Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to lay on
the table two copies of volume 3 of the report of proceedings of the national war labour board inquiry into labour relations and wage conditions.


Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: May I ask my hon. friend up
to what date the transcript of evidence goes?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: The document speaks for itself.


Humphrey Mitchell: I have not read it. I
think my hon. friend and I had better take a look at it.


Gordon Graydon: May I thank the
Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) for his very helpful interjection.



RIGHT HON. WINSTON CHURCHILL REFERENCE TO SPEECH BEFORE MEMBERS OF UNITED STATES SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the
few words that I am going to read will be greeted by unanimous and thunderous applause in this house. I desire, sir, to inscribe in Hansard the splendid tribute which was paid to this country two days ago by no less a person than Mr. Churchill, speaking in Washington. He said:
In the meantime we do our best to keep the closest association at every level between all the authorities of all the countries who are engaged in the active direction of the war. And it is my special duty to promote and preserve this intimacy and concert between all parts of the British commonwealth and empire and especially with the great self-governing dominions like Canada whose Prime Minister is with us at this moment, whose contribution is so massive and invaluable.
This is what was said by Mr. Churchill at the joint session of congress in Washington; and if I may be permitted, sir, to refer you to the first paragraph of the first column on page 2460 of Hansard of May 6, believe it or not, sir, this cannot be a mere coincidence-; it is quite certain that Mr. Churchill never misses a speech by the -mem; ber for Temiscouata in this house.



QUESTION AS TO UNEVENNESS OF DISTRIBUTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. K. HAZEN (St. John-Albert):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Finance, based on an item which appeared in the press yesterday; it has to do with the rationing of sugar for canning and preserving purposes. According to this dispatch, the amount to be allowed each person in a household varies with different cities and different municipalities. For instance it is stated that

Fuel Wood
in Halifax the amount which each householder is to receive is 8 pounds; in Saint John, Moose Jaw and a number of other centres it is 10 pounds; in Owen Sound it is 12 pounds. Then there appears to be a difference in the amounts allowed in urban and in rural communities. Would the minister, either to-day or when it is convenient to him, tell us on what basis this allotment is made and why it is that in some cities and towns more is allotted than in others.


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: I will get the information and, if the hon. gentleman wishes, I will present it to the house. It may necessitate a long statement- that is the only trouble-taking up the time of the house; but I will show the statement to my hon. friend when I get it.



SEED POTATOES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. E. CARDIFF (Huron North):: In view of the present serious potato shortage and the very high prices at which potatoes are sold as seed potatoes, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance these questions: (a) Must potatoes sold as seed potatoes be labelled as such? (b) If not, what check is there to show that they are not potatoes for domestic consumption? (c) Is there a ceiling price on potatoes sold for seed, and if so, how much? (d) Has the minister received any complaints that potatoes being used for domestic consumption are. being sold as seed potatoes?


James Lorimer Ilsley: This is a set of questions which I cannot answer to-day. I shall have to pursue my ordinary method of getting the information from the wartime prices and trade board and either letting my hon. friend have it, or, if he thinks fit, bringing it before the house in some appropriate way,


Gordon Graydon: May I mention to the
Minister of Finance that the information which comes to my hand is that this matter of seed potatoes and the whole question of the potato t shortage is one of considerable urgency, and one that has aroused a great deal of interest in certain areas. I think it is a matter which the minister should bring before the house by way of a statement as early as possible.



RESTRICTION OF DELIVERIES TO THREE TIMES A WEEK

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. LECLERC (Shefford):: I have recently had several complaints from housewives because of what I understand is an order in council or a ruling that ice cannot be delivered oftener than three times a week. As we are to be limited in our supplies of butter and meat and everything else, I would urge upon the government that they authorize deliveries of ice at least four times a week for the next two months.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I will take up the matter with the wartime prices and trade board.



FUEL WOOD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. FRASER (Peterborough West):: I should like to ask the Minister of Munitions and Supply whether, in view of the fact that the weather has been unfavourable to the farmers this year, he has given consideration to extending the subsidy date in respect of fuel wood from June 30 until October.


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: Consideration has been given to that proposal, and the time will be extended, but I am not sure to what date. An announcement will be made very shortly.



MAN-POWER QUESTION AS TO DATE OF TRANSFER OF ADDITIONAL HELP TO FARMS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: Again I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour in regard to the matter of shortage of man-power on farms, where enlistments have been heavy. When will the manpower be transferred compulsorily to farms? If it is not to be done right away, it will not be very helpful this spring. I think the country requires an explanation and should have the information now.


Humphrey Mitchell: As soon as I have seen the Minister of Agriculture and certain other ministers I wall make a complete statement on man-power. I think it is best that I should defer it until then.


John George Diefenbaker: The farmers want help now.

War Appropriation-Air Services



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, May 18, consideration in committee of a resolution to grant to his majesty certain sums of money for the carrying out of measures consequent upon the existence of a state of war-Mr. Ilsley-Mr. Bradette in the chair.

Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of National Defence for Air):: Mr. Chairman, the year
which has elapsed since last I addressed the house in support of a war appropriation for the Royal Canadian Air Force has been one of great importance to that force-one of progress, one of struggle, one of battle, and one of some measure of achievement. Achievement, in the joint air training plan, by way of progress and increased training, by way of consultations with members of the united nations at the air training conference held in May and June of last year in Ottawa, at which we learned a great deal, and, I hope, our allies learned a great deal; progress in conferences with our associates and partners in the commonwealth air training scheme and in the completion of a supplementary agreement to the agreement signed in December, 1939, in the joint air training scheme; a further agreement, signed a month or so ago in London, again with reference to the joint air training scheme. It has seen a vast expansion of construction of aerodromes in the air training scheme, and it has seen a stabilization of air training in Canada to the extent that those concerned with the plan are no longer diverted from their immediate duty of training aircrews to the degree which they were by the demands made upon them for expansion, the building of aerodromes and other matters ancillary to the main objective of turning out aircrew.
It has been a time of expansion in the home war establishment. Our home squadrons have been in contact with the enemy on both coasts, our fighter squadrons in Alaska and our anti-submarine chasers on the Atlantic. We have received a large number of aircraft from Canadian and American sources. We have completed to a large extent the building of our defensive aerodromes on both coasts and have made provision for trained aircrew to man the aircraft which we now have on hand. But it was in our overseas operations that there was the greatest expansion, both in aircrew and in ground crew. New squadrons have been formed, a new bomber group, which collected together a number of Canadian squadrons, which were placed under the command of a

Canadian commanding officer, and which have taken part in very important operations in conjunction with the Royal Air Force, and more recently on their own. There has been much greater activity on the part not only of our squadrons, but of Royal Canadian Air Force men who are in the Royal Air Force squadrons. We have undertaken greater responsibility, financially and otherwise, for our people overseas in them and in the Royal Canadian Air Force squadrons.
Operational control, as the house well knows, remains in the hands of the Royal Air Force and will continue to do so for the duration of the war. I will deal with all these matters under appropriate headings.
I propose to give a somewhat disjointed and unpolished statement indicating what the Royal Canadian Air Force is doing. For two reasons, I do not propose this afternoon to enter into any controversial matter. The first is that, as the house knows, for the moment at all events, I am only pinch-hitting and the debate on the army appropriation will be resumed next Monday, so that it would be inappropriate for me at this time to take up matters which would call for a reply, particularly when there will hardly be time, on the conclusion of my statement, for members to question me, as they would, with respect to certain matters on which certain members hold strong views.


Gordon Graydon: Does that mean that my hon. friend will make a supplementary general statement later?


Charles Gavan Power: No, but I am prepared at any time during the debate, or at any time any member wishes me to do so, to discuss such matters as Canadianization and commissioning, and to discuss, if necessary, the shortcomings, great and small, of the minister and the faults of his administration. For the moment, however, I think that perhaps, particularly because I should like to give the house some idea, if I can, of the work which is being performed by the men in the Royal Canadian Air Force themselves, it would be better for me to make a factual statement dealing with finances, and operations and activities of the air force, leaving until later, when my appropriations come up again, any debate which may arise with regard to the administration.
Not that there has not been sufficient publicity, but I feel that there has been a certain casualness in the manner in which we look upon the activities of our Royal Canadian Air Force. That is due, perhaps, to the constant repetition of the headlines, "The R.A.F. and the R.C.A.F. have been busy bombing Germany." To a nation such as ours, which concerns itself more with the headlines than with

War Appropriation-Air Services
what is actually in the reading matter under them, there may come the feeling that this is the same story over and over again. I have the greatest admiration for these boys of ours who are carrying on operations overseas, and I feel that perhaps we have not realized to the full-I say this without meaning to criticize anybody-the extent and importance of the work which has been carried on by the air power generally in this war and, secondly, the great part which is being played by the Royal Canadian Air Force personnel in the war over Europe and in every other part of the globe.
I should like to tell the story in more adequate fashion and in some way commensurate with the deeds of these gallant youths, but in any case I feel that the story should be told, and should be told without any attempt on the part of anyone in this house to take credit for the deeds of those people who are operating overseas. It is for that reason, as I said before, that I propose to make the statement as factual as it can be made and to refrain from any controversy whatsoever. Before doing so, however, I should like to give some idea of the strength of the Royal Canadian Air Force as it is at present, and perhaps the house will pardon me, in this regard, for giving information which I have been asked on many occasions not to give. I give it for this reason-and I hope that those who feel that I should not give it will understand. Through an arrangement made with the parties in this house, it was understood that there would be a break-down of the financial commitments of the different armed forces; and, among other items, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) gave a statement calling for a certain amount of money, which I have not before me at the moment, to provide for the pay and allowances of members of the Royal Canadian Air Force. It would be impossible for me to justify that amount unless I gave the house some idea of the number of men in the Royal Canadian Air * 1 2 3
Force, and therefore I am giving them now.
The present strength of the Royal Canadian Air Force, as on May 14 of this year, is 180,172 all ranks, comprising 168,782 men and -11,390 women. This represents the net result of the enlistments or appointments of 200.290 men of all ranks. The difference is accounted for by discharges, retirements and resignations to a total of 13,224. The rest is made up of casualties, a detailed statement of which I will give later. If we were to add the strength of the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Australian airmen attached to and administered by the Royal Canadian Air Force, together with civilian, employees, the number of people on the payroll of the British commonwealth air training plan and of the Royal Canadian Air Force would be in excess of a quarter of a million.
I have here also cash estimates for 1943-44, indicating a total requirement of $1,129,421,414. The probable expenditures for the last fiscal year, that is 1942-43, which figures are not as yet fully made up, will be S603T19,838. I have also the detailed requirements for 1943-44 as compared with the probable expenditures for 1942-43, and I have also a statement indicating the significance of the increases and changes in expenditure of the combined training organization, the home war establishment and the overseas war establishment. This statement also contains details of the additional obligations overseas as from April 1. 1943, when the new agreement was signed with Great Britain providing for the payment by Canada of all her personnel overseas. If the house will consent I should be glad to place this statement on Hansard without having to read it. I can assure the leader of the opposition that there is nothing in it to which he could take exception. It is a pure statement of the facts.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Does the minister have the consent of the house?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Charles Gavan Power: The statement is as follows:



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE

[Stage Direction]
Cash Estimates 1943-1944
1.	Total requirement.
Total estimated cash requirement of the Royal Canadian Air Force for the fiscal year 1943-1944 is $1,129,421,414.
2.	Probable expenditure for the fiscal year 1942-1943 is $603,119,838.
3.	Detailed requirements 1943-1944, compared with probable expenditure for 1942-1943, are:
Combined Training Organization Western Hemisphere Operations Overseas War Establishment...
[Stage Direction]
Increases $ 34,510,845 128.784.644 363,006,087
Totals

[Stage Direction]
War Appropriation-Air Services
Significance of increases and changes in expenditures.
4.	The combined training organization increase. merits no particular observation other than that increases naturally prevail in most classes of expenditure of a recurring nature such as pay, operating costs, maintenance, etc. These are partially offset by declines in construction and clothing. The C.T.E. has grown and is still growing. The strength (all ranks) at July 1, 1942, was over 109,000 and at May 1, 1943, was over 150,000. These figures represent net effective strength and do not include personnel on leave without pay. It must be noted that the expenditures for 1942-1943 relate to the old British commonwealth air training plan for three months and to the combined training organization (which is the new nomenclature for the training organization which had its inception on July 1, 1942, as a result of the agreement of 5th June, 1942, between Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand) for nine months only, whereas the cash requirement for 1943-1944 represents the combined training organization for a full twelvemonth period. C.T.E. expenditures are running currently at about $40,000,000 per month. On this basis, without making any allowance for further expansion, cash requirement for 19431944 would be approximately $480,000,000. The amount of cash requirement for 1943-1944 is stated as $445,335,845, it being considered that Canada will stand to benefit by United Kingdom contribution to a somewhat greater extent than heretofore because of greater deliveries of aircraft and supplies for British account being expected in 1943-1944 from the United States and from Great Britain. Also, capital expenditures are expected to decline in 1943-1944.
5.	Western hemisphere operations.
This increase, amounting to approximately $128,000,000, may be attributed, generally, to the effects of the expansion programme which was embarked upon in the middle of 1942. This expansion has had the effect of just about doubling the present strength of all ranks in the western hemisphere operations. It may be noted that the strength of all ranks in western hemisphere operations, between April 1, 1942, and May 1, 1943, showed a very substantial increase. The expansion has involved an extensive construction programme of aerodromes and buildings and the procurement of large numbers of additional aircraft, mechanical transport, bombs, wireless and other major equipment. Much of this, already contracted for, remains to be paid for and the year 1943-1944 will see deliveries off contracts presently outstanding.
6.	Overseas war establishment.
The increase under this heading amounts to approximately $363,000,000. This amount includes the effect of the additional obligations assumed by Canada as of April 1, 1943. This increase is accounted, generally, to the following:
Capital cost of 35 squadrons	 $ 74,112,600
Maintenance cost (excluding pay
and allowances and clothing and
necessaries) of 35 squadrons.... 213,339,393 
Capital cost of ancillary units....	344,500
Maintenance cost (excluding pay and allowances and clothing and necesaries) of the ancillary units	8,790,536
Pay and allowances (adjusted to R.C.A.F. rates) and clothing and necessaries of all R.C.A.F. personnel overseas	 66,414,444
Total	 $363,001,473
Provision has to be made for the ever-increasing numbers of R.C.A.F. personnel overseas. This increase will continue quite apart from the obligation upon Canada to assume, as from April 1, 1943, the pay of the personnel previously the responsibility of the R.A.F. Without divulging exact figures, it may be stated that over 40,000 R.C.A.F. personnel have been sent overseas, which number includes both aircrew and groundcrew.
7.	Additional obligations overseas as from April 1, 1943.
On April 20, 1943, an Agreement was entered into between the government of the United Kingdom and the government of Canada, effective April 1,	1943. This agreement is
supplementary to the agreement of June 5, 1942, about the training of pilots and aircraft crews in Canada and their subsequent service. Under the terms of this supplementary agreement, the government of Canada assumes financial liability for the following costs and expenses connected with R.C.A.F. personnel who are made available for service with or in conjunction with the Royal Air Force:
(a)	Pay and allowances.
(b)	Clothing and necessaries.
(c)	Transportation to and from overseas.
(d)	Insurance contributions (employers1 share) necessary to insure benefits under Canadian schemes.
(e)	The excess (if any) of pensions and other non-effective benefits admissable under Canadian regulations over the corresponding benefits admissable under United Kingdom regulations for personnel entered for the duration of the war.
(f)	All costs of the R.C.A.F. squadron overseas (excepting the three squadrons for which Canada had assumed liability) and of the formations and units formed overseas for their administration and maintenance.
Usually when dealing with these estimates we divide them into three headings. In former years they were divided into home war, British commonwealth joint air training plan and overseas operations. On this occasion I propose to change the order, but to retain the same headings. My reason for this is that up to this year the joint air training plan was an infant which was being fed, in so far as personnel, instructors and all persons who went into it were concerned, by the R.C.A.F. prewar establishment or by such new persons as had come in since. But this child has now grown up to a lusty parent and the British commonwealth joint air training plan is now the feeder of the former services, that is to

War Appropriation-Air Services
say, the home war establishment and the overseas establishment. They draw their personnel from those who have been trained in the Training plan. It is for that reason that I intend to mention it first.
It is a small matter, but perhaps I should refer to the fact that some confusion has arisen in the public mind and in our own minds with respect to the name of this particular organization. During the training conference the financial people found that owing to the fact that new commitments were being undertaken, that is that there was to be a kind of financial pool as well as a training pool as between the Royal Air Force transferred schools and our own schools, and wishing to make a cut-off date for financial as well as administrative purposes, they invented the name "Combined Training Organization" to indicate that which would happen after July 1 when the two organizations were merged together. It became the common custom within the department to call what was formerly the British commonwealth joint air training plan, the Combined Training Organization. Strangely enough I mentioned this name in a speech which I made in Toronto, and the protests were so strong that we decided that the name "Combined Training Organization" did not give much inspiration and did not mean very much. Therefore, with the agility which characterizes the air force, we promptly changed the name back again and I can assure the house that it will be known as the British Commonwealth Joint Air Training Plan for the duration.
I come now to the financial aspect of the joint air training plan particularly as it developed after the agreement made in June of this year. Important and far-reaching changes in the financing of this project were made as a result of the air training conference held in June, 1942. The financial arrangements under the British commonwealth air training plan, under the agreement signed in 1939 were:
1.	Canada paid for the recruiting, manning and all training of R.C.A.F. aircrew up to the stage of advanced training, these same costs being borne by New Zealand and Australia in respect to the aircrew of those dominions, who subsequent to such training were sent to Canada for advanced training.
2.	United Kingdom supplied all twin engine aircraft, except Anson wings, a certain number of single engine aircraft and one-half of the engines for the elementary training aircraft.
3.	The total costs of the plan excluding (1) and (2) were to be borne by-
Canada	 80-64
Australia	 11-28
New Zealand	 8-08
Subsequent to these arrangements and owing to exigencies of war, the United Kingdom was unable to provide from the United Kingdom all the aircraft and parts when required as called for by the contract and subsequent expansions and Canada as agent for the United Kingdom purchased on their behalf the necessary aircraft, engines, parts and supplies. The cost to- the United Kingdom in this respect was approximately $98,000,000.
As a matter of administrative convenience and to effect economy in the administration, supplementary agreements were entered into with Australia and New Zealand whereby the governments of those dominions agreed to pay in the case of Australia a lump sum to March 17,1942, and on a per capita basis thereafter, and in the case of New Zealand a lump sum to the end of the contractj March 31, 1943.
In the latter part of 1941 certain RA.F. schools were established in Canada, the entire cost of which, except land, was to be borne by the United Kingdom.
A new agreement was entered into on June 5, 1942, to come into effect at July 1, 1942, - and to extend the activities of the training plan to March 31, 1945.
At June 30, 1942, the financial situation under the old agreement was substantially as
follows:
Total expenditures under the plan excluding contribution in kind by
the United Kingdom	 $500,567,000
Of the above there was payable by Australia and New Zealand approximately the following:
Australia	 43,000,000
New Zealand	 35,000,000
The United Kingdom had either furnished in kind or obligated itself to pay for all twin-engine aircraft, excluding Anson wings, which were manufactured in Canada, a certain number of single-engine aircraft and one-half of the engines for elementary training aircraft as well as the capital cost and operating cost of the R.A.F. schools in Canada. The total monetary obligation of the United Kingdom under this arrangement at July 1, 1942, was approximately $279,000,000, of which approximately $66,500,000 had been received and the balance is at present being examined by both governments for final settlement. The value of the contribution in kind- actually delivered from the United Kingdom to July 1, 1942, is not available but would be very substantial and probably in excess of $100,000,000.
The present agreement calls for the maintaining of all the R.C.A.F. and R.A.F. schools in existence at June 30, 1942, and the institution of certain additional schools particularly
[Stage Direction]
War Appropriation-Air Services
the more advanced training units. The entire cost of all training in Canada of R.A.F., R.C.A.F., R.A.A.F. and R.N.Z.A.F. aircrew, including recruiting, manning and elementary training of R.C.A.F. aircrew previously borne exclusively by Canada and operational training previously borne exclusively by the United Kingdom, was estimated to cost $1,446,000,000 from July 1, 1942, to March 31, 1945, and the agreement called for the United Kingdom to assume a liability for one-half of this amount, $723,000,000, with a proviso that if there were any major changes in the plan which would materially affect the cost of the plan the liability of the United Kingdom would be, adjusted accordingly. The governments of Australia and New Zealand will pay for the training of their personnel in Canada on a per capita basis as arranged between the governments of United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, and the amounts received for such training will be credited to the United Kingdom against their liability to Canada.
There have been changes in the training in that Canada will continue to supply a substantial proportion of the trainees but not the proportion which it supplied under the old agreement because there will foe a much larger number of persons trained. The total number of pupils sent 'Under the United Kingdom quota, which will include, men from various parts of the empire and from the European members of the united nations, will be increased. In all, more men will be trained in Canada under the new agreement than was provided for under the original plan, even as expanded. Under the new agreement there will foe complete coordination of air training in Canada; existing schools of the Royal Air Force will preserve their identity but for purposes of administration will continue to be integrated under the control of the Royal Canadian Air Force. While the liability for providing equipment of certain types rests with the United Kingdom,, the task of determining the nature of the equipment and the quantities required for agreed establishments will be the responsibility of Canada, as administrator of the plan. Including the trainees from the united nations and various parts of the empire, the number of trainees sent to Canada by the United Kingdom will be greatly increased.
As to training itself, the first great rush to get people overseas in a hurry is about over. Subsequent developments have been directed more toward improving the quality of training than increasing the number of air crew graduating. The ever-changing methods of modern warfare require continual

revision of training methods and the teaching of additional subjects. To meet this condition greater emphasis is being laid on specialist training in navigation, armament and instrument flying. Some new schools have been opened and others will be opened, but the period of large expansion is past. Quality rather than quantity has become the keynote of the training organization, and as a more experienced training organization emerges so the calibre of training improves.
It may be well to recall to the house a little of the history of the joint air training plan. The original agreement was signed on December 17,	1939. The first intake of
pupils, of whom there were 169-50 pilots, 44 observers and 75 wireless operators-took place on April 29, 1940. These first pupils were graduated on October 28, 1940. The objective of the plan was to train thousands of commonwealth aircrew so as to (1) meet and hold the enemy air strength and prevent it from doing too much damage to Great Britain, the last citadel of freedom in Europe and the springboard for an attack on Hitler; (2) attain air supremacy; (3) destroy enemy air power; and (4) destroy the economic life of Germany and its allies. We can say without false pride that the air training plan has been a mighty factor in the attainment of the first three objectives. It has contributed largely to the local air superiority in Africa and over the continent of Europe, and is an essential element in the realization of the final abjective, that of crushing out of existence Italian and German economic might.
I said two years ago in this house that the R.C.A.F. would wish to be judged by the results of the great experiment we had undertaken, and at this time we have no reason to back away from that statement. We have trained in this country in ground trades between 75,000 and 80.000 men, practically all the personnel required in the training establishments, in our operational squadrons on this side of the Atlantic and our operational squadrons overseas. In aircrew, though no definite figures can or should be given, I am allowed to say that some months ago we passed the figure of 50,000 aircrew trained in Canada. These did not all come out of the joint air training plan schools; some of them came out of the Royal Air Force transferred schools. They were not all Canadians, and I should like this to be well understood. Included in these 50,000 were Englishmen, Australians, New Zealanders, Newfoundlanders, Norwegians, Poles, Czechs, Belgians, Americans and Canadians, all capable of manning aircraft produced by the manufacturing facilities of the united nations. I repeat, they are not all

