[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day: ,
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): As a private member of this honourable house I rise to a question of privilege for the safeguarding of the rights of parliament.
I hold in my hand Votes and Proceedings No. 92, Friday, June 18, 1943. On the first page there is a letter dated Buckingham Palace, June 8, 1943, and signed A. H. L. Hardinge, [DOT] private secretary to His Majesty. The first paragraph reads:
Dear Mr. Speaker,-The King has received from the High Commissioner for Canada a copy of the resolution adopted by the House of Commons of Canada on the occasion of the official celebration of his birthday.
Privilege-Mr. Pouliot
[Stage Direction]
The High Commissioner for Great Britain in Canada is not a channel of communication, and should not be, between our parliament and His Majesty the King. The only channel of communication is His Excellency the Governor General. As the letter from the king's secretary was sent direct to you, Mr. Speaker, I do not see why in the world our resolution was conveyed to His Majesty by the High Commissioner for Great Britain in Canada. It shows once more that Canada is falling to the rank of a colony. If His Majesty is part of our constitutional system the High Commissioner for Great Britain is not. I hope therefore that in future such communications will be sent either direct to one of the secretaries of His Majesty or through the channel of His Excellency the Governor General, who is the viceroy of His Majesty in Canada.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I think my hon. friend must have mistaken the High Commissioner to whom reference is made. The communication, as I understand, was sent to His Majesty through the High Commissioner for Canada in Great Britain, Mr. Massey, and not through the High Commissioner for the United Kingdom in Canada. That is a method of communication which has been followed at times in the past and will be followed in the future.
There are two methods of communicating with His Majesty the King. One method I have just mentioned, through our High Commissioner in Great Britain. That was the method which as a matter of fact was adopted at the time His Majesty was asked to proclaim a state of war existing between Canada and Germany. The communication from the government of Canada was sent to the High Commissioner to be communicated to His Majesty the King. There are other occasions on which communications are sent through His Excellency the Governor General to His Majesty the King. They may be replied to by the king through his excellency. I assume that His Majesty, in having a communication transmitted direct to the Speaker of the House of . Commons, felt that it would be an additional compliment to the house and adopted that method.


Mr. POULIOT:: If I may be permitted, the High Commissioner for Canada represents the government, not parliament.



FUEL WOOD


[Stage Direction]
On the order for motions:
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: A few days ago I promised to make a statement with regard to the payment of subsidies on wood fuel. In view of the continuing seriousness of the shortage of firewood the government has decided that the period during which a subsidy will be paid on cordwood production shall be extended t'' December 31, 1943.
The original plan for meeting the wood fuel emergency, announced on March 4, called for the payment of $1 subsidy to dealers only on commercial cordwood contracted for and cut on or before June 30, 1943, and delivered to a dealer or held to his account after March 5. Under the extension, the subsidy will be paid on the same basis for cordwood cut on or before December 31.
If they have not already done so dealers in wood fuel should arrange immediately to have wood cut for their account. In addition wherever possible they should make arrangements to purchase slab wood from the sawmills. On such purchases the transportation subsidy, which was also announced on March 4, will be paid if the dealer can show that otherwise he could not obtain wood for his customers.
The transportation subsidy can also apply to cordwood cut on or before December 31, the wood fuel controller having been authorized to pay whatever proportion of the transportation costs he may deem proper. To receive the subsidy the dealer must obtain a permit from the controller before he contracts for the supplies. Both the cutting and transportation subsidies will be made available only to wood fuel dealers registered as such with the wartime prices and trade board.


Mr. TUSTIN:: 
Clarence Decatur Howe: No; it is paid only to registered dealers.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Are steps being taken to see that the subsidy of $1 is passed on by the dealer to the producer of the

Fuel Wood
wood, the man who handles the axe? In my country they are not getting it. I am told by those who are producing in the woods that the $1 per cord is being snapped up by the dealer or the middleman, and the producer is not getting it. That, of course, is wrong.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The man cutting wood and selling direct to the consumer gets the ceiling price for the wood. The dealer must live as *well, and the dealer also can get only the ceiling price for the wood. The purpose of the subsidy is to interest dealers in organizing cutting, and to make it possible for dealers to take part in the solution of this problem. Much of the difficulty last year arose from the fact that the dealers did not operate, because there was no margin left permitting them to do so.


Mr. COLD WELL:: I understand that when the men who have trucks apply for permits to sell wood, after they have cut it, they are compelled to deliver to a dealer, and are not able to collect the $1 subsidy. I think only a few days ago I sent the minister a letter which I had received from Prince George, British Columbia, containing a statement to that effect.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The men cannot receive the subsidy unless they are registered dealers.


