. Long experience in southern Alberta has shown that the wet years come so seldom that it is not possible to depend upon moisture from the sky and the moisture must be obtained in some other way. The great areas of abandoned land and the
many deserted buildings indicating blighted hopes, impoverishment and despair amply prove this statement. In southern Alberta there are about half a million acres under water; there is sufficient water, and other conditions are favourable to irrigate two million acres. But it is impossible for private capital to carry out this work. It has been shown and is now accepted as a recognized principle that the initial capital cost of irrigation must largely come from public money. The Wilson report in the United States and the Ewing report in Canada amply and abundantly bear out this statement.
I desire to bring to the attention of the house the possibilities of just two of these schemes. The Canada land and irrigation scheme, including the Redcliff Ronalane scheme, was originally started by British capital. The original plan was to settle some 530,000 acres, of which 200,000 acres were irrigable. About 42,000 acres of this have been under water for a great many years in what is called the Vauxhall district, but the whole scheme has not been completed and the cost of completing it and bringing an additional 157,000 acres under cultivation would be only about $2,500,000, or from $17 to $18 an acre. The intake of this district is from the Bow river about thirty miles east of Calgary. There have been constructed a great artificial lake, reservoirs, and a canal about a hundred miles long. If we allow eighty acres of irrigated land and 160 acres of dry land for each settler, that district would make homes for 2,000 farmers, returned soldiers who have indicated that they wish to go farming, or farmers who could be moved from the marginal areas where they are subject to devastating drought and uncertainty.
The other scheme is one which has received unreservedly the recommendation of a committee appointed by this government. That committee reported in February, 1942. It consisted of Mr. Victor Meek, controller of the water and power bureau at Ottawa; Mr. George Spence, director of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act; and Mr. William Hunter of the accounts branch of the Department of Finance. A thorough investigation was made. It is the St. Mary and Milk river scheme. Those rivers run through both Canada and the United States, and the use of their waters is controlled by the joint international waterways commission. It is governed1 of course by treaty between Great Britain and the United States. This committee found that up to 1940 the United States people had constructed irrigation works sufficient to make full use of their share of the waters and also
The Budget-Mr. Gershaw

make full use of the unused Canadian share. Accordingly the committee recommended that the people of Canada should at once construct works to make beneficial use of this water because it would supply districts which now have not sufficient water, and would bring 345,000 acres under the ditch.
If the scheme were completed it would do much to balance production, so that we would not have so much wheat on our farms. It would be a great blessing to the farmers, to the community life of the district, and to the province and the whole dominion. About $15,000,000 would be required to bring 345,000 acres under irrigation. If the dominion put up $7,000,000 for the main reservoir and connecting canals and the provinces did the rest, it would cost them $8,000,000, part of which could be recovered.


John Ritchie MacNicol: May I ask the hon
member if the reservoir areas are available to store the surplus water?


Frederick William Gershaw: Yes, at Spring Coulee
there is a reservoir site. It would take about three years to construct a reservoir. The scheme has been carefully gone over by engineers, is considered feasible in every way and would bring an enormous area under water.
The value of the live stock marketed in Alberta in 1941 amounted to $65,000,000, and the amount for grain, hay and seeds was only $62,500,000. Of every five hogs shipped to Great Britain in that year from Canada two came from Alberta. But a purely agricultural province is weak from an economic point of view. Irrigation would help to maintain the balance between industry and farming; sugar production could be proceeded with, as well as the canning of fruits and vegetables, the finishing of cattle instead of shipping them as feeders, the manufacture of commercial milk and so forth.
Some one may say, But the Canadian Pacific Railway Company spent millions there and never recovered it from the sale of land. That is true, but at the same time the Canadian Pacific Railway turned a great unproductive area into one where there are attractive and comfortable homes, thus greatly increasing the traffic over their road. Before they went in, when you drove over the prairie the air was dry; the cattle were thin; the vegetation was sparse and the dust rose in clouds. After irrigation was put in, you could see comfortable homes surrounded by grass, trees, shrubs and flowers. Small fruits could be grown; dairy products could be produced for the farmer and his family. Some will say that the provincial governments had to take over

the bonds of some of those districts, to the extent of $6,138,500. That is true, but it is also true that during the drought years, from 1931 to 1938, various governments spent not $6,000,000 but $51,000,000 for relief, none of which went to the irrigated districts. Under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act some $2,000,000 is collected through the one per cent tax on grain, but in the average year about $12,000,000 is spent under that legislation in connection with crop failures.
I bring these matters to the attention of the house because they are necessary to bear in mind if we are to have a maximum war effort and also for the welfare of the post-war period, which we now see so dimly and in so many colours. When the Titanic was sinking, a woman who had found a place in a lifeboat asked for three minutes in order to return to her cabin. There she saw her diamonds and jewels, but she reached past all those to grasp three oranges. Disaster had struck the Titanic and in a twinkling all values had changed. Now a storm is abroad in the world; values are being transformed, and the really precious, worth-while treasures are being appreciated and recognized.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, I seem to be a handy man to have around the house at times, when others are not prepared to go on. I want to say a few words about the budget, since I come from a city that is now the manufacturing, financial and industrial metropolis of Canada, which has surpassed the great city of Montreal and become the first city of the dominion, but before doing so I should like to refer to one other matter.
To-day I had occasion to ask one of the ministers a question, in a desire to encourage him in his work. Before the war, when the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) was Minister of National Defence, he brought down increased estimates covering the army and navy, and I was one of those who supported those estimates, because I saw the war coming. Those estimates were opposed by a great many hon. members on the other side of the house in 1937, 1938 and 1939. Since the beginning of the war I have believed in giving the government of the day all possible support, because they are the government and need encouragement. Our forces on land and sea and in the air have been magnificent. The history of courage has been gloriously rewritten in this war by those young Canadians who are serving in our armed forces and by the splendid showing of our navy.