War Appropriation-Air Services
Canadians, nor are they all overseas at the present moment. A large number had to be retained in Canada to act as instructors or for operations with Canadian home and Operational squadrons. The number, 50,000, would be more than enough to man 15,000 combat planes. We passed that figure several months ago, and even making allowance for the interruption in training that took place this winter owing to unseasonable weather, there is no slackening in our effort to continue to produce aircrew at a rate more accelerated than heretofore. We have not as yet reached peak production on a monthly basis and will not reach that peak production for several months. When we do reach it we will continue to produce trained aircrew for the duration of the war, as long as we can find men in Canada and in the united nations of the calibre, quality and aptitude to make aircrew.
This brings me necessarily to the subject of man-power, as far as aircrew is concerned. A few days ago the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) stated that the air force requires
53,000	recruits during the current year. This provides for our aircrew and male ground crew, but does not take into consideration enlistments required for the women's division. Almost 12,000 women have been enlisted, and although present enlistments in this category are substantial, existing training facilities would enable us to accept an even larger number than those offering at present. The air training plan is now fairly well stabilized, which means that our aircrew requirements henceforth will be fairly constant, and the number required for ground crew will dwindle to a point providing only for normal replacements. The air force has always been in the fortunate position of having a substantial reserve of aircrew recruits awaiting training. Since the beginning of the year, however, this reserve has been considerably reduced. Potential applicants in the upper age brackets are no longer available in any substantial numbers, am} as the war progresses we have to depend more and more upon the group of young men becoming of enlistment age each year.
I have stated that our ground crew requirements have been pretty well met. Contingencies may arise which will necessitate the enlistment of additional numbers in this category, but the important thing about which I wish to warn the people of Canada is that as long as this war lasts, we of the Royal Canadian Air Force have an open-ended commitment to our allies and associates for aircrew, requiring a special type of man-power, and these must come in a steady stream every month.
While I am on the man-power question, by way of digression, perhaps the house would be interested in something which was pointed
out to me just before I came here this afternoon. There is a man living in Odessa, Saskatchewan, a carpenter and contractor, whose name is Mr. R. F. Deutscher. His eldest son, Flying Officer Ralph Deutscher, is a link trainer instructor in a service flying training school at Saskatoon. Another son, Pilot Officer Henry Deutscher, thirty years of age, is a navigator overseas. Another son, LAC Mike Deutscher, is a student navigator at an air observer school at Edmonton. Another son, Sergeant Tony Deutscher, is a link trainer instructor at Weyburn. Flight Sergeant Bert Deutscher, is a wireless air gunner on opera-, tions overseas, and has seen action in Europe and Libya. Corporal Adam is an air engine mechanic overseas. Pilot Officer Joe is an air bomber overseas. LAC John has just arrived at the manning depot. There is an air-minded family

eight boys in the air force. This man and his wife came to Canada from central Europe about 1900. He is what might be called a new Canadian. But I would say, judging by his record and that of his children, that he is worthy of the name Canadian, in every sense of the word..
Gordon Graydon: He is showing us what
total war means.


Charles Gavan Power: He certainly is.
Then, to return to the joint air training plan, I shall deal "with construction. As I said before, expansion is practically completed. New schools, other than those already planned, are not contemplated at the moment. We are, however, planning for additional accommodation for men and machines at certain types of schools, but brought about largely by new and changing requirements in the categories of aircrew and in the methods of training them.
Then, with regard to aircraft, the new combined training organization requires, naturally, more than the old. We have now over 10,009 training aircraft. We will need many more before we are through. And we now' have the assurance that, largely due to Canadian production

in fact, entirely due to Canadian production-these requirements will be met, in so far as certain categories, of training aircraft are concerned. But we need not be complacent about numbers. The aeroplanes are not always serviceable, and though we did not come to the dead end which I feared might be possible some eighteen months ago, when I pointed out to the house that owing to the hard usage and the shortage of spares we might be in a difficult position, there are times when there are delays, and we still have our days of anxiety. And there are certain types of machines for certain special types of schools which are very difficult to obtain.



War Appropriation-Air Services
With regard to the number of schools under the original contract, to produce the number of graduates then envisioned, there were to have been established in Canada a maximum number of seventy-four schools, and other units. A comparison of the original plan with the- actual situation as at March 31, 1943, indicates that we planned seventy-four schools. There are actually in operation to-day-as of March 31, 1943-154 schools. In many cases schools have twice the capacity originally planned, so that these figures do not reflect the development which has taken place.
As to that which is more important, the quality of our output, this can be no military secret. The enemy knows it-the Jap knows it in Alaska and Burma, the Italian knows it in Africa and in his home country, and the German over the channel, in occupied France, and in Germany itself. I expect to develop this point further when dealing with the operation of the Royal Canadian Air Force overseas.
Some officers of my department, Mr. Speaker, who are given to Ripleyism, have given me certain interesting statistics as to the number of miles flown. The average miles flown per day, in the air training plan, is 2,006,626, a distance equal to eighty times around the earth, at the equator, every day. The total miles flown in March, 1943, were 62,205,415, a distance equal to 260 trips to the moon. The miles flown during the first quarter of 1943 were 162,569,510. The cumulative number of miles flown by the joint air training plan from its inception up to March, 1943, totalled 6,588,098,593, which is equal to 71 trips to the sun.
I now come to deal with what has been known as the home war establishment. The amount of money involved in the work of the home war establishment this year, 1943-44, will be 8300,834.000. And we expect to have on the strength of the home war establishment during the fiscal year 1943-44, the average number throughout the year of about 35,000 all ranks. The average strength during 1942-43 was approximately 23,500.
In dealing with home war establishment I should like to correct an impression which is pretty general throughout the country, and even perhaps in our own service, and that is that home war establishment means something like a reserve force. The term "home war establishment" is really a misnomer. It should not be called home war establishment, but should be described as western hemisphere air operations. Our home war units are not reserve units; they are not training units; they are not adjuncts of the joint

empire air training plan, but they are vital components of the offensive and defensive structure of the allied nations. Fighter squadrons in the Aleutians and on the north Pacific coast are seeking out and meeting the enemy in the same way as our fighters are meeting German fliers and the anti-submarine and convoy patrol squadrons on the east coast, are engaged in a Canadian effort comparable to that of the coastal command of Great Britain. They play a vital part in the preservation of the lifeline of supply and transport in the north Atlantic, as well as the protection of our coastal and vulnerable areas from the enemy.
The home war establishment is a separate and distinct organization from the air training plan, and from our overseas service. It has a senior officer at air force headquarters, at its head, and it has a commander-in-chief of air operations on the east coast and on the west coast.
The varied duties and functions which the various squadrons are called upon to perform demand different types of equipment'. There are fighter squadrons equipped with fighter aircraft to meet enemy aircraft should they appear over Canadian skies. There are army cooperation squadrons. There are coast artillery cooperation squadrons. There are bomber reconnaissance squadrons patrolling the coastal waters, and far out into the Atlantic, as convoy escorts and as submarine chasers, and ready to act as a striking force to bomb enemy carriers or other surface vessels should they come to our notice.
Each type of squadron has its particular task to perform. We have some on the St. Lawrence river, some on each coast, far over the Atlantic and the Pacific, and some in the fog-veiled Aleutian islands of Alaska.
The home war squadrons and stations have their own personnel belonging purely to that organization, and engaged upon operational duties only. They are of all the necessary types, all the necessary categories required to carry on warlike operations-ground crew, aircrew, radio men, air gunners, wireless operators, equipment men, and so on, making in all a completely integrated service in itself.
All this personnel is Royal Canadian Air Force personnel, and they are completely interchangeable with the overseas Royal Canadian Air Force. In fact it is a definite policy to ensure that officers and men who have had operational duties overseas should have the opportunity for this important home duty, and the men who begin their operational service on home duty should have, similarly, an opportunity to serve in the more active spheres of operations overseas. As a matter of fact the senior officer air staff at headquarters, Air

War Appropriation-Air Services
Vice-Marshal Anderson, has had experience overseas in this war, having been attached for several months to coastal command in Great Britain. The air officer in chief commanding eastern air command, Air Vice-Marshal Johnston, was also for several months attached te the staff of the Air Ministry overseas. Air Vice-Marshal Stevenson, commanding west coast, was well over a year and a half in England as air officer in charge of Canadian headquarters over there. As a matter of fact all our fighter squadrons in Canada in the home war establishment, so-called, are commanded by officers who have seen active combatant service over Britain, the continent or the middle east in the present war.


Gordon Graydon: Would the minister permit a question? I understood him to say, in connection with the home war establishment, that a large number of those in the crews who are officers have seen service in overseas theatres of war?


Charles Gavan Power: I am sorry that the policy which we have in mind and propose to carry out as soon as we are in a position to do so has not yet gone to the extent which my hon. friend visualizes. So far the commanding officers and a number of' the crews have seen service overseas but not to anything like the extent I would wish and I am sure my hon. friend would wish.
With respect to aerodromes, there are aerodromes which are offensive and defensive aerodromes designed purely for operations of the home war establishment. The difficulty of siting these aerodromes and building them will be appreciated, I am sure, when one takes a look at our map and sees the deeply indented coasts and realizes the difficulties of building aerodromes in some sites which would be very convenient from the standpoint of defence. But we have aerodromes located and in service anywhere from the eastern tip of Newfoundland through Labrador to the Queen Charlotte islands on the Pacific. All these aerodromes and stations must be equipped with service devices of all kinds for the proper conduct of their allotted operations-from the ordinary living quarters for the personnel to the most intricate mechanism for communications and enemy detection.
With regard to aircraft, the home war establishment has its own aircraft, with each squadron equipped with machines which best suit its purpose. As more of these machines come off the supply lines, either United States or British types from Canadian production and some from United States production, the squadrons will be expanded and 72537-1834
more of them constituted. There is a determination that the squadrons shall be adequately equipped with the most suitable and efficient type of aircraft wherever it is possible to get the appropriate type.
I have been asked in the house and elsewhere if our home war aircraft are of the latest model. The answer is, not always. Another question asked is, are there enough of them? The answer is no. If you ask me why not, I will say that the very latest and up-to-the-minute aircraft and in the largest numbers are required where, in the opinion of the united nations planners, they will do most good, and that is not in Canada, but over Tunisia, Libya, in North Africa, and over the English channel.
If I am asked if our air defence is airtight, I reply in the language of the chief of the air staff, Air Marshal Breadner, wTho said recently in an interview at Vancouver:
There is no one who can say that any force is competent to meet any threat, but it can be said that our forces on the Pacific coast are adequate to meet the presently apprehended scales of enemy operations.
The same thing may be said with respect to the east coast. There is no one in this house, not a member, who cannot get up and make a case for better air defence of his home town or of the region from which he comes or of his province or of his business. If he wished to assure himself that never under any circumstances would his town or his region or his business be attacked or imperilled, he could show that without a curtain of anti-aircraft fire, without a swarm of fighter planes, death and destruction could fall about his town and about himself, if he wanted to be very pathetic about it. And he would be right. My answer to that is that no nation can ever be completely protected from air attack. Britain is not even now, and thank God neither is Germany, nor Italy. We cannot cover every possible contingency, we cannot defend completely and individually every city, town, village and hamlet, but we can give reasonable assurance that there are adequate resources to deal with any broad and general situation. Again I repeat that we of the R.C.A.P. believe that with every enemy plane we knock out of the skies over the English channel, with every piece of aircraft blown to bits in Rostock or Augsburg or Milan or Turin, there is that much less danger of any enemy aeroplanes coming to this country, and we are knocking them out of the skies over the English channel and blasting their factories to bits in Germany and Italy.

War Appropriation-Air Services


Gordon Graydon: Can the minister give 'he committee an idea of what percentage if the machines now in operation in the home aircraft establishment are of Canadian manufacture?


Charles Gavan Power: I could not offhand.


Gordon Graydon: Perhaps the minister will give that information later.


Charles Gavan Power: Just thinking it over quickly,
I would say that the percentage is high. It was not high last year, but now a considerable number of aircraft of Canadian manufacture are coming off the production line very rapidly, and a great many of our anti-submarine squadrons will be equipped with these aeroplanes.


Gordon Graydon: I take it from what the minister says that the rest will be of United States manufacture?


Charles Gavan Power: No, I was at first thinking in terms of last year. In a matter of a few weeks the balance will be in favour of Canadian production.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: Does that include aeroplane engines? ,


Charles Gavan Power: No.
Before I leave the home war establishment, the anti-submarine patrol squadrons on both coasts, particularly on the Atlantic coast, deserve some mention in this house. Theirs is one of the most difficult and thankless jobs of the war-long patrols, in the air ten, twenty to twenty-five hours and more at a time, cold, stormy weather, cramped, uncomfortable quarters, bumped about unsparingly by wind and jveather, constantly on the alert, nerves wracked and eyes strained. They carry 'on knowing well that aircraft are not the complete answer to the submarine menace-I should like to repeat that so that it will be understood by the house-it has never been contended and it is not now contended by the R.C.A.F. that aircraft is the complete answer to the submarine menace, because fog, weather and darkness and other elemental factors frequently prevent them from seeing or locating the enemy. Carrying on, hoping, praying for a sight or an opportunity to attack, and most heart-breaking of all, when a perfect attack is made as many have been made, not in a position completely to verify their success because they cannot stay around long enough, or they cannot come down on the sea to pick up identifying wreckage. But, in spite of this apparent frustration, I should like them to know that we have a deep and sincere appreciation of their work and that we are convinced that more and more as days go by, and as we increase in aircraft strength, as we are doing,

and in anti-submarine technique as they are doing, their success against enemy submarines will be more and more accentuated.
Perhaps I might give a historical review of the anti-submarine patrol work on the east coast. In October 1941, the first enemy U-boats appeared in Canadian waters. During this month, the first R.C.A.F. aircraft attack on an enemy U-boat near the entrance to the straits of Belle isle signalled the arrival of enemy submarines in north American coastal wTaters. Their arrival marked the beginning of a new epoch. Up to this time failure of the enemy to extend his operations into the western Atlantic had allowed for concentration on building and training to an extent that would not otherwise have been possible.
By January,, 1942, the westward movement of U-boat operations had extended to the eastern seaboard of continental North America, and sinkings grew in number. In May 1942, the first aircraft attack on U-boats in the gulf of St. Lawrence occurred and in July the first torpedoing in the St. Lawrence river. Although the period of enemy inactivity prior to October, 1941, had permitted first class training in convoy escort and reconnaissance duties, and the aircraft available were so disposed and had those, qualities which permitted continuous convoy escort through the Canadian coastal waters and' extending some hundreds of miles eastward of Newfoundland, the limited numbers of aircraft available to cover the wide expanses off our eastern seaboard made it impossible for the R.C.A.F. to drive U-boats completely away from our coast. This was because it was necessary to employ the major portion of our strength on direct convoy protection, with the result that few aircraft could be spared for the purely offensive mission of seeking out and destroying U-iboats-the prime means by which U-boats can be driven out to sea. During the year 1942, Eastern Air Command anti-submarine squadrons flew some five million nautical miles while escorting in the vicinity of 12,000 sailings of vessels moving singly and in convoy. Of the number of ships sunk within 300 miles of the Canadian coast, less than 3 per cent were sunk while actually being provided with air escort by the R.C.A.F. Even while carrying out this primarily defensive role, these squadrons were able to make 43 attacks on enemy U-boats, many with apparent success. And, since February 28 of this year, we have made fourteen attacks on enemy U-boats in the Atlantic.
During 1939 and 1940 some 14,300 hours were flown on operational work, and during this period six crashes occurred involving

War Appropriation-Air Services
the death of 11 personnel. In 1941 home war aircraft carried out upwards of 1,900 operational patrols flying some 25,980 hours. During this period there were eight crashes involving fatalities to 28 personnel. In 1942 commitments were further increased and more than 7,530 patrols involving 94,450 flying hours were carried out, or an increase in operational activity of no less than 276 per cent. With this great increase in the number of patrols, crashes increased to 22, with 77 fatalities. It is pointed out that the great majority of the crashes have occurred as a result of the adverse weather conditions encountered over the north Atlantic. On the normal patrols carried out usually more than one aircraft is involved; consequently if the weather deteriorates and aircraft are unable to reach base, the percentage of crashes increases proportionately.
The following decorations have been awarded in Eastern Air Command for meritorious service carried out on antisubmarine patrols since the commencement of hostilities:
A.F.C	 10
A.	F.M	 9
D.F.C	 2
O.B.E	 1
B.	E.M	 9
Mentioned in dispatches-
Officers	 13
Other	ranks	 5
The year 1943 is expected to see a very pronounced increase in enemy U-iboat activity in the west Atlantic. To meet this menace, the R.C.A.F. anticipates an over-all increase of nearly 100 per cent in aircraft, aircrew, and hours flown. This is being made possible by deliveries of aircraft manufactured in Canadian factories, acquisition from United States manufacturers, and the supply of aircrew from the combined training establishment. To provide increased coverage in the gulf of St. Lawrence the bases already there are being reinforced and new bases are being opened
The house is no doubt aware that within the past few weeks the R.C.A.F., in conjunction with the Royal Canadian Navy, has undertaken new responsibility in the battle of the Atlantic. The R.C.N. has been charged with the duty of protecting the surface ships convoys in the northwestern Atlantic, and the R.C.A.F. is working in the closest cooperation with it, in providing air cover for convoys, not only within short distances of our coast but, through the instrumentality of very long range aircraft recently acquired, to distances far out in the Atlantic. But it still remains to be seen whether or not the most effective
way of alleviating the submarine menace is to destroy the submarines in their own nest, instead of looking for them all over the Atlantic as one would look for a needle in a haystack. Our bombers, the R.A.F. bombers and the American forces are constantly and continually attacking Hamburg, Emden, Brest, St. Nazaire, and Lorient, are destroying submarines at their home bases and factories building submarines or essential parts thereof. We may not be able to destroy completely concrete pens of 14 to 18 feet in thickness, but we can make the district surrounding these pens, the dockyards, the quays, and the places near unfit to live in, and the various necessary appliances unfit to handle.
There are some authorities who say that anti-submarine work at sea, in the middle of the Atlantic, is of a purely defensive character, whereas one wants to carry on defensive operations and the way to carry them on is as I have already stated, quoting from one of Great Britain's foremost air marshals, to seek the enemy out in his nest and destroy him there.
I can say one more thing with respect to the home war squadrons, that I have advised all concerned overseas, and the united staff planners, that when the day comes to deliver the "coup de grace" in Europe or in Japan, or before, if necessary, all these squadrons are at the disposal of the united nations, collectively, individually, and every individual man in them, to be sent anywhere, at any time, wherever it is thought they can do the best work. The squadrons, particularly the fighters, are mobile and can be sent away at almost any time, having regard to our commitments in dealing with the submarine menace and protecting vulnerable points.
Now I should like to take some time to deal with our overseas squadrons. We have 32 squadrons in operation out of the 38 which it is proposed at the moment to constitute. There is one squadron in Ceylon and another in the middle east. Every squadron, except the one constituted only two or three weeks ago, has been in heavy and constant action. They have flown in operations in April 10,000 hours; they have carried the war to the enemy, meeting him and knocking him out of the skies; they are on the offensive, and they dare the German to leave his concealed dispersal pits to come up to combat. When I was in Britain last year I visited one of our squadrons when they were just about taking off on a scramble to join in an operation over occupied France. I saw there, taking the skies from the various aerodromes surrounding the aerodrome of this Canadian squadron, over 200 fighter aircraft.
2S8S

War Appropriation-Air Services
They circled around and attained a great height. I asked the commanding officer of the Canadian squadron why they got up so high and made themselves more open to detection by aircraft detection devices. He said, "We are doing it because we want the Germans to know that we are going over and we want them to come up and fight us." That is the spirit not only of our force, but of the R.A.F., because most of the people on this particular operation were R.A.F.-the spirit of bringing the Germans up to the air to fight. There is no longer any question of the R.A.F. or the air forces of the united nations endeavouring to get away from fighting; they are pressing the fighting home to the enemy day after day and night after night, with the object of making him come out and meet them. Our Canadians have developed, or if they have not developed at least they have taken part in, a new technique of train-busting, shooting up freight cars and, particularly, railway engines, not for fun-though they must enjoy it-but with the deliberate plan of destroying enemy rolling-stock, disrupting his communications, preventing him from transporting munitions and instruments of war, and making it difficult if not impossible for him to effect a rapid concentration of troops through the network of railways which he has constructed and which were already built on the French coast and other occupied coasts, and which concentrations will be essential to him in the event of a continental invasion. Our coastal command squadrons have taken their share of the task allotted to them of destroying enemy shipping and submarines. Our army cooperation squadrons, acting in conjunction with the Canadian army, equipped with the swiftest of machines for reconnaissance photographic work, have, while waiting for action with the invading army, taken on the task of fighter squadrons and gone in for short-range bombing.


Gordon Graydon: In the British coastal
command are there Royal Canadian Air Force personnel?


Charles Gavan Power: There are Royal Canadian Air Force squadrons and a very large number of Royal Canadian Air Force personnel in Royal Air Force squadrons.