Thomas Miller Bell: They cannot get registered.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is a matter between them and the wartime prices and trade board. If they are cutters of wood, selling direct to the trade, they are not entitled to the subsidy.


Thomas Miller Bell: But they are compelled to sell direct to the trade because they cannot get permits. I think that is the point the hon. member for York^Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) has in mind.


Mr. MAYHEW:: What about groups who have organized as self-help organizations in communities in British Columbia where they are cutting wood? Are they entitled to this $1 per cord)?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, they are not. They are cutting wood for themselves; therefore they are not entitled to the subsidy.


Mr. GILLIS:: May I inquire what provincial machinery exists for the administration of this policy with respect to the cutting and distribution of wood), and generally to give effect to the policy announced by the minister? What machinery is set up in each province for that purpose?


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. This matter should not have been brought up under this order; it should have been brought up on the orders of the day. We are on the order for motions just now, and I would ask that the usual procedure be followed.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: Would it be in order
at this time, Mr. Speaker, to ask a further question arising out of the statement by the Minister of Munitions and Supply in respect to wood fuel?


Thomas Vien: It has been customary to allow a question for the elucidation of reports made by ministers. But I would point out that this is not a subject of debate.


John George Diefenbaker: The situation in parts of northern Saskatchewan is that there is a great deal of cordwood and wood for fuel available, but the farmers and settlers are unable to finance the work required to get it out. When the matter was before the house on another occasion I suggested to the minister that some financial assistance might be given to these producers to assist them in getting out the fuel. The minister said the matter had been under advisement. I would ask him now whether a policy has been adopted under which financial advances are allowed, secured in a proper way. I feel that in this way a large amount of Wood could be made available.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The point raised by the hon. member explains exactly why we are trying to put the dealers in business. It is the duty of the dealers to finance that sort of cutting, and they are doing it, all over the country. I am sure if my hon. friend will ask for the cooperation of the dealers in his area and advise them where help is needed, he will find them ready to finance the operations.


Clarence Gillis: What machinery is provided in the respective provinces to give direction to this policy? There is considerable confusion. Many letters are being written, and apparently no one knows what the regulations are. I do not know what machinery is provided under which one can ask dealers, or those wishing to cut fuel, to apply this policy.


Clarence Decatur Howe: In each city there is an office of the wartime prices and trade board. If those desiring information will apply to the nearest office of the wartime prices and trade board, they will get the information they require.


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: The minister said it was up to the dealers to look after the cutting of the wood. I know three
8EVISED EDITION
Questions

dealers in my riding who were unable to supervise the cutting of fuelwood this past winter because they could not obtain gasoline to go to their woodlots. In my constituency most of those woodlots are situated about forty miles from the city of Peterborough, and it is necessary that the wood dealers visit the lots at least once a week to pay their men and to lay out the work. Could the minister extend a little more leeway to the dealers by way of gasoline allowances?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Every man who owns an
automobile in this country on April 1 was given a book of coupons entitling him to gasoline. I cannot understand this great and acute shortage of gasoline that is so often referred to in the house.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: From the minister's
previous statement I understood the subsidy was to be passed on to the producers. Do I understand the dealer is now to get the subsidy?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think I have just explained that.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Would not the minister
reconsider his statement regarding those cutting wood labelling themselves as self-help? The term "self-help" is a misnomer so far as their efforts are concerned. They are cutting wood for those who are unable to get out and cut wood themselves. They have organized themselves to cut the wood, and they are entitled to justice just as much as those who are cutting it and expecting to make a profit out of it. They have equipment to buy, they have transportation to provide, and those expenditures are made out of their own pockets, They are as much entitled to it as those who call themselves dealers. I would point out further that I find, on reading to-day's press, that there are some who are setting themselves up as wood dealers, accepting orders and payment for orders, without any wood to fill them. I question whether they will be able to fill some of the orders, and I suggest the minister should look into the matter.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I was not very much taken with the minister's answer with respect to gasoline. Surely he must have misunderstood me.


Thomas Vien: Order; sufficient explanation has been given in the matter.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	Are there any known deposits of tin in Manitoba? If so, who owns the same?
2.	What companies,in Canada are engaged in the mining and/or processing of tin?