The Budget-Mr. Church
During the session of 1937 I quoted Jeremiah for the benefit of some of our pacifists who believed in disarmament, and for some of my hon. friends from the province of Quebec. You will remember that he said, "Where are now your prophets that prophesied unto you, saying that the king of Babylon would not come against you, nor against this land?" Now we see what has happened since in the St. Lawrence. I sympathize with the hon. gentleman who is head of our department of naval services; he is not to blame, but I must say that a year ago I pointed out to him the condition that had been found by General de Gaulle around St. Pierre and Miquelon and in the gulf of St. Lawrence and the German submarines there. General de Gaulle warned Canada and the United States. Mr. Churchill happened to be in Washington at the time, in December, 1941, and the United States ambassador to Britain, Mr. Winant, cabled Washington in regard to certain occurrences in the gulf of St. Lawrence at St. Pierre and Miquelon. An attempt was made by Mr. Cordell Hull to prevent any joint statement being made in Canada in this connection, but Mr. Churchill sided with General de Gaulle, and Mr. Roosevelt also gave out a joint statement from the White House, overruling Mr. Hull. When Mr. Churchill was here he said that he believed ninety-five per cent of the people of France were with General de Gaulle and the free French movement.
At that time I also told the minister that we were in danger of being invaded; as the axis had submarines capable of crossing the Atlantic without refuelling; and all during the sessions of 1936, 1937, 1938 and 1939, until the war started, speaking from the place now occupied by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) I asked if we were to wait until the enemy came up the St. Lawrence by land, by sea and in the air and blew up the citadel before doing anything to defend ourselves. I referred to and gave a record of the submarine menace during the last war, and pointed out the grave danger of invasion which faced Canada at that time. I do not see very many of the newspaper columnists in the press gallery to-day. Perhaps I should first have asked their permission to speak, but I do not need any dictation from one or two of the newspaper columnists at times. Now we have the present situation on our hands in the St. Lawrence.
As you know sir, Mr. Lyttelton, the very able minister of production in Britain, spoke in New York on armistice day, November 11, 1942, and warned the United States and the 72537-73
allies of the very grave danger in connection with sinkings in the Atlantic and the approaches to North America. On February 24 I placed his full statement on Hansard. We are building ships, but as fast as they are built they are sunk. W'e are trying to get the people on our farms to produce more food, but the ships carrying that food are being sent to the bottom. Mr. Lyttelton referred in New York to that magnificent armada, consisting of 500 merchant ships and 350 warships to Morocco and Algiers by means of which the north African campaign was started and went on to say that this armada was escorted to North Africa by 120 escort ships. What has been the result? Those 120 escort ships cannot get back to the north Atlantic again, because they are needed in the Mediterranean. We have seen the magnificent victories achieved by General Montgomery, General Alexander and General Wavell, who has been called by the Russian generals at Stalingrad the greatest marvel in all military history. The other day in this house one hon. gentleman said that the advance achieved in North Africa had been an Anglo-American advance. It was not. The advance across Libya, a distance of 1,600 miles, was made by the 8th army under the command of General Montgomery, General Alexander and General Anderson. But an increased strain has been placed upon Atlantic shipping as a result of that north African armada, because, as you know, ships are still being sent, as they have been for over three years around the cape of Good Hope, a distance of ten thousand1 miles. The distance through the Mediterranean is only three thousand miles, so that you can see the great saving that would be made if that route could be kept open for food and munitions to the far east. The cost of that African armada was phenomenal, and it has had a great bearing on the number of sinkings that have taken place in the Atlantic, because the best part of it, the Anglo-American fleet, was formerly on north Atlantic war convoy work, and we are thus short, and the submarine menace is very grave, since we yet have not found' a solution to the new German U-boat that hunts at night in packs on the convoys and does not appear in daytime on the surface. The war is lost unless this is solved, and we cannot do anything until the allies regain command of the sea.
They noW have to defend the Atlantic, the Pacific and the Mediterranean. They are up against the axis fleet, and the air force of the axis powers. In addition to that, the whole question of submarine warfare had been