Gordon Graydon: That is, in the coastal command?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes. The Canadian bomber group was formed as a group on January 1, 1942, and has taken part in every big raid, either as individual squadrons, before formation into the group, or as a group ever since its formation. As an illustration of the part 
played by Canadian squadrons in the present offensive, I may observe that I read in the press about a month ago that the American bombers had made their biggest raid up to that time and that 125 American bombers had been in action and had attacked a target, I forget where, either in Holland or in Germany. I had noticed, through the dispatches and to some extent through the casualty lists, that there had been a heavy combined Royal Air Force-Royal Canadian Air Force raid on that same night, and so I cabled overseas and asked if there was any security objection to my giving the number of Canadian aircraft which had been in this heavy Royal Air Force raid on the very night when the American Fortresses had taken part in their operation. The reply came back that there were 136 Canadian aircraft in that operation on that night. This comparison was not made for the purpose of minimizing the effort of any of our allies, but in order to bring home to our people a realization of the efforts made by Canada overseas, which two years ago had only a small token force and which a month ago was able to put in the air, in operations over Germany, as many aircraft as our very much more powerful neighbour.
These bomber squadrons in the bomber group, I am told, on the very best authority, are among the most effective in Great Britain, but the work performed by our bomber squadrons and by our fighter squadrons and coastal command squadrons as well as our army cooperation squadrons is but a small part of the work which is being carried on by Royal Canadian Air Force personnel overseas. I have said outside, and I will repeat in this house: There are more thousands of Royal Canadian Air Force personnel in Royal Air Force units overseas than there are hundreds in Canadian units. As a matter of fact, it is about eleven to one. I am speaking of aircrew only. There are about eleven Royal Canadian Air Force aircrew in British squadrons to one in Canadian squadrons, and the Canadian squadrons are, to a certain extent, filled up by Canadians. I think that should be made clear to the house and to the country, that the very great proportion of Canadians enlisted in Canada-and this does not take into consideration graduates of the empire training plan who come from other countries, because I am speaking only of Canadians enlisted in Canada -go to a very large extent to Royal Air Force squadrons.


Mr. JACKMAN:: Will that be so after we get our thirty-two squadrons established out of the thirty-eight which we intend?
War Appropriation-Air Services
28sy


Charles Gavan Power: We have thirty-two now. There are only six more to establish.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Even with the thirty-two established overseas, there are eleven Canadians in the Royal Air Force as against one Canadian in the Royal Canadian Air Force overseas?


Charles Gavan Power: If we had squadrons established for all the Canadian aircrew which will be sent over next year, let us say, we would need something like 250,000 ground crew to look after them. Ground crew equal in number to the Canadian army overseas would not be enough to look after all the aircrew we are sending over to fight in the Royal Air Force squadrons. My hon. friend speaks of six squadrons, requiring some thousands of men. If they were fighter squadrons they would require 30 or 40 of aircrew, and if they were bomber squadrons they would require some 100 aircrew. When our whole 38 are established we shall still have that same proportion of as many thousands in the Royal Air Force squadrons as there are hundreds in, our own-eleven in the Royal Air Force squadrons to one in the Canadian squadrons. Again, I am speaking only of aircrew, not ground crew.
As illustrating the wide dispersal of Canadians in the Royal Air Force and elsewhere, during the month of January Canadian casualties occurred in 72 different squadrons, and from' February to May there were Canadian casualties in 168 squadrons overseas. We have our men on every front and in every corner of the globe where the British commonwealth is waging war with the axis powers. Berlin, Turin, Genoa, Sicily, Sardinia, Burma, Kiska, the Ruhr dams, have been the melancholy recipients of their bombs and Junkers, Messerschmits, Fiats, Capronis, Zeros have felt the weight of their gun power.
Because Canada is taking such an important part in the air, both in our squadrons and with our individual aircrew in other squadrons. I should like to have the knowledge and experience to discuss in the house some of the strategic aspects of air warfare. I came back from Great Britain last summer more than half convinced that, given enough machines and given enough men capable of manning the machines, as we are turning out men from the air training plan to man the machines, Germany could be knocked out of the war by bombs. In England I met men who are firmly convinced that that theory is the right one. It is no secret, because it has been stated in the public press, and Chief Air Marshal Harris has on many occasions
been quoted, both in the American and the British press, as saying that, given enough men and machines, he could knock Germany out of the war by bombing in six months. They believe that one by one, town by town, city by city, factory by factory, street by street they can destroy' all Germany and knock out every vestige of its economic strength. I do not say I accept that theory. I said I was more than half convinced at the time I returned, but I am sure that some of the proponents of this total air war will get a great deal of comfort from what Mr. Churchill said the day before yesterday in the United States, and his statement will be a rather effective reply at the same time to those who have been saying, both here and in the United States, and probably to some . extent in Great Britain; "What is the use of all this bombing? Is it not futile? Britain was not knocked out by bombing and therefore you cannot knock Germany out." Well, I wish to quote what Mr. Churchill said:
In this air war it is that these guilty nations have already begun to show their first real mortal weakness. The more continuous and severe the air fighting becomes the better for us because we can already replace casualties and machines far more rapidly than the enemy and we can replace them on a scale which increases month by month.
Progress in this sphere is swift and sure, but it must be remembered that the preparation and development of airfields and the movement of the great masses of ground personnel on whom the efficiency of modern air squadrons depends, however earnestly pressed forward, is bound to take time.
Opinion-
And this is where I have to agree with Mr. Churchill.
Opinion, Mr. President, is divided as to whether the use of air power could by itself bring about the collapse in Germany or Italy. The experiment is well worth trying, so long as other measures are not excluded. Well, there is certainly no harm in finding out. But, however that may be, we are all agreed that the damage done to the enemy's war potential is enormous.
The condition to which. the great centres of German war industry, and particularly the Ruhr, are being reduced is one of unparalleled devastation.
And again:
It is our settled policy, the settled policy of our two vast war-making authorities, to make it impossible for Germany to carry on any form of war industry on a large or concentrated scale either in Germany, in Italy or in the enemy occupied countries. Wherever these munitions centres exist or are developed they will be destroyed and the populations will be dispersed. If they do not like what is coming to them, then let them disperse beforehand on their own. And this process will continue cease-

War Appropriation-Air Services
lessly, with ever-increasing weight and intensity, until the German and Italian people abandon or , destroy the monstrous tyrannies which they have incubated and reared in their midst.
He continued further:
Meanwhile our offensive is forcing Germany to withdraw an ever larger portion of its warmaking capacity from the fighting front. In order to provide protection against the air attacks, hundreds of thousands of men, together with a vast share of the output of the war factories, have already been assigned to this 1 purely defensive function.
All this is at the expense of the enemy's power of new aggression or of the enemy's power to resume the initiative. Surveying the whole aspect of the air war we cannot doubt that it is a major factor in the process of victory. That I think is established as solid fact.
Not long ago Sir Archibald Sinclair and Captain Balfour of the Air Ministry painted ; a rather vivid picture of the results obtained by air bombing in relation to its cost in personnel. They pointed to the problem of attacking Cologne with an objective of destroying 250 factories and disorganizing the life of the community so that 25,000 people had to be evacuated. A few years ago the accomplishment of such an objective with the loss of 200 or 250 men would have been regarded as an incredible military feat. Yet these things, and others of even greater ' calibre, are occurring daily and nightly. Operations of such magnitude in the last war would have involved lengthy preparations and bloody battles with heavy losses.
We, and I speak for the R.C.A.F., are taking an extremely important part in this attempt, successful or not as it may be, to knock Germany out of the war economically by air bombing. Our boys more and more are going over in such numbers as will swell the ranks of the attacking squadrons and swell the proportion of Canadians taking part in these aerial combats.
But it is not only in bombing that air power plays a part. Those of us who saw the motion picture "Desert Victory" must have noticed that there was the closest possible collaboration and coordination between Cunningham of the air arm on the one hand and Montgomery of the army on the other. They lived together;, so to speak. The air arm was always at the disposal of the land army, not merely in its old role in the last war, that of reconnaissance and photography, but also to carry on the work which in former wars was usually allotted to the cavalry, to scout, to cut off enemy communi-' cations, to attack the enemy in his rear or

around his flank. In addition they occupied a new role altogether, to keep the enemy from getting reinforcements and supplies, to blast his ships and his troops and his transports far from land, and in the final assault to act as artillery, to wipe out absolutely all vestige of enemy resistance before the army went into Tunis and Bizerte.
Canadians serving overseas who are members of the R.C.A.F. have been awarded 446 decorations for gallantry, included in which were one conspicuous gallantry medal, three George medals, Distinguished Service orders, Distinguished Flying Cross bars, Distinguished Flying Crosses, Distinguished Flying medals and two decorations from the Czechoslovakian government. In addition Canadians who are in the R.A.F. as R.A.F. have been awarded 179 decorations for gallantry, including one George Cross and the Polish Militari Vertuti, equivalent to the Victoria Cross. I should like to read the citation of the award of the George medal to Flight Sergeant, now Pilot Officer, Raoul Jenner of Ottawa. It reads:
One night in September, 1942, Flight Sergeant Jenner was a member of the crew of an aircraft detailed to attack a target at Dusseldorf. The target was bombed successfully but whilst still over the objective the aircraft was repeatedly hit by anti-aircraft fire. The port inner propeller came off and shortly afterwards the port outer engine fell out, the petrol tanks were holed in many places during the return journey. The crew displayed coolness and skill doing all they could to keep the crippled bomber in the air. Shortly after crossing the English coast the aircraft crashed in a field and immediately caught fire. All the crew, with the exception of the rear gunner, managed to extricate themselves. The whole aircraft was soon blazing fiercely. Knowing that the fuel tanks might explode any moment two sergeants reentered the aircraft in an attempt to rescue the rear gunner. They went right forward to reach the place where they thought he would have been thrown but a petrol tank exploded and both were killed. Flight Sergeant Jenner, who had seen his two comrades killed and knew that a further petrol tank might explode, then reentered the burning fuselage; he found the rear gunner who _ was severely burned and succeeded in removing him to safety. Throughout this airman displayed extreme courage, fortitude and devotion to duty in keeping with the highest traditions of the Royal Air Force.
This is one side, a glorious and perhaps glamorous side of the picture, but there is another which we must take into consideration. It is the cost in human sacrifice-the R.CA.F. casualties since the beginning of the war, and the toll increasing, an ever-mounting toll, which is being taken of our human capital. Leaving aside the wounded,

War Appropriation-Air Services
which are not numerous in our operations,	total of	fatal casualties is 2,977,	in additionthe total casualties in Canada from the be-	to which	1,816 are currently missing, 614 are	ginning of the war to April 30, 1943 were	prisoners	of war and 15 are interned. I shall	980. of which 116 occurred in flying operations,	place this table on	Hansard.	It indicateswhile 720 were the result of accidents during	that the	R.C.A.F. casualties, not including	training. One hundred and forty-four deaths	deaths from disease,	from the	outbreak ofoccurred from other causes, such as auto-	hostilities to April 30,	1943, total 7,050. The	mobile accidents, et cetera. The overseas	table follows:	R.C.A.F. Casualties (not including Deaths by Disease)	from the Outbreak of Hostilities	to April 30, 1943	Flying	Training	CANADA	Operations Accidents	Other	TotalKilled 	83	666	128	877Died of wounds	6	6Died of injuries	4	22	10	36Presumed dead	29	32	61Total, Fatal and presumed dead	116	720	144	980. Currently missing	31	33	19	83Seriously or dangerously wounded (not fatal)	1	7	8Seriously or dangerously injured (not fatal)	148	148	296Total Casualties in Canada	147	902	318	1,367Flying	OVERSEAS	Casualties	Other	TotalKilled 	1,541	40	1,581Died of wounds	7	2	9Died of injuries	48	4	52Presumed dead	1,327	8	1,335Total, fatal and presumed dead	2,923	54	2,977Currently missing	1,807	9	1,816Prisoner of war	611	3	614Interned 	15	15Seriously or dangerously wounded (not fatal)	14	2	16Seriously or dangerously injured (not fatal)	201	44	245Total Casualties Overseas	5,571	112	5,683GRAND TOTAL 	7,050


Mr. MacNICOL:: How many of those were killed?


Charles Gavan Power: I do not have it in quite that shape. There were 720 killed in training accidents in Canada, and 116 killed in flying operations in the defence of Canada. There were 2,977 killed in overseas operations, in addition to which there are 1,816 missing and 614 prisoners of war. It works out at about four thousand killed, all told.
I should like to say something which is perhaps not fully realized by hon. members of the house and the country: that in the view
of our officers, whether a man crashes and loses his life in training or in operations, it is considered that he died in the performance of his full duty to his king and country. The loss is due to a never-ending battle, whether against the forces of nature, of science or of humanity. Our sympathy goes out to the sorrowing parents, whether their boy was the victim of a training accident or a battle casualty. There are those who sit in this'house whose best and dearest have been taken,'and there are none in this house who have not friends, relatives or close acquaintances who
2S92

War Appropriation-Air Services
have been bereaved. What strikes one in reading the casualty lists, as unfortunately I am obliged to do every day, is the universality of the sacrifice being made by the Canadian people. Small towns in Saskatchewan and tiny hamlets in New Brunswick are conspicuously present in the roll of honour and in the record of sorrow. The almost daily publication of casualty lists in the press must not dull our sense of continuing loss and sacrifice. Each day there is recorded something vital and great that is lost to Canada. We think of the youthful, happy faces of the boys who were normally facing the great adventure of adult life with high heart and hopeful vision. I need not repeat what I have said already in this house and elsewhere, that the loss of these boys is the great tragedy of this most tragic of all wars, not only to Canada but to the whole world. The newest of all services takes the best in our nation, and in its development we pay the heaviest of our penalties. In speaking of these men I can only use the language employed by one of my dearest friends, a former member of this house known and respected by a great many of us, who was so unfortunate as to lose his boy a few weeks ago. When I wrote to advise him of the fatality he replied, saying, "All we ask is that the sacrifice be not in vain."
There is one other point I should like to emphasize. When we read in the press of a raid over Germany or Italy we are apt to visualize this as a brief, precipitate dash, a short, sharp and swift blow, in and out again, something adventurous and glamorous and exciting, something along the line of the trench raids of the last war. It is not so. It is a sustained battle of approach, action and retirement; a battle against the elements, wind, storm, thunder and fog; a battle against the machine, oil leaks, petrol leaks, seizing engines, air pockets and all the miscellaneous ills to which even the best-serviced engines may be subject. It is a battle against the enemy; flak, searchlights, night fighters. Above all it is a battle against one's own self; against the strain of nerves during the long hours of flying across the North sea, over occupied Europe to enemy country and through walls of defensive armour. These are the battles which our boys are fighting and winning through sheer courage and endless, stern devotion to duty, and the highest form of determination and self-dis-

cipline. This is what these boys are doing for Canada. We of the Royal Canadian Air Force are proud of them, and I know the members of this house will be proud and grateful too.
Progress reported.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Bradette in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
Administration service.
1. Departmental administration, $130,406.
Mr. PERLEY:: When the committee rose last night w'e were asking the minister if he would review the situation in regard to labour conditions on the farms. I understand from what was said this afternoon by the Minister of Labour that such a statement is to be made, and I think it would help to clear up the doubt in regard to the apparent mess w'ith respect to farm labour in Saskatchewan if a statement could be made by the minister now.


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: As I said last night, Mr. Chairman, the matter then under discussion in regard to general labour or man-power conditions throughout Canada is really something that should be handled by the Minister of Labour when his estimates are under consideration. I suppose, however, that in asking me for a statement hon. members have in mind something with regard to the number of men who are now employed on farms as compared with the number who were so employed before the war began. I have before me a statement setting out the figures for each year from March 1, 1939, to the present time. I would add that it is impossible absolutely to prove these figures from any available records. They . are all estimated, based upon the agricultural census of 1941, projected forward and backward on the basis of very incomplete information, including the crop reporters' survey and the -8 per cent sample survey taken by the Department of Agriculture economics branch in the spring of 1942. The number of hired workers on the farms is at a low point in March, while the figure during the summer season in any year would be considerably higher than that for March of the same year. Many of the additional hired workers on farms during the summer are, of course, engaged in other occupations during other periods of the year. These facts should be kept in mind when considering the figures I now place on record:

Supply-Agriculture
Estimated Male Farm Workers March 1, 1939, to March 1, 1943
(Thousands)
March	i.	1939..March	i,	1940..March	i,	1941. .March	i.	1942..March	i,	1943..
Net reduction in agricultural male labour force
March, 1939-1943	
Add natural increase of farm male population during
four years	
Equals gross drain into forces and non-agrieultural industry	
. (i)	(2)	(3)
Male family workers		Total male
(including	Male hired	farm labouroperator*)	help	force1,080	285	1,3651,065	270	1,3351,000	220	1,220910	175	1,085880	140	1,020200	145	34550395
* Number of operators about 670,000 on June 1, 1941.
Then, the following table showing farm placements and unfilled orders:
Farm Placements and Unfilled Orders
Employment and Selective Service Offices March and April, 1943
Placements	Unfilled orders
March	April	April 29Province	Male	Female	Male	Female	Male	FemalePrince Edward Island	1	1	Nova Scotia 	
18	15	105	New Brunswick 	
14	13	i	37	Quebec	
40	i	50	4	186	2Ontario	
582	57	506	52	1,802	83Manitoba	59	90	17	424	44Saskatchewan	
115	15	298	16	942	135Alberta	
304	39	714	43	576	125British Columbia 	
93	3	91	33	179	26Canada	
1,213	175	1,778	166	4,251	415
That data is taken from the research statistics branch of the Department of Labour, and the other data was taken from the source I mentioned, namely, the agricultural census figures of the year 1941 adjusted to the different years.
Those are the facts with regard to the labour situation, as we know it at the present time.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Has the minister any figures to show where the 395,000 men who left the farm went?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, I have not a breakdown of those figures. I believe certain figures were given by the Minister of National Defence. They would indicate how many men went into the armed forces. I am not sure whether the figures were broken down to show those who wrnre farmers and those who were not farmers.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I do not think so.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not the figures
with me, on that basis.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It seems to me that someone gave the figure

it may have been the Minister of Labour-of about 400,000 who went off the farm, half of whom had gone into the armed services and the other half into industry. Has the minister any information on that?


James Garfield Gardiner: One figure was given
some time ago to the effect that we expected
175.000	men who had gone off the farms in the fall of 1942 would go back to the farms in the spring of 1943. It was estimated that
250.000	men went off the farms last fall. It will be noted that that figure compares favourably with some of the figures we have heard
Supply-Agriculture

this afternoon, as to the numbers who have gone elsewhere. Those men went largely to the lumber camps and into the mines last fall, on the undertaking that they would endeavour to come back to the farms this spring. I do not know how many were back on March 1, but I do not think there would be very many at that time.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: Chances are they will be back later.


James Garfield Gardiner: Some of them would
come back. The estimate was that at least
175,000	of the 250,000 would come back.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: Did those who left the farm and went into lumbering or some other industry have to get permission of selective service to leave the farm?


James Garfield Gardiner: They were required to get permits to go and to give undertakings that they would come back in the spring.


Charles Edward Johnston: Then, would not selective service have some check on those who did come back and on those who refused to come back?


James Garfield Gardiner: There will be some check, but men who left the farm and entered the armed forces, for instance, will not be compelled to come back, and some were given permission to remain longer at the new work they undertook, provided they would return to the farm when required.


Ernest Edward Perley: Can the minister give us an idea of the number of men who left the farm after the farm labour freezing order? I should like to get the effect of that order.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not the figures to enable me to reply. They can be 'produced only by the Minister of Labour when he has his estimates before the committee. I have not those figures.


Ernest Edward Perley: They would be included in last year's figures?


James Garfield Gardiner: They would be included in the reduction that was made in that particular year. Those who left the farm in the fall and were coming back in the spring would be included in those figures.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask a question for information with respect to the man-power situation? Is there a man-power committee of the cabinet, and, if so, is the minister a member of that committee?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; there is a manpower committee and I am on that committee.


Gordon Graydon: What does this committee do, and what have been the results of its

labour with respect to man-power, having special reference to the needs of agriculture? In order to assist the minister I will make clear the point I have in mind.
The figures he has just read would indicate to most people who understand at all the agricultural situation in Canada one of two things, either the figures are hopelessly inadequate and convey a picture which should not, in my opinion, be conveyed as representative of the farm labour situation, or else, if they do show anything like the picture, then all the representations that have been made by farm organizations and others in contact with agriculture must be entirely wrong. When the minister speaks of one province or of one man being placed in one month in the spring of the year and intimates that all requisitions for male or female labour have been filled, it looks to me like no offers and no takers.
I am wondering whether the agricultural sections of Canada are really using national selective service. There must be some answer more than the minister has given with respect to those figures. With his knowledge of agriculture he must have felt impelled to ask the same question that I ask with respect to those figures, and I would ask him now, since he is a member of the man-power committee of the cabinet, just what those figures mean. For instance, 1,802 men would not begin to fill the requirements of Ontario for farm labour. It would not be sufficient to do more than plant a few victory gardens in vacant lots around the cities and towns. That is no approach at all to the whole question of man-power on the farm. I should like the minister to give the real reason for the figures as they have been presented1 to the committee this afternoon. I am not finding any fault with his production of the figures.


James Garfield Gardiner: The only reason for their being presented is that they were asked for.


Gordon Graydon: If the minister wishes to be facetious, all right, but he knows very well that is not an answer to the question I asked, and I want him to be serious about this problem.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am serious in saying that.


Gordon Graydon: If the minister is serious, I want a better explanation.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not want to appeal to you, Mr. Chairman, for a ruling. I have explained to the committee on two occasions that this is not my problem and has nothing to do with my estimates, and if I wished to ask for your ruling I am sure what

Supply-Agriculture
your ruling would be. But I did not do so.
I gave the information asked for that is on the records. I should like to know from the leader of the opposition what his explanation is with regard to those figures.


Gordon Graydon: I will tell the minister at once, and the answer may not meet the minister's wishes. I think the answer is that the whole selective service machinery has fallen down so far as farm labour is concerned, and1 if the minister would only admit it he would say the same himself.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Since the minister is a member of the man-power committee of the cabinet, I think he should have gone farther in answering the question asked by my colleague the leader of the opposition.
I had some difficulties in my province at Easter, and I am satisfied from what the Minister of Labour himself has said that selective service is not functioning as it should, especially in regard to agriculture. When I asked him a question the other day about it he said that I should get in touch with the selective service officer in the city of Winnipeg, that he would be able to tell me. I know some of the difficulties between the selective service officer and the draft board which calls men up, and the difficulty at that time was with conscientious objectors whose help the farmers wanted with their seeding. But the selective service officer did not have any records. The files were with the staff of the draft board. There is clearly confusion and misunderstanding between the respective authorities, and selective service is not working as it should. True enough, we have statements issued every once in a while and orders in council passed, but actually to date they have not amounted to much more than words. The minister is on the manpower committee of the cabinet and is responsible for agriculture, and even if it were not strictly in order he should discuss this question in the committee. When we raise the question with the Minister of Finance he does not know anything about it, and while the Minister of Labour is responsible for selective service he does not know agriculture as the minister does. Therefore, I think the Minister of Agriculture should enlighten us. We may get through the spring season without much help, but it will not be long before men will be needed for haying and harvest, and many farmers are already worrying how they will get off their crops if they have an average crop this year. Surely the minister should give us not only information but a lead in this matter.