Mr. CRERAR:: 1.	There are several known occurrences of tin minerals in Manitoba. Authoritative information concerning the ownership of these occurrences is available only in the department of mines and natural resources of Manitoba.
2.	The Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company of Canada, Limited, is the only company mining and processing tin ore in Canada, the very small tin-mineral content of the silver-lead^zinc ore of the Sullivan mine at Kimberley, British Columbia, being recovered as a by-product during milling and concentration.


BEET SUGAR ACREAGE
Mr. HANSELL:: 1.	What was the total sugar beet acreage in Canada for the years 1933 to 1943?
2.	What was the total production from sugar beets for the years 1933 to 1943?
3.	What was the total sugar production from cane or imported raw sugar for the years 1933 to 1943?


Mr. ABBOTT:: 1.	Ontario	Alberta	Manitoba	Total(acres)	(acres)	(acres)	(acres)1933 	29,852	13,955	43,8071934 	24,370	14,464	38,8341935 	37,999	14,464	52,4621936 	32,094	19,281	51,3751937 	23,939	19,983	43,9221938 	25,538	19,559	45,0971939 	35,851	21,774	57,6251940 	38,010	23,964	18,269	80,2431941	30,107	23,908	16,755	70,7701942 	20,739	27,823	14,782	63,3441943 (est.)	16,440	30,121	16,454	63,015
Note.-Planting in Ontario for 1943 has not been completed. The estimate given is for acreage contracted but present indications are that actual plantings will be considerably less and may not exceed 9,000 acres.
2. 1933, 123,350,000; 1934, 107,141,000; 1935, 129,785,000; 1936, 134,712,000; 1937, 109,017,000;

Alaska Highway
1938, 14S,836,000; 1939, 168,715,000; 1940, 197,770,000; 1941, 197,365,000; 1942, 184,495,000.
Note.-The figures for 1943 cannot be given since no beet sugar is produced before September. The latest estimate of production is 160,000,000 pounds.
3.	1933, 749,775.000; 1934, 784,227,000; 1935, 820.549,000; 1936,923,930,000; 1937,859,699,000; 1938, 903,398,000; 1939, 994,544,000; 1940, 957,032,000; 1941, 954,423,000; 1942, 633,962,000.
Note.-Figures for 1943 would be for five months only and would not necessarily be an indication of production for the whole year. Present estimate of requirements, 690,000,000 pounds.


SUGAR RATIONING-WESTMOUNT, QUE.
Mr. FOURNIER (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: 1.	Have some persons in the city of West-mount been allowed a quota of thirteen pounds of sugar?
2.	Has distribution been made of the 617,000 pounds of sugar stated to have been held in reserve?
3.	If so, on what basis, and to whom?


Mr. ABBOTT:: 1.	Yes. Westmount is included in local ration area M-2, which comprises the city of Westmount, the village of Cote St. Luc and the towns of Hamstead and Montreal West. Each local ration board was allotted home canning sugar on the basis of 111 - 34 pounds per applicant. The distribution of this sugar was left to the discretion of the local ration board in each case. Some boards filled all applications under ten pounds and then distributed the surplus amongst the applicants who had asked for more than this figure. Since a certain number of citizens of the village of Cote St. Luc, the towns of Hampstead and Montreal West and the city of Westmount applied for and received considerably less than ten pounds each, the surplus was divided among the remainder of the population of the municipalities of this local ration area.
2.	Yes.
3.	There were 239,360 misdirected applications reported after local ration boards had submitted their returns. As the applications had been dispatched on time but received at the respective local ration boards too late to be included in their report, it was decided that sugar should be' provided in these cases accordingly. 2,293,600 pounds were allowed to the various local ration boards who reported these late applicants. This included the 617,000 pounds of sugar held in reserve.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. CASTLEDEN:: '
1.	What companies have received contracts for the supplying of gasoline, oil, and other petroleum products for the servicing of No. 5 air observer school at Winnipeg?
2.	What are the names of the local agents of each of the above companies?
3.	What is the total value and quantity of petroleum products covered by these contracts?
4.	What was the date of the signing of these contracts?


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: Has the Minister of Munitions and Supply received a request from the employees of the Toronto Shipbuilding company for an investigation of the conditions existing in that shipyard; and, if so, what steps is the government taking to conduct an inquiry?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have no knowledge of any such inquiry or demand.


Gordon Graydon: Will the minister make some investigation in his department to see if that demand has been received, and perhaps he will give me an answer later.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have already made an investigation in the department, and no such der-mand has been received.


Gordon Graydon: There has been no communication between the employees and the department on this point?


Clarence Decatur Howe: So I am informed.