The Budget-Mr. Church

changed by Germany, who saw in it, with all the coast from Norway to Spain, a chance, with a new type of submarine, to win the war. No war is the same as the last one. Submarine warfare at the time of the last war nearly cost the allies the victory.
There have been references to sinkings in the St. Lawrence river, and off St. Pierre, twenty miles from Newfoundland, and this has become a problem. This is one of the main reasons why the allies should immediately try to get bases in Eire. Since the beginning of this war we did not have those bases. We had them in the last war, and the submarine menace, even with them there, nearly cost us the war. I say those bases should be immediately secured. They belong to our empire. The United States has asked for them, and so has Britain. Cities such as Cardiff, Coventry, Plymouth, Bristol and Birmingham have had their houses destroyed, and thousands of men, women and children have perished for lack of those bases, and our ships have to take the more dangerous north passage. I favour taking them, or the battle of the Atlantic may be lost, since we would have lost the last war without them.
Mr. Churchill made a statement with respect to U-boats on September 27, 1939. We had a submarine menace at the time of the last war, and we have a much more grave one in this war. Germany was quick to realize that she did not have a navy; she got one presented to her by the United States isolationist policy for two years, with the result that she developed new types of submarines, and we have had great loss of shipping in the Atlantic. Speaking on September 27, 1939, in the House of Commons, London, he said:
I see how much greater are the defences which we possess to-day in coping with the U-boat than we did in the first U-boat campaign twenty-five years ago. In those days there were moments when the problem seemed well nigh insoluble. Very often to hunt down a U-boat it was necessary to use a flotilla of fifteen or twenty vessels working together for a whole day on the vaguest indication. Now two destroyers or even one can maintain a prolonged and relentless pursuit.
This new equipment and the thorough training which the navy's light craft had had in this particular duty made it possible for a heavy toll to be taken of the U-boats from the start.
With regard to the present situation in the St. Lawrence of twenty or thirty,' or I know not how many sunk, may I say that I warned the minister a year ago about the situation at St. Pierre and Miquelon, and in reply he said that he would find out what the situation was.

The submarines that operated there last December were from the Canadian Atlantic. We have never heard a word as to St. Pierre and Miquelon from that day to this. General de Gaulle sent Admiral Muselier at. the request of the inhabitants to seize these islands. Mr. Hull pleaded the Monroe doctrine; Canada wavered. Mr. Churchill, standing here where our respected clerk, Doctor Beauchesne sits, said that the name of the Free French will be held and is being held in increasing respect by nine Frenchmen out of ten.
Rear Admiral H. G. Thursfield, one of the greatest authorities, is a man upon whom Mr. Churchill has been relying for advice. In an article in the February, 1943, issue of the National Review he discusses the U-boat menace and its solution. He points out that unless we solve the new U-boat situation in the Atlantic, the war is lost. There can be no doubt about that fact. This Admiral said:
There can be little doubt now that the German rape of Norway was a part of this plan, designed to provide the German navy with secure bases which were not dominated geographically by the British isles. The conquest of France fitted into the plan, too, as was shown by Hitler's contemptuous exemption of Vichieu France from occupation, and his seizure only of France's Atlantic coastal provinces. By June, 1940, German U-boats had at their disposal both the fjords of Norway and the French harbours of the bay of Biscay whence they could reach the open Atlantic without the necessity of running the gauntlet through the North sea or English channel. Moreover, German possession of the Danish, Dutch, Belgian and northern French coasts gave them more or less sheltered corridors by which their ships and U-boats could reach those advanced bases from Germany with a fair measure of safety and immunity from serious British interruption.
The article then goes on to refer to the number of ships which had been sunk. The statement was given out in Washington where Mr. Churchill said that we are not yet destroying U-boats as fast as new ones are being put into service by Germany. That was stated by Mr. Churchill last September, and repeated by a Washington naval authority last month, January, 1943. The result is that the number of U-boats is still increasing. The same Washington authority put the number operating in the Atlantic in the .middle of January, 1943, at one hundred, which would indicate at least some four hundred in service altogether. That figure is borne out by the experiences of a homeward bound allies Atlantic convoy early in December, the story of which was released a month later in January last. It was attacked over and over again throughout four days and nights, and no less than thirty-five actions were fought against U-boats, in the course of which two of them

Questions
were almost certainly sunk, and others damaged. The names of the ships were given out by Rear Admiral H. G. Thursfield in this article and also by the British and United States press. It was stated that the British destroyer, H.M.S. Fame and corvette H.M.S. Vervain, the Polish destroyer O.R.P. Burza and the Norwegian corvettes H.N.M.S. Eglantine, Rose and Potentilla all took part in the defence, as well as aircraft of the coastal command and of the United States Navy. Yet the convoy referred to did not escape without some loss.
The intensity of the attacks on this occasion clearly indicates that a large number of U-boats must have been engaged, a number quite compatible with the 100 throughout the Atlantic mentioned in Washington. That number is still growing, and will grow. Goebbels has forecast 1,000 U-boats in service this year, and indeed that fantastic figure might almost eventually be reached if we do not succeed in achieving a rate of destruction greater than the rate of new production by Germany. It will not suffice merely to beat off the attacks which U-boats make on convoys. The U-boats themselves must be destroyed at an increasing rate if the battle of the seas is to be won, and without the allies regaining command of the sea, the war cannot be won.
On motion of Mr. Church the debate was adjourned.
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, March 11, 1943