The CHAIRMAN:: The Minister of Agriculture has raised the same point of order that he brought to the attention of the committee yesterday. He mentioned a fact which every member of the committee knows, namely, that the minister is always willing to answer any questions pertaining to his department; but no one should take objection to the fact that it is for the minister who is in the best position to do so to make statements and answer questions, and that the matter of manpower should be dealt with by the Minister of Labour. In my opinion the point of order was well taken, and I would ask the committee to act accordingly.


Mr. WRIGHT:: Mr. Chairman, I quite agree with what you have said, that the Minister of Agriculture is not directly responsible in this matter of man-power. Nevertheless, he is responsible for agricultural production, and agricultural production is definitely tied up with the amount of man-power available for that purpose. I think that, as a member of the man-power committee of the cabinet, he must assume a certain amount of responsibility in that regard. For that reason members of the committee should be allowed to express their views on the subject, so that the minister will have those views before him in deciding on the matter.
The other day the Minister of National Defence stated that 80 per cent of the men from agriculture who applied for postponements were granted them. I point out that that is a statement which is entirely misleading to the people of this country. True, such men may have been granted their first postponement, but in a great number of cases it was only for a short period, maybe a month, or two, or three months, and at the end of that period they were not granted a second postponement and are now in the armed forces. That point should be looked into.
I believe that to-day we have set up in Canada war production committees in most of the provinces. I know that has been done in western Canada. In many instances those committees recommend that men be granted postponements, but frequently such postponements are not granted by the board. The war production committees which have been set up both in United States and in Great Britain have been given a great deal more authority than the Canadian committees which, as I understand, have only advisory functions. I should like to give the committee an idea of the authority conferred upon war production committees in Great Britain. I read from the issue, dated May 15, of the Commercial
Supply-Agriculture

Intelligence Journal, published under the authority of the Minister of Trade and Commerce:
Too much credit for this increased productivity and general efficiency of British agriculture cannot be given to the county war agricultural executive committees. Their only "terms of reference" that mean anything are "responsibility for the production of more food." Unencumbered by red tape and clothed with authority, they have approached their problems with direptnes and understanding. They have not hesitated to advise, prescribe, and, where necessary, evict, in order to reach their goals. Their achievements speak for themselves, and it would be surprising if some similar organizations, with modified powers, were not demanded^ by British farmers in the post-war period.
I have two suggestions to make to the minister with regard to this man-power problem. When war production committees recommend that men should be placed in agriculture, their recommendations should be mandatory upon the boards which are calling those men; otherwise there is very little use in the recommendations being made. We have come to a point in the man-power situation on the farms when more drastic action must be taken. The other recommendation I would make is that men allotted to agriculture by these boards should be allotted permanently except in the event of national emergency. At the present time postponements are granted for only short periods, say three or six months; the boy goes back to the farm, and neither his father nor himself has any idea whether another postponement will be granted. Consequently they do not plan to produce more agricultural commodities. If postponements were granted with the understanding that they were permanent except in a case of national emergency, we would get a much greater production than we have at the present time.
As regards the figures of placements in agriculture which the minister has given us, I know from personal experience that, at least in Saskatchewan, they are not at all indicative of the actual requirements in the matter of labour. We have selective service offices in certain of the larger towns, but only farmers living in the neighbourhood of those towns make application there. I would say that seventy-five per cent of the farmers in Saskatchewan-and I think this is true of most of the other provinces-have never made use of these various offices. For that reason I do not regard the minister's statements as indicative of the true situation.
The minister has a responsibility with regard to this matter of man-power. I am sure he realizes the conditions. He has been in every province and probably has a much wider

knowledge of the subject than many private members, and I think he should, in his dealings with the man-power committee, take a firmer stand on behalf of agriculture. We can say that we need man-power in the army, in industry and in the navy, but neither the army, the navy nor industry will function very long on an empty stomach. We could have the best trained army in the world, but if we gave them nothing to eat for a week they would not be able to beat a second-rate armv. We may be approaching that position; we may be closer to it than we now realize. Last year Canada had the largest crop which has ever been produced, not only in this country but in the United States or the whole north American continent. Despite that fact there are shortages to-day, and in view of the lateness of the spring there is every indication that Canada and the whole of North America will have a short crop this year. As a matter of fact, the winter wheat crop of the United States is several million bushels less than it was last year. We must pay some attention to these matters before it is too late.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is just one thing I might say, in addition to what I have already said, with regard to the figures which have been presented. To an extent, of course, the figures based on the 1941 census must be estimates. The figures with regard to the placements are actual figures, and the figures with regard to the applications which are in the offices are also actual figures. I scarcely agree with those who seem to feel that the figures do not mean anything. As a matter of fact, I had the privilege of administering the employment offices in Saskatchewan over a five-year period. Employment offices in the provinces are not a new thing; they have been established since around the end of the last war; they were set up under legislation which was passed here, if I remember rightly, in 1919, and I do not think there are many farmers anywhere in Canada who do not know that they exist. They are the same offices as are now functioning for selective service. I believe every hon. member knows where they are located in the various provinces; certainly hon. members from Saskatchewan know where they are located in their respective areas, our province being almost exclusively agricultural.
What these figures do mean is that people have not been sufficiently anxious about the employment situation on their farms to appeal to the employment offices to a greater extent than they have done. They have been directed to do so by everyone who has been talking to

Supply-Agriculture
them about these matters. I am sure that members have directed them to do so, as I have done every time they have written to me inquiring about the matter, and I have also directed them to do so publicly. I have asked those who are short of labour to apply to these offices for any assistance which can be given them, and the farmers have been applying to the offices over a long period of years, since about 1919 at least. I am sure, therefore, that some of them would apply this year if they found it necessary, and the figures which were given are figures as represented on the records of the different employment offices across Canada on April 29, 1943. Members are in as good a position to determine what that means as I am. The fact that we have had offices set up across Canada for a long term of years and that people have been accustomed to apply there if they need additional labour speaks for itself.
I agree with what is said by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright), that farmers do not of necessity go there under ordinary circumstances because they employ labour in their local community. If one farmer in peace time has more sons than he needs on his own farm, a. neighbour employs a son off his farm. If there are a number of people who are ready to work on a farm, people in villages round about, they are employed on farms and therefore do not go to the employment offices. But whenever there has been a difficulty which has become serious w7ith the farmer, the practice has been to apply to the offices. Any member can arrive at his own conclusion as to why they have not done so on this occasion. I read an explanation this morning which came from a man who was very closely associated with the work in western Canada and who is doing everything he can to assist the farmers in getting men on their farms, and his explanation is this. He said: "I can scarcely understand it myself, because there has been so much complaining about the shortage of labour, and I do not see why there have not been more applications. I can only offer one of two explanations. The first is that men may be asking wages that are too high and the farmer has simply made up his mind that he cannot pay so much and that he will have to do the work as best he can with such labour as he has on his farm, and is therefore proceeding to do so." He said that might be one explanation. He said that another explanation may be that the farmers have come to the conclusion that they will have to put forth an extraordinary effort owing to the fact that we are at war, and that therefore they are
getting on with as little labour as possible and are doing the best job they can under the circumstances.
I am not in a position to say, as the hon. member for Melfort has suggested, that this will result in greatly reduced production this year. The statistics indicate that wheat seeding is down about twenty per cent. That indication was there before the weather had anything to do with the situation, or at any rate, if it had, it had little to do with it. The farmers apparently decided to follow the request made of them, which has been set out in the objectives for Canadian agriculture for 1943, and they are reducing their wheat acreage, if the bureau of statistics information is correct, by just about the amount they were asked to reduce it in this programme, namely, by something in the neighbourhood of four million acres. That would be helpful1 in getting the work done this year which they intended to do, as hon. members from the west know.
The seeding season for coarse or feed grains extends over a longer period than the seeding season for wheat. The suggestion comes from the western provinces, from those who are keeping close check on these things, that farmers will get their seed in this spring with the labour they have. I cannot give the committee anything more than the information that is given to me by the people who are keeping the records, the people who are associated with the provincial governments as well as federally, because these offices over a period of years have been operated on a fifty-fifty basis under the provinces and the federal government, and the officials have been men who have been satisfactory to both federal and provincial governments. When these men make reports we are inclined to accept them. They are based upon the experience of men.
In Saskatchewan it is reported that in addition to getting their seeding under way, and in spite of the fact that there has been some difficult weather lately, seventy-five per cent of the grain left over last fall had been threshed before we entered upon this week, and the prediction was that it would be all cleaned up by the end of the week. In Alberta the story was that sixty' per cent of the grain had been threshed and would be cleaned up by the end of the week. We have to take the reports of the people who are on the ground. I was there myself during the Easter vacation, and I found seeding well under way. Since that time I have had no information in the matter apart from what comes to us through the officials on the ground, and the report is to the effect I have indicated.
Supply-Agriculture

I may say to those who come from Ontario that this morning I read the records and found that the production of butter in that province is up twenty per cent. It is true that the production of cheese is down somewhat, but the production of butter is up twenty per cent, and I think I am correct in saying that the production of milk is not down. So that this would not suggest that the work is not being done by someone. We may argue that old people who should not be working are at work and that people who are too young to work are also working, and we can understand such arguments. After all, however, we have to take the facts as they are indicated to us in the reports that are made from time to time on what is being actually done, and we have to face those facts. When we face those facts we can probably arrive at some conclusion as to why the figures are as they are.
It is a little difficult to make comparisons such as were made by the hon. member for Melfort with regard to the situation in Britain and in Canada and derive much benefit therefrom. As I understand it, between five per cent and ten per cent of the people of Great Britain are on farms, and the organization of a farming community of that kind, in an area as small as Britain, is one thing, while the organization of a farming community in an area where thirty-seven per cent of the people are actually living on the farms and are spread across a country as great as Canada, is an entirely different thing. In the country to the south of us conditions are a little more akin to ours, but I do not find there that the complaints are any less than they are here; and in some respects I did not find, even on the other side of the ocean, that the complaints were very different in Britain from those we hear in this country. They are based on the same ideas and the same thoughts. I have in my hand a copy of the Saturday Evening Post of January 30, 1943, and I should like to read a paragraph from an article written by a well-known middle-class fanner in the eastern part of the United States. His name is Ed Will, and he writes regularly for publications of this kind. He has this to say:
A recent instruction to local selective service boards suggests deferment for farmers or farm labourers only if they are directly responsible for sixteen war units-a war unit to consist of one milk cow, or seventy-five hens, fifteen acres of hay or grain, five acres of corn or beans, twenty hogs, or other quantities of sheep, beef cattle, and so on, which may vary according to the conditions under which they are kept.
He goes on to make this comment:
Most of these units are excessively high for the northeast.

That is the northeast United States.
I found in a canvass of my own neighbourhood that the average number of units per man was eleven. The average work week rvas about sixty hours. According to that, a farmer of this locality would have to work nearly ninety hours a week to be eligible for deferment.
He goes on for a whole page to analyse what is going on in the United States where they have selective service boards and where they are presumed to have the system developed to a very high degree. Nevertheless farmers there do not find that it fits in with conditions in one part of the country as compared with another. He says it may work in Kansas, but it does not work in the northeastern part of the United States. Agriculture in Canada extends from the Pacific to the Atlantic. It may be useful for us to talk about what they do in Britain, but I think it is unreasonable to try to apply the same thing in Canada and try to make it work all across the country. As has been described by the hon. member for Melfort, committees have been set up in Saskatchewan. I think that is the first province in which they have been set up to cover the entire province. I believe the plan they have followed is being adopted by selective service, and others elsewhere are being urged to follow it. I understand that in Saskatchewan production committees under the agricultural department have been set up and that this has been utilized by selective service, in connection with man-power problems. These boards are giving advice.
May I suggest that the effectiveness of the call-up for the army under selective service is scarcely a matter that could1 properly be discussed under my estimates, even though I may be a member of the man-power committee. Even if I knew the facts, it would not be proper for me to discuss them. The proper person to discuss this matter is either the Minister of National Defence, whose estimates are before the committee and will be up for discussion the early part of next week, or the Minister of Labour, whose estimates will be before the committee. Both of these ministers will have complete information, which I . have not. Even if I had, I should not discuss the matter at this time. The proper time to discuss it is under their estimates.


John George Diefenbaker: In spite of what the minister says, that the subject of manpower ought not to be discussed now, I do feel that the manner of the presentation of the war appropriation measure has been altogether wrong. Man-power should have been

Supply-Agriculture
taken up first. One problem that faces Canada to-day, one thing that requires immediate consideration is the matter of selective service and the man-power situation in general. Our situation is such, that everything that Canada can contribute depends upon the solution of man-power distribution.	The
necessary men must be obtained for the army and they must be obtained for industry and for agriculture. I think the Minister of Labour should be here to give us information about the situation which now prevails in Canada in connection with agriculture.
The minister has given certain figures today, and no one can argue that those figures were not submitted by the various selective service boards across the dominion. They represent the number of applications that have been made for agricultural help from the Atlantic to the Pacific. I noticed the restraint with which the Minister of Agriculture accepted those figures. There is not a member of this house who does not realize that in no vray do they represent the situation in agriculture in so far as man-power is concerned. The number of men required on the farms in Saskatchewan is given as only 142, based on the unfilled orders as of the date of the order. In Ontario there were 1,802 unfilled orders. If those figures represent' the facts as found to exist under selective service administration, then, as the leader of the opposition has stated, a deplorable situation exists in selective service.
The minister has advanced two hypotheses as an explanation for the smallness of the figures. I think the real reason was that farmers all over Canada realized that it was no use going to the selective service board and putting in their names. They realized that if there were 1,800 or 400 or 200, as the case may be, orders still unfilled, they would not get any workers. The problem of man-power in agriculture is connected with the problem of manpower in the army and in industry. The situation cannot be as is shown by those figures, otherwise the Minister of Labour would not have found it necessary to have an order in council passed on May 4 requiring barbers, beauticians and other types of workers to register so that they might be available for transfer into agriculture on and after May 19. No matter how we endeavour to avoid facing this problem, this house will have to face it. The minister does not indicate that he expects production to be equal to what it was last year. I know that the situation, generally speaking, in western Canada-


James Garfield Gardiner: I did the last time I spoke a week or so ago, but I did not to-day.


John George Diefenbaker: The situation is quite serious. There are two main pulls on man-power in addition to the attraction of the munition factories and the like, but it has had very little to do with the situation now prevailing in western Canada, for very few men and women left the farms in order to go into industry. The first pull is that of voluntary service, and the second is the administration of conscription for service in Canada, in which there has been no uniformity of application anywhere in the dominion. In some of the western provinces men have been called up from farms, leaving no one there except the old people. Regulations have been passed by the department; orders in council have followed one another in rapid succession since March 24, 1942, but orders in council, regulations and determinations of policy by the Department of Labour in collaboration with the Department of Agriculture and the various other departments mean nothing unless they are carried into effect. So far as granting postponement to men required in agriculture is concerned, the record across Canada has been this. The regulations provide for postponement, but until very recently in the administration of those regulations postponement has in many instances not been granted. The administration of the national service regulations and of conscription for service in Canada has been based on the desires and wishes of the local boards, while the agricultural representatives appearing before some of those boards have not received the consideration to which they are entitled.


Percy Ellis Wright: We.do not even have one
in Saskatchewan.


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, yes, we have.


John George Diefenbaker: I will let the minister argue that with the hon. member for Mel-fort, but if there is one he has been unable to carry out his duties.


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, yes, he has.


John George Diefenbaker: All one has to do
is to look at the records, but I will admit that recently the situation has changed for the better. In some provinces practically every man engaged in agriculture has been granted postponement. In other provinces the situation has been that twenty-five to thirty-five per cent of those engaged in agriculture have obtained postponement. It all comes back to the fact that there is no uniformity in the application and administration of the National Resources Mobilization Act. It is administered according to the wishes of the board in each province, with no appeal possible and no control by the government over the
Supply-Agriculture

orders issued by those boards. Ia various parts of western Canada we find that farming is being carried on by men- and women advanced in years, whose sons have enlisted while others have been taken from the land and- put into the army for the defence of Canada. No one can seriously say to-day that these men- are necessary in Canada for that purpose. They have been taken out of agriculture, away from active production and placed- in- the army for the defence of Canada, but the work they are doing, unless they go overseas, cannot compare in importance with the work they would- have done had they been kept on the farms and permitted to continue production.
This problem has to be faced. The figures placed on record- to-day demonstrate the deplorable situation- in regard- to the administration- of selective service in this country. We have the set-up; we have boards all over the dominion, but there is no guidance or direction on the part of the government because it lacks a plan as to what Canada's effort shall be. We should- have a plan to show how many men are required for the armed forces, how many will be required in industry and how many must be placed- in agriculture in order to assure the production that is required of Canada. Until we have such a plan, selective service and its administration will be just a sham and a fantasy. I am not condemning the Minister of Agriculture, though we do not often see eye to eye. He has a plan for agriculture; he has stated that plan, and the farmers are endeavouring to carry it out. The trouble is that some of the other ministers have no plan with reference to Canada's war effort.
On May 4, 1943, the government finally decided- that the only way to solve this problem of labour was by adopting compulsion. In other words, the government turned its back on the voluntary system, so far as labour is concerned, and- went a step farther than it had ever gone before, by bringing into effect compulsion with regard- to labour as it previously had- brought in compulsion for service in the army for the defence of Canada. Lacking to-day is cooperation between the various ministers, to the end that agriculture, industry and the armed forces may receive their proper allocation. We have had registrations galore; there have been at least five since the national registration of 1940. Yet to-day the minister says that these are the best figures he can give, although based- on surmises and estimates. If the government wants to find- out the labour situation in agriculture to-day-and- I advance this as a serious and constructive

suggestion-secure the registration of the labour needs of the farmers of Canada. It will not cost anything, having the set-up of a selective service organization in every part of the country. Specify a date when the farmers may register their needs, so that the * labour position in regard to farm production will be correctly ascertained. I suggest that the figures obtained by such a registration will bear no resemblance whatever to the figures that have been presented- to-day I am sure there is not a member of the house, much less the minister, who would say that from the Atlantic to the Pacific only 4,250 men are required on the farms of this country. All those figures mean is that the farmers have reached the point where they realize that it is no use applying for help. They mean, too, that man-power is not in the right place at the right time. While the minister seems hopeful that production will be kept up, those with whom I have spoken invariably tell me that it will be impossible for them to keep up their production unless they are assured by the government of a supply of labour at the right time, and in particular at seeding and- at harvest.


Mr. WOOD:: Mr. Chairman, I should like at this time to make one or two observations respecting agriculture. May I state particularly my views as to what I think the situation is in Ontario.
Time and again we have listened to the repeated criticism of some hon. members, and especially the hon. member for Lake Centre, who repeats and repeats the same thing, day after day. I have noticed, too, that the farmers from Ontario are rather modest in expressing their views respecting the farm situation. In spite of the fact that Ontario is not supposed to be a great farming community, let me say that agricultural production in Ontario is as great as that of the three western provinces combined. But we do not do as much talking as do some of the western members, particularly one or two, who make a sorry spectacle of themselves. We, in Ontario, have not so much time to talk; we are directing our efforts to production.
The farm labour problem, as I see it, is caused by the circumstances of war, and nothing else. If conditions in agriculture were anything different from what they are, our war effort in Canada would not be the kind Mr. Churchill would comment favourably upon as he did in his speech at Washington only a few days ago. If we had any other condition different from the one we have, the situation would be distressing, in so far as measuring Canada's contribution to the war is concerned.

Supply-Agriculture
Does the hon. member for Lake Centre think we can win the war without sacrifice? Does he really think there is any element of society in this country, including farmers, which is not prepared to make sacrifices for this great cause? May I tell the committee that young farmers resent being continually described as wanting sympathy. The young farmer would like to enlist. The boys who are staying on the farms are real soldiers, doing a real job. My experience has been that, in respect of many applications for postponements, the initiative has been taken by the father, and quite properly so. In many instances the boy himself will not sign an application for postponement. I think it will be found in the majority of the applications that the boys themselves, in their quiet and modest way, have wanted to do their bit, and have refused to sign applications, or place such applications before the board for postponements.
I have found that Mr. Irwin, in military district No. 2, has been reasonable and fair so far as postponements are concerned. True, errors will be made, and sometimes poor judgment will be used. But in the main I believe that if cases have been legitimate, if applications have been made at the right time, and if the applicants have fulfilled their obligations when called up, proper consideration has been given.
That does not mean to say that we have not a real problem on our farms, and nobody knows that better than I do. But what has caused it? A good deal of that condition has been, caused by the publicity and agitation of the men who are complaining to-day about circumstances w'hich they have more or less created.
When war broke out, what was .our chief difficulty? Time and again we had tried to sell the overproduction of our farms. That had developed into a grave issue. We heard talk then about the poor farmer who had so much products he could not sell. Those who were complaining were then holding up their hands in holy terror for the distressed farmer, and complaining about overproduction. Then it developed that we needed tanks, guns and ammunition, because our farms would not be much good if we did not have the weapons of war with which to protect them. Therefore, through the wisdom of this government we allowed and encouraged men to go into industry to manufacture those things required for the protection of our country.
May I ask my hon. friend, w'ho has been so anxious to criticize, if he would have said to the farmer, "No, you must stay on the
farm; you cannot take advantage of this prosperity. This is to be enjoyed only by people living in the cities." What would have been the answer? There was a surplus of labour on the farms at that time. They took advantage of it, and1 tried to improve their financial condition. And the financial condition of the farmer has been improved, despite the fact that there are still poor people on the farms.
There has been such an increase in production that in 1942 we had the largest agricultural production in our history, despite the number of boys who have left the farms. I should like to see a survey of how many of those boys are now in the armed forces, and how many have left the farms to go into industry. That information would be most interesting. And, despite the fact that we have had difficulty on our farms in keeping our young men, the reports of mortgage companies show that farmers have been paying off their mortgages. The report of the loan and mortgage association proves that last year nine per cent of the principal sum was paid off on mortgages they hold in Canada.
The farmer who knows his business does-not need advice from some who have been offering it. He knows his job, and we should let him do the job he is capable of doing, and let others do their jobs. That is the purpose of selective service. Probably we shall make a pretty fair job of it, even if we do not receive so much advice from those who dto not know what they are talking about. The farmer is a reasonable man.