ALASKA HIGHWAY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Burpee Hanson: I would ask the Prime Minister if at some time before the end of the session he would make a general statement with respect to the posN tion in the Northwest Territories with respect to the Alaska highway and kindred subjects. In order to be specific I shall place on Hansard what I have in mind.
Will the Prime Minister make a general statement or table the agreement between,
War Appropriation-Labour

Canada and the United States covering the position of the latter as to its use of or interest in the Alaska Highway after the war? Will the Prime Minister make a similar statement or table the agreement as to the ownership, the interest in and use of the pipeline from the Fort Norman oil fields to the refinery at White Horse and in the refinery; the amount of money involved in the construction of the pipeline and the oil refinery? Will title to the land through which the pipeline runs be alienated to the United States or to any company, or will it remain the property of Canada? Will individuals or companies other than Imperial Oil have the use of the pipeline after the war?
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Prime Minister): I am obliged (to my hon. friend for letting me know the nature of the questions to which he wishes replies. I shall seek at a later time to give him the information.


SAINT JOHN THE BAPTIST'S DAY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ELIE O. BERTRAND (Prescott): Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw the attention of the house to a special event. We are celebrating to-day the French Canadians' patron saint's day; that is to say, the feast of Saint John the Baptist. We crave his protection for the members of our armed forces who are fighting ini the air, on land and at sea, and we beseech his help in behalf of racial unity and good government in this country.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, June 23, 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. illsley-Mr. Bradette in the chair.

The CHAIRMAN:: I should like to make a brief statement. When we adjourned last night the parliamentary secretary to the minister mentioned the fact that the list of items appearing in Hansard of March 3, 1943, page 923, would be used as the estimates for the Department of Labour in the consideration of this measure. No item was called yesterday. I therefore call the first item.

Labour; war emergency training programme, administration $48,000; payments to the provinces re training for skilled and semi-skilled occupations connected with war work, $5,200,000; payments to the provinces re training for aircraft manufacturing and ground mechanics, $1,950,000-$7,198,000.


Mr. McIVOR:: Mr. Chairman-


Mr. CHURCH:: Last night I had not concluded my remarks. It was after eleven o'clock, and I ask for another ten minutes.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: In the month of February I had


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) had not concluded his address.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Chairman, I understand we are not yet to be excluded from dealing generally with these items. I understand, too, that the hon. member for Broadview had not concluded his speech last night, and it is only fair that he go on to-day.


Thomas Langton Church: Last night I was about to speak until a few minutes after eleven o'clock-


Jean-François Pouliot: The leader of the opposition said that there might be exclusion. There can be nothing of the sort. We have no reason to be excluded from discussing matters like this.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The point raised by the leader of the opposition was that the hon. member for Broadview had spoken only thirty minutes when we reached adjournment last night at eleven o'clock.


Richard Burpee Hanson: A further point is that the general discussion had not been concluded.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I did not say that the general discussion had been concluded, and I believe it is in order to call an item, as I have done.


Jean-François Pouliot: I did not say "concluded"; I said "excluded."


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Chairman, I spoke last evening at the request of some hon. gentlemen who had a dinner engagement. I did not want to take part in the debate; far from it. I have no quarrel whatever with the present minister, but I raised the question of manpower before the war. The government's policy on man-power and the way it has been handled is everything by fits and starts and nothing long. We have had a different policy for every province in the country. We have done nothing about the greatest problem that faces this country. We need sufficient fuel