James Arthur Ross: Professor Wood!


Mr. SENN:: What is the hon. member looking at?


George Ernest Wood: I thought someone was murmuring something. The farmer is, of course, the victim of weather conditions. One farmer said to me, "I asked you a month ago if it were possible to get a man, but I am glad I did not get that man because, with this wet weather, I would have been a nervous wreck if I had had a man sitting round1 doing nothing, at $50 a month, when we could not get on the land."
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


George Ernest Wood: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose at six o'clock I was endeavouring to give some reasons for the unrest in the country regarding man-power. I pointed out
Supply-Agriculture

that the man-power situation was a result of the war. I do not believe it is wisdom on the part of any government to impose compulsion in a country like Canada whose people always have prided themselves on the liberty they enjoy, and it was most amusing to hear the hon. member for Lake Centre suggest that we should have to apply compulsion. I know it would be the height of his ambition to see such a stupid thing applied because we all know how the country would take to methods of that kind.
I would say to those who criticize the man-power situation that the wrhole thing resolves itself into this. There is no manpower muddle. The only muddle is among the critics of this government who have not been able to stick consistently to one line of criticism but have endeavoured continually to create suspicion. When the war broke out, the critics of the opposition said: Get all the recruits you can into the army. There has never been a well-balanced critical attitude among the opposition, and I include all parties opposite. Had we yielded to their criticism at the outbreak of the war, we would 'have had every available man swept into the army regardless of whether he had anything to fight with or not. That would have been national suicide. Later on we had the spectacle of the committee of two hundred in Toronto which was more responsible than anything else for creating the agitation that brought about the plebiscite. They demanded an all-out war effort. But that line of criticism stuck for only three or four months, and the critics then found it necessary to raise a new argument. So that this year they say there is a man-power muddle.
The fact is that there are not enough men in the country-that is the whole trouble. The muddle is among the opposition, in their criticism which seeks to exaggerate the situation. I have no objection to people grumbling. We farmers, in Canada especially, have the British background. No one likes to grumble more than the British. It is a characteristic of them to meet and grumble at Hyde Park. But in spite of all the grumbling we farmers do we carry on in a fashion that amazes people by our accomplishments. Since the outbreak of war, agricultural production in this dominion has steadily increased, not only in dollars and cents value but in actual volume of production. From past experience we would not have much justification for accepting the arguments and views put forward by the opposition regarding the conduct of this

war. I remember the phrase that was used by a public servant of this country, a premier of one of the provinces, when the plebiscite was before the public. The phrase that he used was, "crowning indignity". He took very strong exception to the plebiscite.
We are up against a very serious problem, and it is time that we faced the facts. The farmer has a job to do and he needs encouragement. It should not always be pointed out that he is the under-dog. You can discourage a man by keeping him in a low stratum of society until he begins to lose respect for himself.
I noticed an article in the Financial Times of Montreal recently showing that the farmers in Saskatchewan, where the hon. member for Lake Centre comes from, are enjoying a fair measure of prosperity. I welcome that. But agricultural production must be associated with this prosperity. The article says that there were 3,117 discharges of rural mortgages in Saskatchewan in 1942. It does not indicate a very serious condition of affairs when that number of mortgages can be discharged in spite of the man-power muddle which hon. gentlemen opposite suggest exists and the shortage of help. If we are to win this war, there are bound to be shortages in almost every department of our economic life. Right in Brantford we have industries that need a thousand men, and I do not hear any particular complaint, or one to champion the cause of those industries, but the man-power shortage is just as serious to them as it is to the farmer. I am inclined to think that these paid grumblers for the farmers who are not farmers themselves have some ulterior motive. Perhaps they think that if we get too much production they will get cheap food, and they are not too much concerned about the future. I should like to see some of our agricultural surpluses wiped out and the farmer in a position where he will always have a market for everything he produces. He has such a market at the present time, but I should like to see him maintained in that position so that along with other walks of society he could be assured of a fair exchange of services for his efforts. I feel suspicious when I see people who are not farmers showing such an anxiety for the farmers' welfare and wanting more production. I am just a bit suspicious that they are taking a long viewpoint, hoping they will be able to get their food cheap, regardless of whether the farmer gets anything out of it or not.
The controls which we have to-day we must accept. But when it comes to sacrifice, there are those who do not mind the controls

Supply-Agriculture
so long as the other fellow does the sacrificing. That attitude just does not work in an all-out war effort, which is what the opposition has been asking for. Now when they have an all-out war effort, they are not satisfied. If we had taken the advice of the opposition things would have been in a far worse state than they are to-day. The government in its administration of the affairs of this country and in its conduct of Canada's part in the war has not been carried away by clamour, but has followed a consistent policy working toward an ideal. We have got to the place now where there is no unemployment in this dominion. If I were inclined to criticize the government, or to suggest something by way of solution of our man-power problem, I am frank to say I would advise them that there are young men in the army who, after getting their basic training, might well, instead of sitting round in the camps, go back home and help their fathers and mothers on the farms. If an effort were made to persuade some of these men to volunteer for farm work, we would get the best type of help, and give a national service which it will be impossible to give in any other way.
But compulsion is entirely another matter. It is suggested that we should compel men to leave other industries, or even the army, and force them on to the farms. I would say to the hon. member for Lake Centre that in making that suggestion he just does not know what he is talking about. It is like every other argument that I have noticed he puts up.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, will the hon. gentleman permit a question?


George Ernest Wood: I am very glad to.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the effect
of the order in council of May 4, if it is not that very thing?


George Ernest Wood: Well, the point is this. The
hon. member says it is not working, and I will agree that it is impossible. You can put men on the farm, but you cannot compel them to farm. Take some lads who have even been raised on the farms; try to compel them to stay there; you cannot do it. So Khat this argument is like many others which come from the hon. member for Lake Centre; they sound well; there is only one thing wrong with them, namely, that they will not work. And that is one which will not work. For a man to be a successful farmer he must have something which cannot be instilled into him as knowledge is acquired in a school or a law office. He must have the desire conscientiously to do his duty, and he must like
the duty he has to do. He must have a special instinct to do the job if he is to make a success of farming. Those who lack it are the ones, not infrequently, who have auction sales, leave their farms and go to the city to earn their measly $7 a day. They think they are making money; I am satisfied they are making a mistake, but maybe they have not been efficient farmers. I believe a man can make a living in the city with much less energy and ability than are needed to achieve success on a farm. Time was when the clever son used to leave the farm and be educated as a lawyer, but to-day you must have men of ability to make farming pay, and those are the only ones who are worth while keeping on the farms. Those who make a success are the ones who have the determination and the ability to do that specific work. You cannot compel people who have once acquired a taste for the glamour and bright lights of the city, to return and make a living in the country. The attractions of the city are the reason why many boys leave the farms; and remember, if it were not for the blood transfusions from the land into the cities, the standard of ability there would not be maintained for very many generations.


Mrs. NIELSEN:: Will the hon. member
permit a question? He has spoken about its being necessary for a man to have an instinct for farming. Does he not think that if a farmer had a decent return for his labour, he would find the farm just as glamorous a place as the city? Would he not be satisfied if he had adequate equipment and the things he needs to make farming a decent way of living?


Mr. REID:: Some would and some would
not.


George Ernest Wood: It is very easy to ask a question, but it takes a long time to give an answer to some questions, and this is one of them. I think the answer depends upon your philosophy of life and the importance you attach to certain things. I will be frank; I do not believe that the monetary return is the only reward worth while. The best things of life are the things which money cannot buy. That is not the answer the hon. member wants; but let me add this, that if you were to offer many farmers-I will not say all-the same wage to stay on the farms as they could get in the cities, they would still go to the cities. On the other hand, there are those who have a longer and broader view of the matter. If you are to try to put farming on a financial level with other industries, I concede that my arguments will not carry weight, because it just cannot be done. Many farmers keep up
Supply-Agriculture

their homes and gardens and obtain from their farms an income which goes a long way to sustain them satisfactorily, and they get many pleasures there which it is impossible to get in the city. If one appreciates these finer and better things of life, an efficient farmer on good land has an advantage over the average city man.
I would suggest to the hon. member that she might do what I did on one occasion. I asked some lawyers who are members of this house, particularly those with a clientele that is part urban and part rural, when they came to investigate the estates of these urban and rural clients who, after accumulating some property, had departed this life, which class on the whole had the most to leave. Invariably the reply I received was, "Without doubt the average farmer has more to leave after his life's effort than the average man in the city."


Mr. McIVOR:: He takes more with him, too.


George Ernest Wood: I believe there is something in that. I suppose the hon. member is thinking of the test, "What shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"
Recently I received a letter from a gentleman at Calgary who asked how much it would be necessary for a farmer and for a city man to have in order that, at the age of sixty, they could live retired in like circumstances? I took the view that if the farmer had a good 100-acre farm in Ontario, especially in the valley of Grand river, and had a life insurance of $5,000, to which he surely should have been able to add savings of another $5,000, by continuing to live on the farm he would be just as well off as the average man in the city with the income from a capital of seventy-five or eighty thousand dollars. And even at that, I think I would prefer to take a chance on the farmer living a fuller life and spending the rest of his time more happily than if he had that income in the city.
It seems to me, therefore, that to reduce this matter to calculations of dollars and cents is beside the question, because, as I have pointed out, there are other things which are valuable, for which humanity yearns, and which the farmer very often has. Not that I am trying to make out that there is no room for improvement. I hope in the post-war period consideration will be given to plans which will enable the farmers to enjoy certain standards and satisfactions of living which others enjoy, but I also believe that the duty of securing these will devolve largely upon the farmer himself.
Many things could be done in this direction. Take the matter of farm loans. The average rate of interest to-day is three per

cent. Why should the farmer be required to pay five per cent? There are many unproductive farms which will never be in a position to provide that standard of living to which the farmers are entitled, and that is a problem we shall have to face in the future. As regards man-power at the present time, the only suggestion I have to offer the Minister of Agriculture is that, so far as those 'boys are concerned who have had their basic training and therefore have a military background, they will be available if the crisis comes, and consequently it would be wise to give some of them an opportunity to volunteer to return to the land in order to help production. I say that because, if weather conditions are not favourable, we may be faced with some difficulties, and I .suggest that- if we are to invade Europe we must be prepared to feed not only our own men but the population of the places we invade. After all, food production will be a great weapon. I urge the minister to give this his best consideration. I fancy he will tell me that it is something that should be referred to the Minister of Labour. That is the only solution I have to offer, and I trust that in this debate other farmers will tell us what, in their opinion, the solution is; that they will base their proposals upon conditions as they exist instead of upon any ulterior motive., and that they will not repeat the things we have heard time and1 again, apparently for no other purpose than to gratify perhaps some of their own political ambitions. This is too serious a time for us to indulge in that sort of thing.


Mark Cecil Senn: There is no gentleman in this house to whom I listen with, greater interest than, I do to my hon. friend who comes from the adjoining county along the banks of the Grand river, which he described a short time ago as a fertile and wonderful area. It is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. member, although sometimes I rather feel sorry for him, as I have felt to-night. He seems to have been torn between two desires. On the one hand, he would like, as he showed in his closing remarks, to convey to the government and to the committee the fact that agriculture throughout Canada, and particularly in our own district, is not in tfle happy position which, earlier in his address, he rather intimated that it held; on the other hand, he seemed to try to excuse the government for everything that has been done or that has not been done as well as for the position in which agriculture finds itself. In other W'ords, he seems to be trying to ride two horses, and between the two he has not done as well as he usually does in

Supply-Agriculture
presenting his arguments to the committee. He seemed to take particular interest in discussing something said by the hon. member for Lake Centre, and he accused that hon. gentleman of repeating arguments that had been advanced from time to time and of making suggestions that had been heard before.
I am strongly of the opinion that if more members would take the same attitude as the member for Lake Centre, repeat these arguments, and force them upon the attention of the government, we would have more accomplished than we have had in the past. The hon. member seemed to find some fault with the idea of compulsion. We have had compulsion for some time throughout Canada in connection with the man-power policy. The idea of drafting men into the army is not a new one; it has been in force for some time. I understand, moreover, that the hon. gentleman supported that policy all down the line, but before he sat down he said that it might be wise for the government to allow some of these men to return to the farm. In my opinion, in some instances at least, they should never have left the farms. He said that a good many farmers' boys want to do their share. They all do, and I fully agree with him in that regard; but I believe that a better system would have been followed if, immediately after registration had taken place in 1940-and I have said this before-each man in Canada of military age had been placed in his proper category and boys on the farms better qualified for farming had been asked or even compelled to stay there. After all, food production is just as necessary as it is for the boys to be in uniform; and if they had been compelled to stay on the farm, our food production and man-power situation, so far as the farms are concerned, would have been better to-day. At the same time,' they should have had something to show, by way of a badge or button or something of that sort, that they were doing war work just as the boys in the army are doing.
I am of the opinion that at the present time, as there has been, there is a real labour shortage throughout Canada and particularly in Ontario and in that area which the hon. member for Brant and I represent. The minister said this afternoon that a survey had been made of farms throughout the dominion. I happened to be looking that up this afternoon. There was a survey in my county of the man-power situation. There were 1,207 farmers who made returns, or from 65 to 70 per cent of those who were asked to do so. Of these 1,207 farms the average size was 122 acres. The number of male adults on^each of these farms
was 1-2; or in other words, there were twelve men of adult age on every ten farms; and the average age of these men was fifty-one years, which means that there were a considerable number of men over sixty and a good many over seventy. So that no one, even the hon. member for Brant, will deny that this is insufficient help on farms of that size, where intensive farming is carried on in dairying and the raising of live stock. It is insufficient help on any farm. I think everyone will agree with that.


Mr. GOLDING:: Did the report give the acreage under crop, as did the survey in other counties?


Mark Cecil Senn: Yes, I think it did.


William Henry Golding: Can the hon. member give it?


Mark Cecil Senn: It would take some time to look it up, but it does not make much difference to my argument. These are farms that are well cultivated, where intensive farming is carried on. Not only do they raise spring grain and fall wheat and hay and clover, but they produce milk, hogs, beef cattle and pretty nearly everything else that is produced on the average Ontario farm, so far as they are able. I find that women help on 65 per cent, of these farms, which is a large average. A comment made in the report was to this effect. One farmer said that any woman who looks after a house and four children is doing her share without helping on the farm, and that is quite true.
This season some attempt has been made to overcome the difficulty, and some things have been done to try to assist the farmer to get more help. The hon. member for Lake Centre mentioned what was done on May 4, which is after all, a species of compulsion. Men are to be asked to leave certain industries and go out on the farms. Unfortunately a great many of these men are not experienced. I ran across an article which appeared in one of the morning papers which I should like to quote because it expresses my own ideas on this question. It is as follows:
Courting a Food Crisis
Simply dumping some unskilled labour on the farmer's doorstep during the rush of spring seeding will not solve the critical food problem facing us this year. As repeatedly pointed out by the Financial Post, farming is an industry in which trained labour is essential, more essential in fact than in most other industries, because agricultural workers largely operate alone and there is little opportunity for skilled supervision. Particularly is this true in the present emergency, with most farms desperately undermanned.
So far, however, the labour department at Ottawa has given not the slightest indication
Supply-Agriculture

that it has any real understanding of the problem. Not until a few months ago was any attempt made to check the drafting of skilled farm workers into the army. By then it was too late to save literally thousands of farms from going out of real production this year.
May I pause there to say that only yesterday I received a letter from a farmer in my district who stated that on account of the unfortunate wet conditions that prevail, combined with the shortage of labour, there were half a dozen farmers in his neighborhood who did not intend to sow one bit of grain this year. They were going to summer-fallow and have the land ready for next year. This does not augur very well for increased production. This article continues:
And now, when "hired men" are practically non-existent, Ottawa makes a belated move to comb workers of military age and category out of non-essential industry and force them into farm work. Most of such men, of course, will hardly be able to distinguish between a pig and and a sheep, let alone mangels from turnips or oats from barley. Furthermore, as the authorities now realize from the first call, there is only a handful of able-bodied men left in non-essential industry anyway.
I do not think it is so bad that they could not tell one animal from another, but there is no doubt that inexperienced help on a farm is of very little value. One experienced man is sometimes worth two or three others who have not had the same experience and who would be unable to carry on to the same extent.
The minister quoted figures this afternoon which seemed to prove quite conclusively that there is an urgent need for additional help on the farm. He compared the figures for 1939 with those for 1943, and they showed that there has been a falling off of adults on the farm amounting to twenty-eight per cent, while the number of hired men fell off over fifty per cent. That is conclusive evidence that there is a real shortage. That dropping off has been progressive from year to year, and I have no doubt that this year the condition will be still worse.
I did not rise to find fault or to criticize. I believe there is a real emergency at this time. I understand the minister attended the conference last fall when the different committees met and asked for increased agricultural production. I quoted some of these figures in my speech on the address in repy to the speech from the throne in order to show the increases that were being asked for. Unless something is done very soon, despite what the minister said the other day that he still felt that production would be maintained, I feel that by the end of the year, instead of an increase there will be a shortage which will be serious indeed

at this time of crisis when food is needed so badly by our armed forces and the British people.


Ernest Edward Perley: The hon. member for
Haldimand and the hon. member for Brant have covered part of the ground fairly well. The previous speaker made a plea to tlje Minister of Agriculture. At the conclusion of his remarks the hon. member for Haldimand referred to the figures given this afternoon by the Minister of Agriculture. These figures were quite interesting; but if they are dissected they show a serious situation with respect to man-power on the farm, not only in western Canada but throughout the whole country. The figures show that as compared with 1939 there are to-day 395,000 less workers on the farm. There are only 1,778 placements in April of this year. The figures for unfilled orders were quite startling. I think the figure for Saskatchewan was 462


James Garfield Gardiner: 942.


Ernest Edward Perley: When we consider that
there are over 100,000 farms in Saskatchewan, we must realize that this is a very serious situation. Those of us who come from the west know there is hardly a farmer there who would refuse to take a man if he could get him at a reasonable wage. Wages in industry have increased to such an extent that farm wages have been forced up to a point where the farmer cannot compete for his labour.


James Garfield Gardiner: The figure I quoted
a moment ago referred to unfilled orders. The total number of placements for Saskatchewan for March was 115 males and 15 females; for April, 298 males and 16 females.


Ernest Edward Perley: I did not quote the placements; I took the unfilled orders. The total for all Canada is 1,778 placements as against 4,251 unfilled orders. As I was saying, the farmer cannot compete with prices paid to industrial labour. The minister and the government should consider instituting some control over the prices of labour and the prices of farm products. We are dealing more particularly with farm products to-night. There is not a farmer in the west who would not be willing to pay a fair wage to his labour, provided he was getting fair prices for his products. I have had some little experience of this in connection with the farms in which I am interested. When I was at home at Easter I found that wages had gone up to as high as SS5 a month. It is not that the farmers are unwilling to pay this rate; they just cannot get the men. You cannot put every Tom, Dick and Harry on a tractor,

Supply-Agriculture
especially when you are working at night. You must have a man who is reasonably experienced, because you cannot risk possible injuries to your machinery. As I say, wages are high, and there should be some way of controlling not only the cost of labour but also the prices paid for these commodities.
This afternoon the minister dealt with the programme he has asked the farmers of the west to carry out in reducing the acreage seeded to wheat this year, and he said he expected a twenty per cent decrease in that acreage. He also made the statement that the farmers will get their seed in and that, as a matter of fact, reports from the west indicate that the seeding of wheat is practically concluded and that the seeding of coarse grains is well on the way. To substantiate his argument the minister made a comparison between conditions in Canada and those in the United States and Britain, and quoted from the Saturday Evening Post of January 30, 1943, to show that conditions in Canada were as favourable as those in the United States. I should like to quote one or two press reports having to do with the same matter, but before doing so I wish to say that perhaps the programme announced by the minister in regard to decreasing the acreage seeded to wheat was not well considered before it was announced. I think in many cases the farmers will achieve the objective the minister has set, but I do not think it was a fair thing he asked them to do. The other day the Minister of Trade and Commerce gave the house figures which showed that for the 1943 crop practically the same quota per acre would be taken, with the same objective in mind, namely 280,000,000 bushels. I have in my hand a press report from Washington under date of May 14, 1943, which reads:
Anticipating that U.S. will be called on to ship large quantities of wheat to Europe in 1944, war food administrator Davis plans to ask farmers for a sharp increase in winter acreages sown next fall, and hopes to be able to get supplementary supplies from Canada and Australia.
No specific goal has been set as yet, but agriculture department grain experts said they expected Davis to ask for an increase of at least 25 per cent above this year's low level of 52,000,000 acres.
There was no indication of how much grain Davis expected to obtain from Canadian and Australian sources.
That is the situation in the United States; they are asking their producers for a twenty-five per cent increase in the acreage seeded, and they expect to make large shipments to Europe. Surely the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce
should have known about that situation, just as the authorities in the United States knew about it.


James Garfield Gardiner: Of course that is winter wheat, to be seeded next fall.


Ernest Edward Perley: Yes, and it will come into competition with the wheat we shall be harvesting next summer. It will be off before our harvest is over, and they even go on and say they expect to take considerable wheat from Canada. It may very well be that this year we shall need more wheat than the farmers will produce.
What I am going to say now may be a little out of order, but considerable latitude has been allowed this evening and hon. members have been permitted to speak on almost anything. In my opinion, if the farmers had been encouraged to keep the wheat in storage on their farms and increase their seeding this year, or at least seed as much as they did last year, they would have been much better off, while the labour situation would be no worse and probably not as bad as it is now. I have had some little experience in diversified farming, and I know that to produce the dairy products, meat products and coarse grains for which the minister has asked, a good deal more labour will be required than would be needed to produce the same amount of wheat that was produced last year.
The hon. member for Brant made a statement in regard to farm conditions, and I think he was right. There is no better place for a man over sixty years of age to spend the remaining years of his life than in a comfortable farm home which has all modem conveniences. If anything can be done to raise the standard of farm life at the present time, it should be done. Then, when the men come back from overseas, after having enjoyed the pleasures of the bright lights which were mentioned by the hon. member, they will be ready to settle down on good, comfortable farmsteads where, if they know their business, they may enjoy the finest and happiest life in t'he world. It is, however, important for us to see to it that farm conditions are such that there will be an improvement in the standard of life, so that when the war is over, agriculture may be able to absorb many of the young men who 'come back, for I do not think any industry in this country will be called upon to do more in that connection. I am sure the farmer has done his part in the last three years. He has done practically everything the Minister of Agriculture has asked of him, and he is willing to continue doing it. The situation

Supply-Agriculture

has become so serious, however, that this may not be possible. Many men have left the farm and gone into the army. Perhaps two or three boys may have gone from one farm, and there is only the old1 man left to carry on the work. I receive letter after letter telling me about cases of this kind. When I was at home I spoke to two or three farmers -not from my district, I am glad to say, but from the immediate vicinity-who said they could not carry on because they were not physically fit. The doctor had told them they should not do the kind of work they were doing, and unless they were given some relief they would have to leave the farm. They were going to try to get in this crop as best they could, but they said they would not undertake it another year. Therefore I say that the man-power situation, so far as agriculture is concerned, must be rectified at once.
I was going to say a word with respect to postponements, since I have had quite a little correspondence with various people in this connection, and it has been very difficult to get any satisfaction. These matters should be dealt with more speedily. I have one case in my office now which I have been taking up with the authorities for the past four weeks, without success. Something should be done along that line. Then the hon. member for Brant went on to criticize some of the statements made by hon. members on this side, and referred particularly to the hon. member for Lake Centre. I want to tell the hon. gentleman that so far as the hon. member for Lake Centre and all other hon. members of the official opposition are concerned, we have been endeavouring to offer only constructive suggestions. That is what we are here to do, and it is our duty to do it. I do not think we have been unreasonable. If we have any suggestions to make as to how the minister might straighten out his department a little, and put it in better shape, then in my opinion those suggestions should be received in the spirit in which they are given. We should not be subjected to the criticism made by the hon. member.


George Ernest Wood: I failed to hear the suggestions.


Ernest Edward Perley: There have been so
many of them; no doubt the hon. member has not been around very much of the time, because certainly there have been many suggestions. We have been criticized for making so many. If the hon. member will pay a little more attention to the business of the house, and not so much to the business of the farm, he may know more about what is going on. I know he
IMr. Perley.]
comes from a very beautiful part of the country, and I am not a bit surprised that he enjoys his week-ends at home. I have had the privilege of driving down the Grand valley, especially when it was represented by a predecessor of the hon. member. On many occasions I enjoyed myself among the beautiful scenery of Brant county and going over the splendid farming country of that constituency. So that if the hon. member was not here to listen to all the suggestions that we made, it may be on account of the very beautiful section in which he lives.
The minister, however, has been here most of the time, and I am sure he appreciates suggestions coming from this side of the house. I am pleased to say that the public generally think some of our suggestions have been the means of checking up the government. We have brought about action in not only one but many departments of government, so far as Canada's war effort is concerned. This is only one of the departments affected. In the right spirit we have offered the suggestion that the minister straighten up this matter, so that the farmers may take advantage of the situation when the time arrives.
I note that in the item for departmental administration there is an increase of $4,848, most af which is accounted for by cost of living bonuses. At the proper time I intend to say something on the point. But may I say now that when we are considering the cost of living bonus we must remember that the farmer is paying an increased price for foods and accommodation, and some consideration might be given to permitting cost of living bonus to farm labour, so that they may be placed on a par with civil servants. I believe most of the increase I have indicated will go as cost of living bonus to members of the civil service, if I understand correctly the details appearing at page 53 of the estimates.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: May I at this point
express my profound respect for the farmer. The son of a farmer, myself, I have always found farmers intelligent, whether they were Progressive Conservatives or reform Liberals. That makes very little difference. They are honest. As I listened to the hon. member for Haldimand and the hon. member for Brant, my belief was confirmed. My first impression of farmers was that they could discuss a question intelligently, whether that question was the old one of predestination or free grace, or whether it

Supply-Agriculture
was a discussion as to how to obtain the best production by the rotation of crops. The subject	matter	made	very little
difference.
I listened to these hon. members tonight, and I am sure the Minister of Agriculture listened to them. They displayed practical common sense. I have only one suggestion to make: I would count it a great honour if the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Agriculture would allow me to present a list of the names qf young men who had to leave the farms, but who wanted to stay there and would be extremely glad to go back. I would give that list to the Minister of Labour or to the deputy minister. I believe these young men could give far better service to their country if they -were on the farms than they can give in training centres.
One farmer at the head of the lakes told me that some of our farmers in that district had made a mistake in going into aeroplane factories, or engaging in other war work. He said that his three boys had gone into the air force; that his daughter was a culinary expert, and that he was better off to-day, financially, than he had ever been on the farm. That man is nearly seventy years of age. He is taking a man's place on the farm, and is producing more than ever.
I join with hon. members in saying that the farmer need not take second place to anybody in Canada, so far as engaging in an all-out war effort is concerned. However, I believe that as a result of the desire of registrars to swell the armed forces some young men have been taken unjustly. They should have an opportunity of returning to the farms, and I shall be glad in a short time to give a list of young men who would be eligible for such transfer.


Mr. WEIR:: The item for administration
in the estimates is of a general nature, and permits of general discussion. I crave indulgence of the committee to say a few words respecting two or three matters which come to my attention.
When the hon. member for Qu'Appelle has occasion to advance suggestions in the committee, he always puts forth the plea that things should be done differently. Well, probably they should. As I understood his remarks to-night, he was inclined to be critical of the government's action with respect to encouraging the curtailment of wheat production in western Canada, In that sense I think we should look at the situation as a whole on the north American continent. I happen to have before me a booklet entitled
Canadian Coarse Grains Quarterly Review", and shall refer to only one or two passages. It states:
Despite all this drawing on Canadian supplies, however, and the efforts of United States farmers to meet the goals set for war crops, the latest survey of the United States feed situation, based on crop prospects for 1943, suggests that the supply of feed grains per grain-consuming animal in 1943-44 will be 10 to 15 per cent below the supply in 1942-43. This calculation takes into account the wheat and rye supply that might be diverted to animal feeding.
Later on, it says:
Live stock production in the United States is now at record levels and further increases are expected this year. Altogether it is estimated that the units or numbers of grainconsuming animals for the calendar year 1943 will be 10 to 12 per cent above the number recorded for the calendar year 1942. This heavy growth in live stock population promises to cut deeply into feed stocks in the crop year 1943-44.
Having those two statements in mind, I am bound to say I believe it will be generally recognized that the government's policy, urging a reduction in the production of wheat and an increase in the production of coarse grains, has been a sound one. And as time goes on, probably before the end of this year and certainly before the end of next, it will be so proven. In fact, I venture the observation that unless at least normal crops of coarse grains are produced in Canada and the United States this coming year, we may find ourselves in a short position, so far as feed grains are concerned. That being so, I submit it is reasonable to say that the policy of the government urging the reduction in wheat supplies for the time being, together with getting the land into an improved condition to grow wheat when there is an opportunity to market it, and turning that production where possible into the production of coarse grains, through which live stock and live stock products, so essential in the war effort, can be stimulated, was a sound policy to follow, and will be so proven.
The discussion to-night hinges largely round the question of man-power, so far as agriculture is concerned. I do not think we should go to extremes on either side. There is no one in the house who will not admit that there is a tight position as regards man-power on the farm. Moreover, there is no one who understands the farming industry who will not agree that it requires a different type of labour from that needed in other industries. On the farm one cannot give the same type of supervision and the detailed special training in preparing a man to carry on operations on the land that can be given in other industries.
Supply-Agriculture

Therefore the farmer, if he is to produce efficiently, must have an efficient, experienced man, and that is where the chief difficulty arises at the present time. But even recognizing that to be the situation, I remind the committee that last year the farmers of Canada produced and harvested the biggest crop ever harvested in the dominion, with the man-power they had at that time. The farmers of this country are resourceful, and when forced to it can make all kinds of short-cuts to accomplish what is asked of them. They did so last year; they are doing so now, and I hope they will continue to do so.


Ernest Edward Perley: Was not that due to the fact that most of the harvesting was done with combines, requiring little labour, rather than with the binder and thresher?


William Gilbert Weir: I was just coming to that point in a slightly different way. It is quite true that combines were used in large sections of Canada. I hope that will be the situation this year, that the crop will be harvested by the same combines, although now a little more worn out.
What I was about to say was this: My observations lead me to believe that the farmers to-day are cooperating with one another and utilizing one another's machinery to a greater extent than they probably ever did before. They get their neighbours to do a job that they cannot do, and in every way possible they are attempting to meet the problems they have to face at a given season.
Another factor which affects the farm labour situation and the prospects of putting in and harvesting the crop to a substantial degree and which is recognized by anyone with experiences on the farm is seasonal conditions. I have heard many Ontario farmer friends complain bitterly this spring on account of the difficulties in certain sections of Ontario owing to wet weather which has delayed the putting in of the crop. That is a hazard the farmer has to face. If a wet season develops in spring or at harvest time, it is a serious matter for the farmer. That is a particular feature of the farm labour situation, because a large part of the crop may be damaged at harvest time if there is not a pool of man-power upon which to draw to take care of it.
There has been some comment on the figures given by the minister regarding applications made to employment agencies throughout Canada and the number of applications that were filled for farm employment. The figures were rather difficult for me to understand. I submit, however, that the farmers by and large do not use employment agencies. That may be a mistake. Moreover, I am going to suggest, if I may, that in many

instances the farmers have not been any too fair to these employment agencies. They have sent for a man, and perhaps not having their order filled by the employment agency for a week or two, they have in the meantime hired another man who happened to come along, so that when a man was sent out by the employment agency they did not want him. The fair thing to do, of course, would be to notify the employment agency that help had been secured. I doubt very much if the experienced farm labourer ayails himself bf the employment agencies. He knows the people he has worked for before and the districts he likes to go to, and in a general way he knows where there is likely to be employment. Moreover, everyone knows that temperament and personality enter into the [DOT] question of farm employment to a very great degree. A farmer would much prefer to have a man with whom he was acquainted from the point of view of temperament, disposition and his willingness to work than take a chance on hiring someone whom he did not know, and the same applies to the man who is looking for a job. Therefore the explanation with regard to farm placement rests largely on that fact, that both the farmer and the labourer have made their own arrangements without going to the employment agencies.
One would be inclined to think that this matter had not been faced up to so far as government is concerned. But I happen to know that in Manitoba efforts have been made in a definite way to meet the farm labour situation with as practical an approach as can be made under the circumstances. All recognize that there is a tight farm labour situation. I think we all realize as well that there is a strained situation with respect to labour in every form of industry or business. I was talking not long ago to a friend in Winnipeg who is in the laundry business, and he told me that he had to increase his staff about one-third in order to take care of the same amount of business he did previously, simply because he could not get experienced help. Go into the restaurants or any other business, and you will find that they are all having difficulty in securing trained, efficient labour. In the carrying on of a war the situation could not be otherwise. If it were otherwise, there would be complaints that the full effort of the country was not being put forward in the prosecution of the war.
I have under my hand a little statement sent me by a municipality in my part of the country. It is a report on production meetings held in that municipality. The first meeting I presume was called to discuss the production objectives that were outlined by the Minister

Supply-Agriculture
of Agriculture last December and were mentioned in the house early this session. I wish to refer to two or three features of this report.
In the first place it says that in this particular municipality five meetings were held at which there was an average attendance of twenty-eight farmers. The first meeting was held on March 26. The reeve, the secretary-treasurer, the agricultural representatives of the government and the councillors organized the meetings, and the first meeting was addressed' by Mr. Richmond of the Manitoba pool elevator staff, by Mr. Foster, of the extension service, and by Mr. Johnson, agricultural representative of the Manitoba Department of Agriculture. A general discussion followed the presentation of the needs for increased production of food supplies, and committees were set up to organize the outlying section of the municipality with the object of bringing to the attention of the people the production goals so that they could be organized to achieve the goals set. The reeve and the councillors were asked to do the organizing. They arranged for meetings to be held in different parts of the municipality. The report goes on to say that the discussions at these meetings were very encouraging, and here is a special reference to the farm labour problem:
Practically every farmer is short of help. Most farmers feel that they cannot afford to pay the wages asked particularly for inexperienced help. Unless a hired man has had some experience and is dependable he would be a liability rather than an asset on the average farm. The problem of a seasonable supply of labour on the majority of farms does not exist as it did a few years ago. Most farmers keep a considerable quantity of live stock and help is needed every day of the year. Power machinery and the use of combines has materially lessened the need of extra help at harvest time. There is however a need of extra help ... in haying time. . . .
The point I wish to make here particularly is that these people set out an estimate-I will not take the time to read it-that they would require fifty or sixty men in the community to take care of haying operations, and that these men could then probably be transferred to the harvesting operations; but they do not make any reference to a shortage of man-power to put in the present crop. From my own observation I would say that for the most part, while the farmers have not in all instances efficient help, nor in all instances as much help as they would like to have, most of them are going to get by, as far as putting the crop in is concerned, in the immediate district where I have had an opportunity to make any observations. The difficulty is more likely to arise later on.
I should like, however, to come back to what is already under way in Manitoba. A few nights before I returned east I listened to a broadcast made by the deputy minister of agriculture of that province wherein he outlined the agreement which had been entered into with the federal government, and went on to indicate the steps which had been taken by a committee set up in Manitoba to deal particularly with farm labour requirements. He assured the farmers that as far as possible an attempt would be made to meet their needs, and he went on to say that they were trying to provide for the utilization of a number of people of different classes. I believe he mentioned, that the services of older people and young people would be called upon, that they hoped they might be abje to utilize to some extent the labour of Japanese, Indians, conscientious objectors and maybe prisoners of war, and that there was a prospect of the odd internee being available. So that the problem is being attacked, and I believe that with the cooperation of the farmers, and of the business men who may have to give some attention to this matter, an honest attempt will be made to meet requirements.
However, in the report which was forwarded to me, these people go on to say that more encouragement should be given to farm' boys to remain on the farm rather than enlist in the armed services, and that more consideration should be given to the farm boys now in the services for seeding and harvesting leaves. They go as far as to suggest that railway fares on these leaves should be reduced to the minimum. Perhaps they have got a point there worthy of consideration, and I support the suggestion of the hon.. member for Brant in that regard. It seems to me that these people who are in training camps could be made available to a greater extent, certainly for seasonal employment. If steps to that end can be taken, I hope they will be, because that would relieve the situation to a substantial degree.
The same people make a further observation, one which was mentioned the other evening by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle and the hon. member for Melfort, namely, that farm wages are out of line with industrial wages and that a .bonus should be paid in some form to farm labourers. While I have sympathy with the suggestion, I wish the hon. gentlemen who raised it would sugr gest some means whereby a bonusing scheme could be made applicable to the farm labour situation, particularly as it applies in western Canada; or there might be a set wage, if you like. I believe that a set wage would
Supply-Agriculture

immediately become the general wage, and that you would have in turn bonuses or other concessions being paid which were not recorded at the time. Moreover, you would have the less efficient claiming the same wage as a set wage, and the bonus as well. I am bound1 to say that so far as this particular matter is concerned1 I think it should be approached from the other angle. If the farmer cannot pay the wage rate available to industry and whereby he may keep a man working for him, it is the farmer's problem rather than the farm labourer's problem, and should be attacked accordingly. In other words, the farmer should be provided with an income whereby he can pay the wage, instead of an attempt being made to work out the details of a plan to apply a' bonus system to farm labour.
But here, again, I wish to refer to a matter which I discussed earlier; and I hope that for the moment, Mr. Chairman, you will not rule me out of order. We have income tax exemptions applying to amounts lower than $660 and $1,200. If farmers are checked carefully and are obliged to make an income tax return, I venture to say that more will be paying income tax than are doing so at the present time; and if that is so, the bonus to the labourer which he could not show as a deduction from his farm income might place him more readily in the income tax brackets than he otherwise would be, so that I am not sure that even that is the answer. But my hon. friends point out that labour in industry and government civil servants are securing a cost of living bonus, some of it paid by the state-which is true. Yet I must remind my hon. friends that agriculture at the present time is not totally overlooked in this regard. I have before me a little statement, which I had prepared, indicating that bonuses, direct and indirect, to the farmers of Canada-all of Canada- since 1939 have amounted to $142,000,000. I contend that it is fair to argue that assistance indirectly paid in this manner can foe looked upon in some degree at least as a cost of living bonus paid to the farmer; and out of that he must of necessity, where he has to engage labour, recognize his position in that respect.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is the total amount, is it?


William Gilbert Weir: That is the total amount for all Canada, including fertilizer bonuses.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: For one year?


William Gilbert Weir: No; since 1939.
Mr.DOUGLAS (Weyburn): Roughly, about $150 per capita?


William Gilbert Weir: Most of it was in the last three years.


Charles Edward Johnston: Has the hon. member figured out what that amounts to per capita?


William Gilbert Weir: My hon. friend is better at arithmetic than I am; I will leave him to work it out.
I mention these matters merely to indicate that the farmer's position has not been overlooked. Moreover, I believe the farmer recognizes his position at the present time and is prepared to produce to the limit of his capacity. '
The one person in the farm picture for whom I have a little more sympathy than for anyone else, and whose position has not been mentioned here to-night, is the farm wife. The problem of securing domestic assistance where needed-and in some places it is needed badly -I am bound to say is much more critical than even the problem of outside labour.


Ernest Edward Perley: It is not part of the hon. member's problem.


James Arthur Ross: How would the hon. member know?


William Gilbert Weir: Well, sometimes we have experiences which are not obvious on the surface.
Before I resume my seat I would point out to the minister that this problem of farm labour is one which requires constant attention, and that if he can use his influence in any degree with the rest of his cabinet colleagues to secure the seasonal help of at least some of those now in the armed forces, to assist in taking off the crop, particularly if the season becomes bad, it will materially benefit farm production.


George Hugh Castleden: The hon. member who has just spoken brought forward some of the suggestions I intended to make on this particular item. The fact that the government has failed to take any practical farmer into consultation in its deliberations and to get advice and suggestions from him has been the basis of most of the mistakes that have been made. Some hon. members opposite would like to leave the impression that no mistakes have been made, that everything is perfectly fine in this best of all possible worlds. There is no use in putting our heads in the sand and saying that a problem does not exist. It does exist, and it is a very pressing problem. One of the chief causes of the trouble is the fact which everyone recognizes, that labour is scarce. That is only natural in war time, but what the farmer does not like is the fact that the available labour is inequitably distributed.

Supply-Agriculture
I know personally farmers who have been compelled to quit farming because labour has been taken from them. This is general in many parts of Saskatchewan at any rate. For the past five months-last fall and this spring -farmers have been selling out by the dozen. I know cf one district, an area within seven miles of one point, where twenty farmers on good land have sold out lock, stock and barrel and gone out of the province. That has been a common thing in Saskatchewan during the past six months. The trouble is that one farmer finds, when his last son has been taken from him, that across the road there is another farmer on a smaller piece of land, with less production, where there are still two or three sons. That is the galling thing. It is the injustice that exasperates him and convinces him that there is no equitable policy upon which he may rely.
The government has failed to carry out a definite policy with regard to man-power, and that is the basis of most of the trouble. The farmer is willing to accept his share of the burden. He has proven himself both in times of peace and during the war. He has shown that he will take his place among the citizens of Canada in meeting, any emergency. He will sacrifice with any of them. He has shown his position over and over again. In the production of grain what do we find? I believe the farmer is away ahead of the government's policy in the production of wheat. The farmers infer from the policy of the government that it does not want his wheat; that it wants to discourage the growing of grain. The day is not far distant, however, when the world will require all the grain and wheat it can get.


James Garfield Gardiner: We are not discouraging the production of grain.


George Hugh Castleden: You are discouraging the production of grain at the present time.


James Garfield Gardiner: No.


George Hugh Castleden: You are paying a bonus for wheat reduction.


James Garfield Gardiner: We are paying a bonus for the production of other grains rather than wheat, but not for a reduction in grains.


George Hugh Castleden: You are not encouraging the growing of grain when the farmer is left in the west with a billion bushels of it, half of which he cannot sell.


James Garfield Gardiner: He must have grown quite a bit. when he has a billion bushels lying there.


George Hugh Castleden: He has a billion bushels
on the farms in the west to-day.


James Garfield Gardiner: Which does not indicate that we have been discouraging the growing of grain. We are encouraging it.


George Hugh Castleden: You are discouraging it when you make it impossible for the farmer to sell it. That is why he is going out; he cannot sell his product. He is told that there are quotas in the elevators, and when he tries to deliver he is told, "there is no room here."


Mr. McNEVIN:: Is he not feeding more live stock?


George Hugh Castleden: Yes, but that takes more labour. He is asked to turn what grain he has into meat and dairy products, but that requires more labour and he is finding it more difficult to get labour. There are 395,000 men taken out of agriculture, and the farmer is asked to produce more. Anyone who knows anything about the subject knows it takes a good deal of work to turn that grain, after producing it, into the finished meat product. Before he can do that he must have some knowledge of what the future holds for him. If he is to go into the production of meat, he must have some assurance that labour will be available on the farm for two or three years, because you cannot produce a herd of cattle, whether dairy or beef cattle, in one season. But the farmer has no guarantee, at least he has not had a guarantee so far, that even if he does plan producing, the labour will be left on the farm. Then, when his boy has left the farm and he requires some labour in the fall, he finds that men are brought from other parts of Canada and he has to pay wages as high as $6 a day for harvest help. His own boy has gone and he has to pay these other young men a very high wage. Wages this spring in Saskatchewan were as high as $75, $80 and $100 a month. The farmer cannot sell his wheat; he cannot possibly pay labour the price that is demanded.
I endorse what the hon. member who preceded: me said, namely, that skilled labour on the farm is a valuable asset. Taking unskilled labour out of industry and putting it on the farm can do more harm than good, with valuable machinery in such hands. Skilled farm labour is indeed a valuable asset. A good man is worth a great deal; a poor man is a liability. If you take these men out of industry and force them to go on the farm, which apparently,is part of the labour policy, the very fact that you force them on the farms makes them dissatisfied. It will not work. The farmer will produce whatever the
Supply-Agriculture

government wants him to produce. He will do his bit if only the government will tell him exactly where he stands and what he is required to do. I believe the farmer will go on producing anything the government wants him to produce, but in my opinion the government's policy is wrong. If they are looking for greater production of food they had better revise their wheat and labour policy.
The Minister of Agriculture said that he was not responsible for the labour situation. I would say this to him. He has been a . member of the man-power committee of the cabinet continuously for the last three or four years. He was in charge of the original registration when it took place in 1940, and it has fallen on evil days.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend does not wish to misrepresent the position. I said I was not responsible for explaining to this committee the situation in relation to labour; that is the responsibility of the Minister of Labour. I assume my responsibility along with that of every other hon. member of the government for any situation that exists in connection with labour.