War Appropriation-Labour
and coal to supply the needs for nine months of the year because by the middle of September, within two or three months, we will have to be opening up our fires again. Where is the coal to come from?
In 1917 we had some trouble about manpower and a coal famine in the Toronto district. There is also the question of what is non-essential and what is essential industry. You cannot solve this man-power problem with statistics and blue books. Labour is a human commodity and it has been mishandled by five or six ministers since the war began. This is not the first time I have spoken on this question. I do not know where we are going to be next fall or wfinter. Last evening the deputy leader of the Social Credit group made reference to this particular question. Next winter we are going to face one of the greatest disasters this country has ever had if we do not have fuel. People will be freezing in their homes. There is a lack of proper housing and people will not only be without homes, they will be without fires. Many of them will suffer the natural consequences.
I think I have been around the city of Toronto more than anyone else and I know what is going on. On January 6, 1940, I saw hundreds of youths trying to get into the army. It was almost sixteen degrees below zero and all some of them had on was a sweater with no coat. They were freezing outside the Toronto armouries and many of them had not a cent to buy any food. Some of the local agencies had to provide lunches for them. Only three or four years before that some of them were riding the rods all over the country looking for work, and then most of them went into the war. Is that the way to treat labour? Here we are now near the end of the fourth year of the war; compulsory selective service should have been started before the war began.
In 1937 and 1938 I proposed a national selective compulsory service ' register with survey of industry, a domesday book of every man, woman and child in the country, our man-power, our industrial power, our economic and food power and all those things. But nothing was done about it. That is what happened in the fall of 1940 and into the beginning of 1941. What happened then? The same policy-men not wanted; recruiting lagged. As I said, it was far easier to get into the Rideau club where there is a long waiting list than into the army. Last evening we were very sorry that many of our friends on the other side were not present. I do not know where the hon. gentlemen to my left were. There is no country
party in this country such as they have in Australia, but we have a fine country club, and at eleven o'clock last night I proposed that the rest of us might just as well adjourn to the country club and carry on our discussions there.
We have a so-called compulsory system. I do not blame the present minister for what has happened, because I doubt if they could have got anyone else to carry the burden he has assumed. I would like to see his estimates go through quickly. I think it would be better to follow the policy we followed two years ago in connection with the appropriation bill, that is, allow those who have objections to say a few words on general policy and then let the items go through as quickly as possible. I have great respect for the minister and his deputy and his many assistants, but I am greatly disappointed in the whole man-power problem, especially when I go into the departmental stores, the retail stores and other small stores and see what they are up against. If all this red tape and rules and other things was going to help to win the war there would not be one word of objection in this house. But with our heavy taxation and all these regulations I fail to see how this new man-power will aid either peace or war.
I should like to deal for a moment with the question of the youths of 16, 17 and 18 years of age. What is the use of sending them to cut down our tall timber? The government has needed a lot of timber since the war started for the many different platforms on labour they have had. No doubt additional timber is needed, not only in the cabinet but for the platforms which will be constructed out of the numerous impossible proposals which they have put forth across this country. They are going to try to convert high school pupils into backwoodsmen, like the brave men who opened up this country long before we had such a system. What is going to happen when they do fell the timber? Where are the transportation facilities to cut the timber or to haul it away? How are you going to get it to the cities and towns?
I can remember when ninety per cent of the homes of Toronto burned wood which was brought in by the Nipissing railroad. But conditions have changed. There are many features to this fuel problem. The wood will have to be distributed. Just try now to get ' a bit of kindling wood. That is impossible, so where are you to get the heavier wood? You could not get it last winter, so where will you get it this coming winter? There
War Appropriation-Labour

will be no wood to burn and the people will just freeze to death. And all we do is just talk about it. This is the ninety-sixth day of the session and we have done nothing but talk about a coal supply.
Two weeks ago the mining, production and distribution of coal was made a national selective industry, but nothing has been done since. We had lots of coal before the war. Some of the mines were running only half time. Toronto spent $30,009,000 on making a harbour and was able to bring in 700,000 tons of coal through the ship channel in Ashbridge's bay. If it had not been for that, I do not know what would have happened last winter. The government is going to use high school pupils. The same trouble occurred last summer. You, Mr. Chairman, have taken a great deal of interest in the secondary schools in your riding. Nobody would engage the youths last summer. Under Mr. Elliott Little's administration the school boards were [DOT]notified that these pupils were needed on the 'farms, in what they called an essential industry.
This listing of certain former essential industries as non-essential industries is just ridiculous in my opinion, and I feel I am entitled to my own opinion. I have had some experience in these matters in the city of Toronto. In Hamilton, Toronto and other centres of population in Canada many industries now listed as non-essential are essential in the opinion of those who know more about it than the bureau of statistics and the other collectors of labour information we have had during this war. Tons and tons of information listed were deposited in the archives before the present minister came into the department. They go on to refer to school teachers. I can tell you this, that the board of education returns show that 236 school teachers enlisted for the war, but only about twenty-two of them are overseas. How many of them are doing so-called war work just at home in Canada and in physical training work, and is that an essential or a non-essential industry? Others are engaged in local sports activities and similar operations which I would not consider especially valuable or essential in the winning of the war.
Our position is by no means the same as that of England. Transfers in the northern counties of England as at the time of the industrial revolution seldom involved movements of more than sixty to a hundred miles; and similarly it is all right to transfer people from Hamilton to Toronto or other limited distances; but when you start transferring people
(Mr. Church.]
from non-essential to essential industries from Vancouver to Halifax, and taking them out of industry in the cities of Ontario, which already are bled pretty well white through voluntary enlistments, it is another matter. I say to the government, do not legislate against human nature. Last evening I was referring to the bureau at 174 Spadina avenue. I got Elliott Little to open up another one on Grenville and Bay streets; overflowing with men and women and younger people for days and weeks during the heat of last September; they could get no valid information where to go or what to do. A huge bungle went on in that connection; a great number of the members of the staff could have been dispensed with. How did they get there? Many of them, I was told, were appointed on the nomination of government members of parliament; I am not blaming them for getting what they could.
In my opinion the whole programme of manpower has been a mistake from first to last. One would have no objection if this complex system assisted in the winning of the war, but that is not so; there is no equality of service, no equality of sacrifice, no attempt to get it, and it cannot be got now. The Minister of National Defence for the army has told us that this rationing of labour is only beginning. We may wait until doomsday before our manpower resources are dealt with properly and equitably under this system. I am not blaming the permanent officials; they are victims of the system; they have been asked to take up work which no human being could make a success of. I referred last night to the splendid deputy minister and the services he has carried on in other directions. But I do not believe that in the fourth year of the war we can continue as we are now doing. Agriculture has been pretty well taken care of. No small part of the high school population is now on the farms. But the first essential to-day is to win the war, and it cannot be won without soldiers. Wars are won by soldiers, sailors and airmen, they are not won on the farm. True it is that the armed forces need food and other supplies. But the government is far from adopting the practical policies of the mother country, where women have been doing far more essential work than they have been called upon to do here. In the matter of labour, farmers have received a fairly substantial allotment of man-power during the past year. I am strong for the farmers as well; I know the laborious conditions under which they carry on; but how are we going to win the war without men to fight the battles on land, on sea and in the air? The winning of the war by this indispensable means is primary; every-

War Appropriation-Labour
thing else is secondary, although agriculture from time immemorial has been an essential industry, and has been rightly so regarded.
I wish the minister all success in his work, and I do not want to be unfair to him. He has taken up a burden which I do not believe under the circumstances can be successfully discharged. Figures are all very well, but no law which runs counter to human nature can be enforced, either in Canada or in the United States. I say this as a warm friend of labour: I have been connected with labouring people all my life, and one of the things I value most is that in my public career I have always managed to retain the respect and the support of the overwhelming number of industrial workers in the province to which I belong.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Early in February I stood in my seat and related the various stages through which the Minister of Labour has passed in order that he might learn something of his fellow man, of the difficulties of the toiler and the troubles through which he passes. Since then I have been watching this young parliamentarian, and yesterday I had the great satisfaction of seeing him arrive at true parliamentary manhood. What a credit his speech of yesterday was to the Department of Labour! You will notice that he did not say "I did it," but, like the little fellow who helped to blow the organ, he said "We did it," meaning himself and his departmental workers. I was reading this morning the story of a clearheaded, vigorous reformer who sat in the gates of Jerusalem and told the citizens the things that they must do. It was not a very popular proceeding, and our friend found himself in the stocks in a dark prison. When the present Minister of Labour spoke in January last he was not held in high repute. But stage by stage since that time he has been coming to the front, and to-day I am going to show you that when I spoke of him in February it was not, as somebody said, an obituary notice which I was giving, but an introduction of something worth while to follow.
Few of the men who serve labour but find at certain stages of their lives that their work is not appreciated, and it was perhaps not surprising to learn, as we did over the radio last night, that the labour government of Australia is not popular even with its own supporters and may have to go to the country. I regretted this, because, like some other hon. members here, there and over yonder, I am greatly interested in the man who toils, not by way of something I got out of a book but from what I have derived from experience in trying to look after those who toil and who have missed their chance in life.
I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, that labour itself is not united all over Canada. I would have to ask the Minister of Labour how many labour organizations there are in Canada, and how they love each other. I would say very kindly to labour: if you are going to speak to the Minister of Labour in this house, speak with one voice, drown your difficulties, follow the master workman and begin to practise the golden rule; then you will find that labour in Canada will go places not only in its own interests but for the good of industry as well.
The Minister of Labour has served well, and I must say that he caught my fancy not long ago when, in imagination, whether it is true or not, I saw him, as the Prime Minister asked him "Have you any great men in labour whom you would recommend for the king's honours?" reply, "I know some great men in labour, but there is one man who stands out conspicuously in the movement, a man who dedicated his life to labour and has given great services and literally worn himself out, so that while his mind is still clear his body is not able to carry him into active service." And when I found, in the list of those who were recommended, probably by the Minister of Labour, the name of Tom Moore, I said "Thank goodness the Minister of Labour is putting into the front rank men who are worthy"; and Tom Moore has his honours. Some people may say that Tom Moore has no blue blood in his veins, but I say, Mr. Chairman, that he has good red, honest blood in his veins, and is fit to associate with the cream of the land. If the Minister of Labour has done nothing else, I thank him for having put labour on the map in this way.
I was pleased to hear what the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) said yesterday about the labour minister. My hon. friend has a lot of good Scotch sense and it came to the top yesterday when he said: I do not want to change labour ministers. I think he is right too. Let my hon. friend from Cape Breton South follow that up and watch the Minister of Labour, just as I too will keep my eye on him.
The Minister of Labour first came to my notice in connection with the labour camps that were established in Canada, for a temporary purpose only, by the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, and I admit that they served a good purpose. But afterwards they became nests of discontent, and then it was time to put them out of business. That is when the Minister of Labour first came to my notice, and he did his part at that time and did it well. He disbanded those labour camps and saw to it that those who were confined
War Appropriation-Labour