George Hugh Castleden: I am glad the minister is willing to accept that responsibility. He sat here as a minister when the Prime Minister, in March, 1942, said that all key men in agriculture would be frozen on the farms. In spite of that, men who were key men in agriculture were called off the farms by hundreds. The national selective service board had complete power. This was only one of the mistakes they made. These boards were given no basis on which to make a selection except to say: If we think you are a key man then you will be allowed to stay on the farm. If we do not think so, then you will not. What does "key man" mean? Some point system should have been set up. For every hundred acres under cultivation, for so many cattle, so many hogs, so many heads of poultry, so many dairy cattle and so on, one able-bodied man would be left. Provided that production was maintained, then the farmer should be guaranteed that he would not be called up. The war services board took whatever information they had

I think in many cases it was incomplete-and the final result was that many farms were depleted of most valuable skilled labour.
Where do we stand with regard to the future? I should like the minister to state to-day where Canada stands with regard to the production of food at the present time and in the post-war period. We should be looking a little ahead of the immediate problem. What is Canada's position with regard to the sup-

plying of grain to the markets that are available? Most world markets are not available to us. The United States needs wheat. The visible carryover in the United States this year is probably half of what would be consumed in that country in one year. They are negotiating now to take Canadian feed wheat into their country. Where are they buying that grain? Are they buying it through the Canadian wheat board or on the open market? Is duty being paid on that wheat when it enters the United States? Who gets the advantage? Is the farmer, the man who produced the -wheat, getting his cost of production out of it? Are his interests being properly protected? I think a statement from the minister on these matters would help a great deal.
What about the hundreds of millions of bushels of wheat still on the farms of western Canada? Where does the western farmer stand with regard to this surplus wheat? Is it ever to be used? Is it of any value? These are the things the minister should be telling the farmer. The government should be laying their plans for the future so that the farmer will know where he stands?


James Garfield Gardiner: What does the hon. member think about the matter?


George Hugh Castleden: I think every bushel that is out there will be needed. The government would be doing the wise thing if they paid the farmer an advance for all the grain that is properly stored on his farm. He is carrying it, and he will be carrying it until it is needed by the world. The longer this war lasts, the more this wheat will be needed.
I know farmers who are leaving their farms, who cannot sell their wheat and are leaving it in granaries on their farms. They are moving out of the district and are leaving their wheat in the bins. The government should have done sooner what is being done now in the way of calling in representative practical farmers from the municipalities in the various areas throughout the country. The problem should be put in front of them, and they should be told what was required. They should be asked their solutions of the problem. If that had been done earlier and their advice followed, we would not be running into the mess we are . now in.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no mess. We have received just what we asked for each year. What mess is there in that?


George Hugh Castleden: I believe conferences are taking place throughout the west at the present time. Each municipality has been asked to fill in a form with regard to production, man-power and the labour, problems of the area.

Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: These matters have been dealt with just as soon as they needed to be dealt with.


George Hugh Castleden: That may be the minister's opinion, but the fact is that farmers are leaving the land; they are selling out. Some of them have been forced to leave the land. We should be doing the same thing for our farmers as we have been asking the government to do for labour, namely, to bring labour in to discuss these matters which affect labour. If that had been done, the government would be much farther ahead with their farm labour problems.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend speaks of a mess, which is an easy term to use. Is not the statement he has just made an indication of organization, not a mess?


George Hugh Castleden: I think what is being done now is just a little bit late.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is begging the question.


George Hugh Castleden: I think the Minister of Labour will recognize that there was a mess with regard to national selective service.


Humphrey Mitchell: The Minister of Labour does not recognize anything-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


George Hugh Castleden: Confession is good for the soul.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend did not let me finish. The Minister of Labour does not recognize the mess that my hon. friend speaks about; that is all.


Charles Edward Johnston: It is a mess, though.


George Hugh Castleden: I wish the Minister of Labour would come out to Saskatchewan and hear some of the complaints I have heard and see some of the farms and what some of the people are trying to do. He should go into their homes-they are most hospitable people-and see some of the problems, they are facing. I think he would recognize the truth in some of the things I have said to-night.


Mr. McNIYEN:: The hon. member's district has never been as well off in all its history.


George Hugh Castleden: My last suggestion to the minister is that he should make a statement with regard1 to future policies. He should tell us where Canada stands with regard to the supply of food, both for the immediate present and for the post-war period. He should advise these farmers what to do with the supplies of food that are already on hand.


Mr. FAIR:: Having heard a number of suggestions this evening and yesterday from farmers, both practical and armchair, I should like to say a few words by way of general discussion and then a little later on go into more detail as the different items are being discussed. I must thank the hon. member for Brant for having entertained' us again this evening. Apparently he felt much better after having had his dinner. I am sorry that he did not take the time to think through some of the suggestions and recommendations which he made.
For instance, he said that farmers are paying off their mortgages. Does the hon. member for Brant realize that the accomplices of the mortgage companies have removed all debt protective legislation and left our farmers to the mercy of the mortgage companies? In order to pay these sums of money, many farmers have been compelled to sell unfinished live stock and sacrifice other things. They have been forced to do these things in order to provide an argument for those who are against the farmer and in favour of the present set-up. He went on to tell us that in days gone by the farmer usually sent his smart son into the law profession or some such occupation. I would include in that the banking profession. I wonder why the hon. member's father changed that procedure in his case and kept his smart son on the farm.
The hon. member for Macdonald made a number of sound suggestions. I am compelled to agree with some of them, but I cannot agree with them all. He told us that the farmers had1 not been neglected altogether in the matter of bonuses. He mentioned a figure of $142,000,000 which had been paid as bonuses during the past four years, but the fact is that the farmers received only a small portion of that to which they are entitled. Further benefits were denied them by means of price freezing and restrictions on the growing of grain. If our farmers were given treatment equal to that given to labour-I am not against what is being done for labour-it would mean an extra seventy cents a bushel on the wheat grown. If the hon. member for Macdonald or any other hon. member, on that or this side of the house, wants to work out what our present set-up is costing us, just let him figure an extra seventy cents on every bushel of wheat we grow. If the farmer received this money, he would be well able to pay his mortgage debts and decent wages to his farm help.
The question of farm labour was discussed last evening, and I must say that I agree with a number of the suggestions made at that time. I hope action will be taken soon to

Supply-Agriculture

put some of the non-essential industries out of the running and move some of that help around so that other industries may have the benefit of it. However, I hope that none of those inexperienced1 people are sent to the farms. I can picture a beauty parlour operator, for example, being sent out to the farm. Probably we would find him manicuring the toenails of the cow in the morning instead of milking her. I remember some years ago when harvest excursions were run to the west; on one occasion we had1 a barber on the farm who could not be induced to set the sheaves the right way up. He had the heads down and the butts up; though he was told many times how it should be done he would not do it right, so that finally he had to be put on the road. Therefore I suggest, for the benefit of the Minister of Labour, that help of this kind be sent where it will be of more use than on the farm. So far as is humanly possible only experienced farm help Should be sent to the farmers. We all realize that at the present time, with the armed forces and war industries looking for men, we cannot send the number necessary back to the farms, but my suggestion is that as far as possible experienced farm workers now engaged in industry, and perhaps some of those in the armed services, be returned to agriculture and those workers from non-essential industries sent into the factories and perhaps the armed forces as well.
On February 26 last I read to>
the house a questionnaire that had been sent out by one of those "produce for victory" organizations in my constituency. This was in the municipal district of Wainwright which is composed of forty townships, and I should like to give some of the information gained through a survey of that territory, because I believe this would represent the average requirements of other districts in that part of the country. It was estimated that to complete threshing some 385 men would be required, while some 152 men would be required for putting in the crop this spring. I do not know where that many men could be found in that part of the country; they simply are not there. I returned from there only a very short time ago, and I feel quite satisfied that a number of farms will be run shorthanded, while much more summer-fallow will be worked this summer than would be the situation if labour were available and the crop could be disposed of after it had been grown. This committee has been operating for the past four years, and on April 10 it held its fifth annual conference. This conference works in active cooperation with provincial and dominion officials; I believe it is

very active and is doing very good work, with representatives of various interested bodies included in the membership. After the conference they sent me a number of recommendations, a few of which I am going to read. In speaking of the aims of the conference, they say:
This farm conference desires to state that we will do everything possible to maintain and increase farm production in 1943-44, recognizing that food and industrial crops are an imperative necessity towards winning the war against fascism, to build a free world and ensure a democratic peace, in which we Canadian farmers shall have an opportunity to improve our own welfare along with the peoples of the united nations.
However, we fear that production cannot be increased, and may be decreased, unless certain measures are taken by the federal and provincial governments within their respective spheres.
Then they go on with some recommendations, including the following:
Other sources of farm labour might be found in cutting advertising down, commercial travelling, and in bringing about cooperative operation of stores, and the transfer of those released to war industries, so releasing ex-farm workers to go back to the farms. We also recommend that the government pay railway fares of men in the armed forces, being released for farm work, to and from the farms.
Then they also say:
In the meantime, it is our opinion that farmers must learn to cooperate in their work more effectively.
In that connection I must say, as another hon. member has said, that farmers are working together at the present time better than I have ever seen them work together during my years in the west.
Labour saving machinery be made more readily available through the zone committees and definite guarantee of replacement of machines and repairs be given, as it has come to our attention that farmers are reluctant to do custom work unless such guarantee is assured.
Another recommendation is that small loans be made to farmers at a reasonable rate of interest; the suggestion here is three per cent.
They continue:
In our opinion, most of the farmer's financial problems and to a certain degree labour problems could be met if guaranteed prices for all essential products were paid at a rate of five per cent above cost of production and the guaranteed price maintained for not less than two years after the war ends.
Fear of the sudden curtailment of markets, for live stock in particular, is being expressed by many farmers. This is retarding expansion at the present time. In our opinion, if this fear is removed, there would be a greater readiness to expand those kinds of live stock production that do not require much labour and constant care.

Supply-Agriculture
The last paragraph in the submission reads:
This conference rejects any idea of a farm strike, which would only jeopardize the cause of the united nations, but respectfully warns the governments concerned that unless greater measures of cooperation in regard to labour, finance, prices, and machinery requirements is developed between the governments and farmers, there may easily develop a grave crisis in food production in Canada.
That is signed by R. Garneau as secretary of the organization.
We have been told that we produced a large crop in 1942. I am quite ready to admit that, but I fear there is a disappointment in store for many of those who are firmly convinced that the requirements of the Minister of Agriculture will be met. I have in my hand a statement showing the average yield in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta for the twenty-three years from 1920 to 1942 inclusive. In the case of Manitoba we have an average wheat yield for that period of 16-2 bushels per acre. The high year was 26-9 bushels, in 1942, while the low year was 9 bushels per acre, in 1935. In the case of oats the average is 27-5 bushels per acre, with 47-3 bushels the high in 1942 and 16 - 7 bushels the low in 1927. In the case of barley the average is 22-4 bushels; the high year was 1942 with 36-6 bushels, while the low year was 1936, with 13-3 bushels.
Corning now to Saskatchewan, I would ask hon. members to take particular note of the yields in that province, because they are sufficient to prove that the arguments which have been made here time and again in years gone by were not unfounded. The high yield of wheat in Saskatchewan was 27-1 bushels per acre, in 1942, and the low yield was 2-6 bushels in 1937. This latter amount is just, about sufficient grain to seed an acre for two years, and it has to be pretty clean seed at that. If one takes much out there would not be sufficient left. Then, in respect of oats the high was 52 bushels per acre in 1942, and the low was 5-1 bushels in 1937. In respect to barley the high was 37-3 bushels in 1942, and) the low 4-7 bushels in 1937, with an average of 20-2 bushels in twenty-three years.
Then, coming to Alberta we find the average yield of wheat for twenty-three years was 15-9 bushels per acre, with a high of 28-0 bushels in 1923, and a low of 8-8 bushels in 1936. In the case of oats we find an average of 28-1 bushels over the period, with a high last year of 53-3 bushels and a low of 19-7
bushels in 1936. In respect of barley wre had an average of 22-4 bushels in the 23-year period, with a high of 39 bushels last year, and a low of 16-5 bushels in 1922.
Therefore, if hon. members will take the trouble to look over the yields in the past number of years, they will find that we might very easily run into a shortage of grain. And if we encounter that shortage, we are sure to have a shortage of live stock production.
One of the things that we need most at the present time is parity prices. Since I have come to the house, hon. members have argued for parity prices. We are still arguing for them, but we are not getting them. It seems that we need a leader in any line, and in this connection I will read the words of Mr. Claude R. Wickard1, who is well known to the Minister of Agriculture and other members of the government. Speaking to a senate committee not long ago he said:
During recent years, it has become clear that farmers have won their battle for recognition of parity. Farmers fought twenty years for parity. I am proud to have had a part in that fight and I intend to fight just as hard to maintain parity. Farmers have convinced the general public that parity with industrial prices is a fair and honest yardstick for measuring farm prices.
No one would be happier than I if the Minister of Agriculture were to rise in his seat to-night, make a similar statement and have the government support him. I am satisfied he is doing what he can, but it seems we have other hurdles to jump before we reach that position. I hope hon. members on all sides of the house, as well as members of the government, will see to it that in the near future agriculture is given a square deal. As I have said on other occasions, we cannot have a happy or prosperous country with one-half slave and the other half free.
There are a number of other questions I intend to discuss at the appropriate time, including live stock prices, wool prices and matters of that kind, but because I would expect other hon. members might wish to speak at this time, I shall let my position rest.


Mr. GERSHAW:: If we are to justify our existence as a deliberative assembly, we must look at some of these problems from different angles, and consider all phases. I would draw the attention of hon. members to a few things which have been done and which are being done for agriculture. I would say first of all that the quota system, in regard to the marketing of wheat, has worked out reasonably well. There are districts I have the honour to represent in which, on account of its resistance
2918
Supply-Agriculture

to drought, wheat is about the only crop that can ibe profitably grown. Wheat farmers have had a pretty hard time of it. Last winter they had wheat lying out in the fields and in open bins because lumber was not available with which to build granaries. But their position would have been very much worse had they had to depend on an open market, and had they not been able to have their quota, small as it was, and to get a price for that wheat which, although less than the cost of production, was yet better than they could have obtained in any other way.
Markets have been arranged for live-stock products, including cattle, bacon and commodities of that kind. Free freight has been arranged on feeds and, as has been said, a tremendous amount of money has been paid out by way of bonuses. The bonuses on cheese, butterfat and bacon, as well as bonuses when crops have failed in some years, and where the farmer is reducing his wheat acreage, have helped a great deal.
I feel, however, that the majority of farmers in Canada, are in an inferior position, as compared with people in other lines of endeavour. I would speak particularly about irrigation farmers and ranchers. Where farming is carried on, there are periods when extra help is needed. The younger men who .have been called away are the ones who understand machinery, and who have had experience in farm work. Their services in some instances are desperately needed. Many of the older people are carrying on under physical handicaps, and are trying to do work they are unable to do.
Irrigation work is not only seasonal; the labour is required all the year round'. If the production of irrigation farms and ranches is to be kept up, some extra help must be given to these people. If we recall what the Minister of National Defence for Air said this afternoon about the heroic deeds of those who are in the forefront of this battle, we shall realize that any sacrifice we make is as nothing when compared with those they are making. At the same time, however, we must keep up our food supplies. I make this appeal, not only to the Minister of Agriculture-because he knows about it-but to other members of the cabinet, to try to readjust our prices. The prices of commodities we have to buy and of those we have to sell must be readjusted, so that the farming economy will be able to survive, and all classes will be on a more even basis.


James Arthur Ross: I should like to ask a question of the minister. But before asking it, may I say that I agree with much of what was said by the hon. member for Macdonald. However, he seemed to be in a bit of a quandary as to how we were to create parity for the farmer, either by bonusing or by increasing prices.
He pointed out that since the beginning of the war this government had made available about $142,000,000 for farmers, by way of bonuses. I would point out that that amount is only about eight per cent of the amount the same government has made available in the same period for industry, by way of capital assistance. Capital assistance for industry during the same period has been made available to the extent of $1,723,827,000. So that the hon. member may figure it out for himself.
Not only that, but I pointed out before that, as a result of the steel strike last fall, ordinary labour was guaranteed fifty-five cents an hour, by order in council. From these figures one can easily see whether agriculture is getting its just share of the fruits of the war effort.
I do not wish to prolong the debate unduly, but I must say that a great deal must still be done in order to secure parity for agriculture. It has been recognized that the production of foodstuffs is just as essential as anything else in the war effort, and will probably be more essential in the post-war period.
On January 15 the minister spoke at Brandon, in respect of beef, and is quoted on January 16 as follows:
Consumption of beef and large shipments to United States, where meats could be specially prepared for overseas shipments in cans, had resulted in a possible beef shortage in the dominion, Mr. Gardiner stated, and thus permits were now required for shipments across the line.
If that is correct, I should like to know.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not recall saying anything about the tinning of beef, but that interpretation may have been placed on something that was said at that time. The statement I made in Brandon was this:	If the
farmers intended to have any beef go to the United States in the coming year they would have to produce sufficient to feed the Canadian people and have a surplus to send to the United States, and there was a possibility, of course, of the Americans themselves processing meat. I did not say, in cans.


James Arthur Ross: But we have not done anything in that respect?


James Garfield Gardiner: We made an announcement yesterday in regard to the present position in relation to beef. That statement was

Supply-Agriculture
published in the papers this morning, indicating that there will be supplies of beef in frozen form sent to Britain if there is a surplus over and above what we require in Canada for our own purposes.


James Arthur Ross: But we have not been doing anything on that up to date?


James Garfield Gardiner: There have been no shipments out of Canada up to date, because we have required for our own purposes all the beef marketed since last fall.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a remark or two with reference to the farm labour situation, which has been discussed for the greater part of the evening. I agree with the minister when he says that the discussion of the man-power problem generally comes within the purview of the Minister of Labour and personally I shall be very glad to leave the discussion of that problem until the Minister of Labour is discussing the matter under the war appropriation bill.
But there is one fact of which the committee ought not to lose sight, namely, that the Minister of Agriculture is on the man-power committee of the cabinet, it seems to me, for one specific reason, and that is to guarantee to agriculture what he considers to be a sufficient supply of man-power to enable agriculture to fulfil its commitments both with reference to Canada itself and to the united nations. We cannot discuss to-night the whole question of man-power. It appears to me that there the lack has been a master plan to allocate manpower. I know it is not an easy thing to do. For a long time we had different departments of govemmeht competing one with another for the services of the same man. One department was asking men to come into the army, another into the air force, another into the navy, another into munitions factories, and still another department was urging the men to stay on the farm and produce. We are in the course now, under national selective service, of doing some of the things that should have been done a long time ago, and it is always more difficult to go back than to meet the situation when the problem first arises.
When the hon. member for Brant said to-night that the hon. member for Lake Centre did not know w'hat he was talking about-the hon. member for Lake Centre does not need me to defend him because I understand people pay him for defending them-it appears to me that the hon. member for Brant was almost in the same classification. He said
that he was opposed to compulsion, and that the opposition group was suggesting compulsion. I could not help wondering if he had ever read P.C. 2246 by which the government is using compulsion to keep men on the farm, using compulsion to say that before a man leaves the farm he must have a permit, and that if he leaves the farm temporarily he must come back. The deputy minister of labour said recently that he proposes to use compulsion to take 200,000 workers out of non-essential industry and put them into agriculture. I am not complaining of that.
I am simply pointing out to the hon. member for Brant that compulsion is already here and that we ought to recognize that fact.
It seems to me that the Minister of Agriculture, as the one who is charged with the responsibility of ensuring that Canada meets its food production commitments, is the one to whom we must look to do his best in the cabinet and1 in its man-power committee te see to it that measures are taken to guarantee sufficient man-power on the farms to enable the farmers to produce what the Minister of Agriculture is asking them to produce.
It is wrong to say that on this side of the house we merely criticize. I think we have offered some suggestions, and offered them repeatedly. One of the suggestions we have offered repeatedly is that something should be done to standardize the calling up of men across Canada for military service. I need not go back into the question of P.C. 2252, passed on the 24th March last. That has been discussed sufficiently in the house already. But I should like to place a table on Hansard, and with the permission of the committee 1 should like to have it appear in Hansard in tabulated form. The table is contained in sessional paper 136F, which was tabled in the house on Monday, April 5, 1943. It deals with this question:
How many men in each military district, as at December 31, 1942, have (a) been called up for military service, (b) have applied for postponement for six months or longer.
The table gives the numbers of men who were called up for military service in the different administrative divisions, the number applying for postponement, and the number of postponements granted, and at the foot of the table appear these two explanatory notes:
"Called up for military service" is deemed to mean that an order vras served on a man pursuant to the national selective service mobilization regulations requiring him to report for military training.
Supply-Agriculture

It does not merely mean those who have been called to take medical examination); it means the number who have actually been called upon to report. The second note reads: The figures give the total number of postponements granted without reference to their duration. Statistics have not been kept on the length of postponements.
out, as the hon. member for Melfort pointed out last night, many of the men who are called up are given a month or six weeks postponement within which to straighten out their affairs and then are called upon to report. But all these appear in the table as having been granted postponement. But this
Therefore these figures are not an accurate indication of the number of men actually on
table does give an indication of the lack of uniformity which has characterized the calling
the farm. The table gives the number of up of men across the country. Here is the those who have been granted postponement table:
Percentage of post-
Administrative divisions	Called up for military service	Number applying for postponement	Postponements granted	ponement applications granted"A"	London, Ont	
22,389	14,074	13,618	93"B"	Toronto, Ont	
51,922	28,190	20,944	71"C"	Kingston, Ont	
19,805	17,373	16,112	91"D"	Port Arthur, Ont	
4,837	1,891	1,558	81"E"	Montreal, P.Q	
74,711	51,173	38,267	76Quebec	
26,565	30,470	21,474	70"G"	Halifax	
13,206	8,621	6,479	76"H"	Saint John 	
11,676	5,463	4,417	80Charlottetown	
2,736	2,330	2,000	82"J"	Winnipeg	
17,183	10,282	8,298	80"K"	Vancouver	
24,169	16,792	14,803	86"M"	Regina	
22,119	13,181	8,041	61"N"	Edmonton	
19,713	6,734	6,189	91Total	
311,131	206,574	162,200	80
There may be a typographical error in the Quebec figures; they do not seem reasonable; but that is as it appears in the sessional paper.


James Garfield Gardiner: That table covers what
period of time?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is up to
December 31 last.