in them were accorded the full privileges of citizenship. From that time on he was called upon to be the "trouble shooter" of the Department of Labour, which was then under the present Secretary of State.
Another of the minister's successful assignments was the organization in February, 1941, of the national joint conference board of the building and construction industry under the auspices of the national labour supply council, on which he was serving as secretary, having been appointed by the then Minister of Labour, the present Secretary of State (Mr. McLarty). This conference was constituted on the basis of equal representation of employers and employees, and functioned successfully as a national body to adjust wages and working conditions until superseded by the national war labour board. The conference was such a conspicuous success that the Ottawa Journal commented editorially on it as follows:
Unique in the history of industrial relations in Canada, and heartening, is a conference being held here in Ottawa this week. It is a gathering of representatives of workers and employers in the building and construction industry; its purpose to agree upon a way to strengthen this country's war effort.
It is not, therefore, just another conference. Here are the men sitting down together to discuss, frankly, points of friction that arise inevitably in an emergency programme and that cut across normal ideas of "rights" and "privileges"-men preparing to sink differences; to cope as best they can with unusual problems; to impose discipline for united effort towards victory.
Under the impact of war more and more men are employed on labour work than ever before in the history' of Canada, and when men are working long hours and their friends and companions are across the sea fighting for their country, their nerves are just a little on edge; they are hard to handle, and friction easily develops.
I said the other day that you know when there is a strike, but you do not know how many strikes might have been which did not develop through proper action being taken to prevent them. The Minister of Labour was appointed chairman of the industrial disputes inquiry commission, a sort of flying squadron to nip incipient labour trouble and keep the assembly lines rolling. How successful the present Minister of Labour was in his role as chairman is indicated by the fact that out of fifty-two tough disputes, involving more than 52,000 employees, which were referred to the commission, that body under his chairmanship, was directly responsible for settling twenty-three and indirectly

responsible for the adjustment of twenty-two others. In all these fifty-two disputes there was only one strike, and it was of short duration.
I know what happened in war industry at the head of the lakes. It seemed that two strikes must come there, but both these disputes were settled, and I am grateful to the Minister of Labour for not standing back and saying: It is all right,- do not bother your head, everything will come out all right. The minister did not stand back, of course. He played the man and there was no strike at the head of the lakes. The workers, I think, did not want a strike.
Here is an order in council which the Minister of Labour had passed. It is one with which I agree thoroughly, P.C.8253, which launched the policy of wage control. Here it is in the words of the order itself:
Any agreement so modified and other condition of work otherwise suspended in the interests of war production shall be fully restored on the termination of the present war.
There is not a labour man in this house who will say that if labour has given up anything to help the war effort it will not get it back, perhaps with a little interest, after the war. I would say, in the words of the old book, give it back fourfold, because the workers in the unions have not everything rosy.
I am grateful to the minister for the organization of this national war labour board. I also want to congratulate the minister on the appointment of Mr. M. M. Maclean, one of the founders of the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway Employees, as director of the industrial relations branch of the Department of Labour. There is a man, not from the head of some great legal firm, but a man from the ranks of labour who knows what labour is. If there is any labour organization in Canada that does not appreciate that sort of appointment, I wonder what labour men are thinking about. The minister fully recognizes what a man has to put up with when he is working, what he has to contend with in his mind and in his body. There is the necessity of taking care of his health, taking care of his folks and providing proper housing for his family. Of course, I admit that it would have been of advantage to have a real live clergyman on the national war labour board, a man who looks to the other side of life, and I think that is needed; for to-day we find labour organizations sometimes holding their meetings on the sabbath day. They have six days a week to work and one day to rest. They have eight hours a day to work, eight hours to play, and