James Garfield Gardiner: From the beginning of
the war?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: From the
beginning of the war. I think these figures are startling. For instance, take division "E," Montreal:	74,000 are called and 38,000 of
these are granted postponement. In the Quebec district, 26,000 were called and 21,000 granted postponement. Take Saskatchewan, where 22,000, only slightly fewer than Quebec, were called and only 8,041 granted postponement.
The reason why I draw this to the attention of the minister is that I think here is one of the reasons why the situation has not been very satisfactory. The stand which this

group took a year ago on this whole question of man-power was that we objected to the conscripting of man-power by order in council. One of our reasons was that if you have no law on the statute books, but instead you have orders in council, and quasi-judicial boards set up, these boards have it in their power to say to what extent they will recognize the interpretative letter sent out by the department.


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, they have followed it ever since it was sent out.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I can refer the minister to many cases, or if he will look at the files of the deputy minister of labour he will find many eases where it seems to me, at least, that they were still not paying any attention to that interpretative letter.


Humphrey Mitchell: I think my hon. friend will agree with this, that the mere fact that a person writes to him is not evidence that the facts contained in the letter are correct.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is quite true.

Sup-ply-Agriculture


Humphrey Mitchell: I think he will find that since this interpretative letter was sent out, there is a greater uniformity than before in the application of the policy.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I will say that immediately, that Mr. MacNamara has, in my opinion, done a good job since he has taken over, andi that there has been a 100 per cent improvement. I think one ought to foe very fair about that, and I wish to make that statement here. But that does not alter the fact I stated a moment ago. Many of the cases in which the board refuse to grant postponement have been referred to me. The minister says that does not guarantee that they are right; but when I have referred them to Mr. MacNamara they have been granted postponement, upon his insistence.


James Garfield Gardiner: Is this not true-I am speaking from my own experience, but I imagine that of other hon. members is pretty much the same-that many of the cases which have been referred to him in the last two or three months are cases which had been dealt with before that letter was sent out? That is, they had been refused postponement earlier, the men had been in camp, in many cases, and there have been some of them removed from camps since, but most of the criticisms are with regard to old actions.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend spoke of the director of national selective service "insisting". Any decision made is on the facts, it is not on the insistence of any officers of my department. I think it would be jnfortunate if it got abroad in this country ;hat merely because a member of parliament wrote to an officer of my department the man stood a better chance of deferment than a person who had not got in touch with a member of parliament. I think my hon. friend will agree with that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes; I would be the last person to want to leave that impression. But I say that in a great many cases where the facts made it apparent that a man asking for postponement had a bona fide case, and it had been referred to Mr. MacNamara, and Mr. MacNamara had referred it to the board and had asked for a reconsideration, the case was given reconsideration, and in quite a few cases the man was granted postponement. And I am glad he got it if he deserved it.
With reference to what the Minister of Agriculture has just said, it is true that complaints are not as numerous as they were before the interpretative letter went out. The
interpretative letter has done a great deal of good. But there are two things about that.	There are	still some cases.Mr.	GARDINER: There	are bound to be.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Second, the conduct of the board prior to the interpretative letter has put many of these men in the army, and there is no way of getting them back unless some arrangements can be made	with the	military	authorities.	Unfortunately the interpretative letter was the old case of bolting the stable door after the horse	had gone.
It seems to me that the Minister of Agriculture, as a member of the man-power committee, has a duty to see to it that in the allocation of man-power the regulations which give the right of postponement to men who are essential to agriculture are rigidly adhered to because, if they are not, men will continue to be taken off the farms in places where they are absolutely necessary, and, as has already happened in many cases, older people will leave the farms or, I am afraid, in some cases dispose of their stock and just live on the farm, raising a little bit of garden produce and enough poultry for their own use.
The first thing we have tried to suggest throughout is the standardization of the application of the National Resources Mobilization Act call-up with respect to the different military districts. Up to the present it has not been uniformly or fairly applied in one district as against another, and I am hoping that it will be more uniformly administered as time goes by. I hope, too, that the government will try to find some machinery, other than the type of machinery we have now, under which we have boards with quasi-judicial powers with the result that national selective service finds that it has not complete power to deal with the situation as it feels it ought to be dealt with.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not ask this with any critical intent, but has my hon. friend any suggestions along those lines? I should like to have them.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I do not know whether it is too late to do so now or not, but what we advocated last year was that the whole principle of the allocation of man-power should be put in the form of a statute. In the first place we asked that it be centred in one department. As the minister knows, we had a number of different authorities handling this matter. National service called the men; then the army came into the picture; the
Supply-Agriculture

Department of Labour looked after one branch, and the Department of Agriculture looked after another.


Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. member will agree that we are making progress.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is a step towards progress. I do not mind saying that at all. The provisions for calling men should be in the form of a statute, and these men should have certain definite rules outlined clearly, so that there is not too much discretion left to the board, as is the situation at present, with the result that in some districts where there is a board with certain prejudices or leanings, the regulations are interpreted) in one way, while in another district, with a totally different outlook, the regulations are interpreted differently. Up to date the regulations have been so general that they could be interpreted in any way in which a particular board might care to interpret them.
There have been other sources of man-power. So far as farming is concerned, there is the whole question of conscientious objectors. A return I have here, sessional paper 257, shows about 1,273 conscientious objectors doing alternative service work. Some do fairly useful work in camps clearing the woods, while others are building ski trails and working in national parks, some of which work could very well be left until times of peace. I think most of these conscientious objectors could be put on farms, and I believe the Minister of Labour is taking some steps toward that end.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I would point out to the hon. member that it is impossible for us to proceed in an orderly manner if members of the committee discuss two departments at the same time. Hon. members should follow the rules. I am not master of the rules; I must abide by them. I would therefore ask hon. members not to discuss two departments, simultaneously.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I wish to abide by your ruling, Mr. Chairman, but we have been discussing the man-power situation as it applies to agriculture, and I was about to observe that there are 152 conscientious objectors in gaol, many of whom would be much more useful on farms. A number of them were taken off the farms and put in gaol.
I have in mind one with reference to whom I have been in correspondence with various departments of government, but without success. His neighbours write to me stating that his stock is wandering into their yards, and that there is no one to look after his farm. It

seems to me he would be of much greater service on his farm than languishing in gaol at Regina.
The suggestion made by the hon. member for Brant is not a new one. I made it on February 15 to the minister. That suggestion is that the number of men called for military service in Canada-the roster is 60,000-ought to be carefully combed to see if any of these men could be returned to agriculture for a period of time. I think the Minister of Agriculture could make representations to the Department of National Defence, not with the idea of cutting down the army, but to point out that some of these men could very well be spared for a period in the spring and fall. At present a man has to make application, and the discretion lies entirely with his commanding officer. The average commanding officer who has trained a man and fitted him to do useful work round the barracks, or in the particular location where the unit happens to be, will not be keen to let that man go. That stands to reason. If the man-power situation continues to be serious, the Minister of Agriculture might very well make representations to the Department of National Defence and ask that these home defence men be checked over to see if some could not be sent back, particularly next fall, to help take off the crop. I saw a number of anomalous situations last fall. At a time when, throughout Saskatchewan, there were women and young boys in the fields, and they were sending several trainloads of boys in their teens from the east, I went into a training camp in Saskatchewan where there were several thousand husky young men, most of them off the farm. They did not have much equipment and were being given physical drill and route marches to keep them in condition, and within hailing distance there were old people and young people in the fields taking off the crop. It is possible that arrangements could be made next fall to allow a large number of men to be temporarily released to take off the crop. I saw in the press that in Great Britain last fall, while some of the large battleships were being overhauled, the entire crews from his majesty's largest warships were sent o the fields to help the farmers take off the crop. If, being so close to the battle line, the British felt that they could spare these men to gather food, so essential to victory, it seems to me that this government should take into consideration the releasing of men for the same purpose.


Mr. SHAW:: Before this item of the estimates carries, there are a few observations I wish to make. Rather than have my silence construed as an indication that we have no

Supply-Agriculture
man-power problem in agriculture in my constituency I feel obliged to say something. In the second place, I am not entirely unmindful of the fact that on a very recent occasion the Minister of Agriculture was more or less instrumental in curtailing a certain debate in which I was engaging at that time.
I am quite in agreement with previous speakers who have asserted that the major problem confronting the farmer to-day is shortage of labour. We can agree most heartily with those who have stated that the depletion of man-power to the armed forces, as well as to industry, has led to that acute labour shortage. In my constituency in Alberta, as I have indicated on previous occasions, we are engaged in a diversified type of agriculture and I know that the farmers there, in common with the farmers in other parts of Canada, have not been in a position to guarantee to labour an attractive wage. It is true that in the proper sense of the word there is no ceiling on farm wages; but in another sense there certainly is, inasmuch as the farmer has had a ceiling placed upon his produce and must consequently place a ceiling upon the wages which he pays farm labour. In effect, therefore, the situation is no different from what it would be if the government had passed an order in council placing a ceiling on farm wages at the level at which they prevail at the present time. The farmer cannot offer regular hours of work per day as can be offered to the worker in industry. After all, we know that circumstances develop on the farm from day to day which may, on occasion, render it necessary for the employee to work sixteen or eighteen hours a day. In a factory the employee is engaged for a period of, let us say. eight or ten hours . a day, and should he engage in overtime he is compensated under most circumstances. We may say that in some instances they pay time and a half for overtime. But that is seldom the situation on the farm, for the simple reason that under the conditions which have prevailed and now prevail the farmer is unable to give any such guarantee. And the same is true with respect to time off. *
While I appreciate the fact that the indus-c trial worker is confronted with many prob-. lems, he does know that he will work so many hours a week on the average. He works so many shifts or so many days, but he knows he will have time off. But on the farm the same work is there every day from early morning until the late hours of the night. During certain seasons of the year, such as the seeding and harvesting seasons, the farmer must take advantage of every possible hour
in order to complete the operation in which he is engaged. These conditions do not tend to attract labour to the farm, especially with the present wages being paid in other industries. We. cannot be unmindful of the fact that if a farm worker has an opportunity of going into the city, especially if he is a young fellow, more particularly if he is single, work there may prove much more attractive than would work in some outlying rural area where the same entertainment was not available.
Farmers all over Canada, and I am speaking more particularly of my own area, who are faced with this labour shortage are not sitting down with folded hands. During the Easter recess I saw a man of eighty-four years of age operating a tractor, and for a full shift too. This illustration could be multiplied many times. At the present time many of our farmers are working as much as twenty hours a day trying to get their crops seeded. It has been indicated by others that the Canadian farmer is an industrious individual, is resourceful, is characterized by his ingenuity; we give him all due credit for that, because if it were not for that he never would have come through the depression years as he did; when he was confronted with the obstacles which confronted him then, he would have thrown up his hands and quit.
One of the things that the farmer objects to more strenuously than anything else is the confusion of red tape and the multitude of orders in council and regulations. He does not know where he stands or what is going to happen to-morrow or next week. During the past winter a large number of farm workers were permitted to take employment in war industry. I thought the number was about
175,000	but I think the minister indicated it as being about 250,000.


James Garfield Gardiner: The estimate was that about 175,000 would come back in the spring, and about 250,000 left in the fall.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I understand, and I believe the farmer was justified in coming to the same conclusion, that these persons would be obliged to come back to the farm. I tried to put pressure upon the Minister of Labour to have him make a definite statement about the regulations governing these persons who had left agricultural employment to go into factories. I do not wish to say that he was evasive, because that might convey the wrong impression, but he certainly did not answer the question.


James Garfield Gardiner: Not into factories; into mines and lumbering.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Who had gone out of agriculture; I believe that was the expression I used.
Supply-Agriculture

They had secured permits to leave agriculture to engage in other essential work. I am satisfied that until April 1 the farmer firmly believed that this pool of labour would be directed back to the farm. We now find that there are no regulations which will compel these men to go into that line of work. It is true that if they joined the army services, all was well and good. It was also true that if they remained in industry, they would lose the protection accorded them and come under the National Resources Mobilization Act. I dare say that many of them remained in industry, hoping that in some way or another they might escape the penalty of these regulations.
I recall trying to get a definite answer from the Minister of Labour with respect to those who had gone into industry from the farms and who, after working for a short period, might be regarded or designated as being essential to industry. I rather fancied that in making his reply the minister tried to laugh away the idea that any individual who had spent such a short time in a war industry could be regarded as essential. Yet, if I understood him correctly to-day, he indicated that those who are now regarded as essential to industry would be left there.


James Garfield Gardiner: Those men did not go to industry at all; they went into the mines and into the lumber camps. They did not go into what is generally called "industry".


Frederick Davis Shaw: It all depends upon what the minister means by the word "industry".


James Garfield Gardiner: It all depends upon what the public takes out of the term "industry" when it is used in this house.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I honestly believe that if I were to ask the minister to tell me exactly where they went, he would have difficulty in answering the question.


James Garfield Gardiner: I might have some difficulty in answering the question as to where they all went, but I would not have any difficulty in determining whether they went into industry because they had to get a permit to go.


Frederick Davis Shaw: May I just say this-


Humphrey Mitchell: May I say to my hon. friend1-


Frederick Davis Shaw: May I comment on this statement first? I have no objection to the Minister of Labour making a statement, but I wish to deal with the statement of the Minister of Agriculture. Not long ago I placed on the order paper a question with

respect to the same matter, and if I am to judge from the information contained in the reply, there is just as much confusion in the government departments with respect to this matter as there is in the minds of farmers who are looking to this pool of labour for assistance.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not know whether my hon. friend is a farmer, but-


Frederick Davis Shaw: I have lived in agricultural areas and with farmers all my life and I am capable of making observations.


Humphrey Mitchell: If my hon. friend is a farmer, the best test would be for him to try to get into industry. He would then see how selective service functions.


Frederick Davis Shaw: May I ask the Minister of Labour what is his definition of "industry"?


James Garfield Gardiner: It would be more simple if the hon. member would talk about mining and lumbering instead of industry. We would then all understand it.


Humphrey Mitchell: What is the hon. member talking about?


Frederick Davis Shaw: If the minister does not know what we are talking about, he and the Minister of Agriculture have something in common.


Humphrey Mitchell: If the hon. member does not know what we are talking about, how can he expect us to understand?


Frederick Davis Shaw: I have given up hope that I would be understood.


Humphrey Mitchell: I think I have a clear understanding of the word "industry". When you speak of basic industry or mining or lumbering or agriculture, I think I have a 'clear understanding. If my hon. friend wants to lump these all together and call them "industry", I suppose he has a perfect right to do so.


Frederick Davis Shaw: We have such terms as "primary industry" and "secondary industry", and I should like to ask-it is not proper for me to question the minister, because that is contrary to the rules.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not contrary to the rules; that is why we are in committee of the whole.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I was referring to the Minister of Labour. I wish to reassert what I said a moment ago, namely, that many farm workers left the farms to engage in essential work. I think that statement is correct. Then we do not have to use the word "industry" at all. The point is that they left agriculture, and we believed they would be directed back to agri-

Supply-Agriculture
cultural employment; I think that was the impression left with the people of this country. Since that time, however, a number of orders in council and regulations have been passed, and we find that the situation is not what we anticipated it would be.
We know, too, that the farmers of Canada are being strangled by numerous restrictions of other types. I am not one of those who are opposed to essential restrictions in war time, but under the guise of war needs these restrictions are often carried to'extremes. I have in mind that in certain instances restrictions with respect to tires and gasoline, and in connection with machine parts, are making it extremely difficult for many of our farmers to carry on, more especially as the shortage of farm hands becomes more acute. It is not my desire to detain the committee, Mr. Chairman, but I believe that one source of farm labour might be discovered if we carried on a complete investigation with respect to the many inspection boards, and boards of other kinds, that have been set up by this government. I do not say that all these people would be qualified to step into agriculture at once, for I understand what evidently a good many people do not understand, that you cannot take an inexperienced individual and send him to a farm to operate the type of machinery that is used in agriculture to-day. I do say, however, that we could take the persons employed by such boards and give them a certain amount of training. There need be no financial loss on their part; in other words, they should not be expected to take a financial loss as a result of that transfer. I believe also that in many communities throughout Canada we could restrict the hours of business in nonessential industries, and on perhaps two days a week-I say this only for purposes of illustration-we might be able to give those people a certain amount of training. No doubt the argument would be advanced that they should not be expected to leave their work for two days a week and lose that income; but, as was indicated by a previous speaker, it might be necessary for the government to step in and subsidize farm wages, so that while such persons were getting experience and assisting on the farm, the farmer would not be obliged to make up the difference between what those persons were being paid previously and what they would receive under this scheme. I think we shall have to give consideration to matters such as these. Then, as a farm worker is taken from agriculture, he might 'be replaced by someone who has obtained at least a minimum of practical experience, and no person should be taken from a farm unless he could be replaced by such an individual.
When we come to the question of taking the boys from the farms, many of our farmers have been driven almost to distraction by the red tape they have tried to clamber over and through in order to have legitimate cases properly considered. I just happen to have a case that I was discussing with one of the government officials to-day. The father, who lives in my constituency, operates 480 acres, with 270 acres under cultivation. He markets from 200 to 300 hogs a year; he has fifty-one head of cattle and thirty-four horses. He operates a diesel tractor, and the only boy he had at home was taken into the army, in spite of the fact that the boy's mother was an invalid and the father is in ill health. I have affidavit after affidavit supporting this boy's claim for release from the army. Incidentally this farmer lost eighty young pigs at one time because he was then unable to do all the work himself. This situation has a detrimental effect upon the farmer concerned, and psychologically it has a most unfortunate effect upon a great many people who know the facts. I say that in such cases, where the legitimacy of the claim is so obvious, we should have some sort of machinery established under which they could be handled with very much less red tape.
There is just one other point I should like to mention. I do not know how true it is, but many of the farmers in my constituency, in commenting upon the production programme of the Minister of Agriculture for 1943, expressed the belief that the minister had looked out over agricultural Canada; that he had seen the vast quantity of feed produced last year, and had concluded that since we had that feed, we would be able to increase the production of hogs, cattle, sheep and so forth during 1943, forgetting, of course, that as the production of live stock is increased, just to that extent the supply of farm labour must be increased. I heard that opinion expressed in a great many quarters. They seemed to believe that the minister had based his 1943 programme upon the fodder production in Canada last year, though I am not saying that is true.
In conclusion, let me say that the farmer will carry on to the very best of his ability. He realizes that food must be produced for the civilian population, the industrial worker and the members of the three armed services in Canada and out of Canada; and, as I stated the other day, he also knows that we have commitments to our allies both for the period of the war and for the post-war years. The farmer considers that Canada is the country to which the rest of the world will be looking for the food supplies that will be so essential
Supply-Agriculture

during the post-war reconstruction period. He will carry on, but I suggest that the warning sign is displayed right now, and that unless we proceed cautiously and give to agriculture the attention it deserves, very shortly we may be confronted with conditions which will have a detrimental effect upon Canada and upon our war effort.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Apparently there is a disposition on the part of members of the government to attach a new meaning to the word "industry". The hon. member for Red Deer was thrown off his line of thought by the insistence of the ministers upon a certain definition of that word. May I give the definition of "industry" as it appears in the dictionary on the table of the house: "Diligence; habitual employment in useful work; * branch of trade or manufacture." If lumbering activity is not a branch of manufacture, I should like to ask the ministers what it is.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the adjective the hon. member is talking about?


John Horne Blackmore: No; that is the noun. The minister would do well to consult the dictionary once in a while. I have no particular objection to the ordinary free passage of debate. I think it is unfair, though, to have technicalities of that sort brought up to embarrass a member when he is speaking.


Mr. KNOWLES:: There is another matter under the general heading of "administration" in the Department of Agriculture to which I should like to direct the attention of the minister. I had hoped I might be able to bring it to his attention in time, so that he might make some reply to-night. However, I shall call it to his attention, in the hope that he may say something about it later on, during the discussion of the estimates of his department. I refer to the whole question of the use of farm products in an industrial way. I have reference to the production of rubber, and other synthetic materials from products of the farm. This is a matter which is no longer in a theoretical stage, but which is actually capable of being implemented at the present time.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have gone a long way in avoiding the rules in one direction; I hope we shall not start to avoid them in another. This whole question arises under the discussion of the estimate for the experimental farm. I suggest the matter should be discussed when we reach that item.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I believe the point of order is well taken, and the hon. member should wait until that item is reached.


John Horne Blackmore: I wonder if, sir, you would take time to define what we might

discuss under this general heading of "administration"? My impression, from my experience in the house,, is that we have a wide field under this item. When hon. members are discussing the item for administration they may speak in some detail. H it is your desire, sir, to limit the discussion, we ought to know to what extent.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The hon. member for Lethbridge will appreciate that, after all, the committee must discuss all the items in the Department of Agriculture. The matter to which the last speaker referred may arise under some other item. I believe the Chair has been lenient in the matter. Prior to the Easter recess the leader of the opposition deplored the fact that he thought there was something lacking in the deliberations of the committees of the house, in that we have a great deal of repetition. When we find an attempt, to-day and yesterday, to discuss two departments at the same time, we run into some difficulties.


John Horne Blackmore: I was not implying, Mr. Chairman, that you had not managed the committee wisely. At the same time, however, there is doubt in, my mind as to just how far we can go in discussing this topic. I approve the way in which you have allowed the discussion to drift. My experience has been that hon. members who wish to talk will talk themselves out, and when they talk themselves out, they then allow progress. So that they might as well talk themselves out at one time as another.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would the Chairman say on which item it would be possible to discuss the industrial use of agricultural products? Would it come under agricultural chemistry?


James Garfield Gardiner: Work in connection with it is largely carried on at experimental farms. It would be discussed, under the item for experimental farms, or for the administration of science services. A certain part of it would be carried on under that item.


James Lester Douglas: I believe the hon. member for Moose Jaw will have a motion to make in connection with it. Before the committee passes this item, I should like to ask a question. The minister mentioned
175.000	men who have gone from the farms into the mines and logging camps, and who are expected to return. Does that include the 395,000, or is that in addition to the
395.000	who left the farms?


James Garfield Gardiner: As was stated, that is on the first of March. I stated to-night that that is the time when labour on the farm is low.

Questions
I refer to the classification which comes under farm labour, rather than members of farmers' families. That classification is low on March 1. The 250,000 left last fall-or approximately that many. It was expected' that 175,000 at least would return to the farms this spring. They would not be back by March 1. All of them would not be back by that time; some may have been.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it the Chairman's opinion that the matter I sought to discuss might be discussed at the points suggested by the minister?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The hon. member will realize that the Chair has not the right to give a lead in a matter of that kind. But the Minister of Agriculture has stated that hon. members will have an opportunity to discuss the matter the hon. member mentioned a moment ago.


Charles Edward Johnston: I should like to say a few words with respect to this item. However, it is almost eleven o'clock, and I am wondering if it will be all right to adjourn at this time.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Does the hon. member object to passing the item now?


Charles Edward Johnston: Yes; I wish to speak on it before it is passed.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, May 24, 1943