War Appropriation-Labour
eight hours to sleep, and they should have brains enough to keep one day in seven for rest and to worship the Master Workman, and in that way eome back to work with a happy heart on Monday morning. I say to members of this parliament, too, that the sabbath day is no day for political meetings. I will have none of it. If they want me to speak on the sabbath day I am going to give them the same stuff that I would give my people from the pulpit, and it would do them good. The members of this house, no matter to which body they belong, should not hold political meetings on the sabbath day, and my remarks now are directed just as much to the Liberal party as to any other party. Let us keep the sabbath day as a day of rest. If you break the law, the great Law Giver will measure you up. Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy. If you do not, the punishment will be yours, and you cannot get away from it. Break the civic laws of Ottawa and the Ottawa police get after you, but their punishment is not half as sure as that of the great Law Giver.
An order was passed recently which is one more indication of the minister's consistent effort to protect the worker and to assure him of a square deal. A fine has been authorized for employers who discriminate against workers on account of union activity. The fine is $500 for each day on which such an employer fails to comply with that ministerial order.
I wish to express to the minister my appreciation of his growth. I hope he will not feel too big for his job but will remain humble; and, as I said in February, I hope he will take his cue from the best workman this world has ever known.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have just two questions to ask the minister. First, what is the occupation that is considered most important by the national selective service for a young man who is physically fit and of military age?


Mr. MITCHELL :: If he is physically fit and of military age he should be in the armed forces unless he has a trade or calling of such a degree of essentiality that he should be left in civilian life. I say that as a result of my own personal experience in the last war. The strong men should go to war; they should be in the armed forces to defend our way of life, unless they follow a calling that is essential in the commercial, industrial or agricultural industries.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the minister for his answer, but he did not meet the point I raised. My question is very simple: What is the most
important occupation for a man of military age and of physical fitness? That is the question.


Humphrey Mitchell: I think I have answered it. If my hon. friend wants me to give advice on a trade or calling I will do so if I know the man and know the circumstances, but I say that the duty of a physically fit man is to defend his country.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the minister, but the answer shows what is wrong with national selective service, and I have stated it before. There is a gradation of equality in essential industries. What is the use of putting a boy in the army if the R.C.A.S.C. trucks are empty? Therefore it is useless to discuss national selective service unless it is admitted, not only by the minister himself but by all members of the government, that agriculture, the railway industry, the lumber industry, about which we hear so much, the mining industry and fisheries are on an equal footing with the army. So long as the government considers that the first duty of a physically fit man of military age is to join the army, national selective service is doomed. It cannot work. What I say may sound strange. Just a minute ago I heard members from rural constituencies, who will support postponement for training for farmers, saying, "hear, hear", when the minister made a reply. It shows that they do not realize the importance of agriculture, they do not realize the importance of the lumber industry, they do not realize the importance of the railway business, and they do not realize the importance of mining and fisheries.
Of course, there has been a glamour around the soldier from the start. I am all for the soldier, the sailor and the airman, but on the other hand the men in the army should be protected; and what better way is there of protecting them than to keep them supplied with food and clothing and munitions? If a young man is a good tool worker and has experience and ability in that field, and if he is called to the army, his duty is not to go into the army but to a munitions plant; similarly, if there is a farmer whose farm will be closed if he joins the army he should stay on the farm.
Some progress has been made by the national selective service boards, at least in the city of Quebec-to some extent though not entirely-with regard to farmers who have done their training. But as regards farmers who are in the army for their training or who have completed part of their training, it is difficult to get them out by reason of the statement made last year by the Minister

War Appropriation-Labour

of National Defence, which was corroborated this year by the Minister of National Defence for Air. They said, "We are not having men in the army and in the air force to become farmers". That is not the question. In the army there are men who are badly needed on the farm and they cannot get out. I do not put the blame on, the minister alone; I do not put the blame on anyone. I simply want the government to understand that a farmer is just as essential in war-time as a soldier, and a railway man just as essential as both; and so long as they fail to dissipate the halo of glory that surrounds just one head we shall have trouble with national selective service. I say' that in the best possible spirit, because I have tried to have a system of national selective service put into operation from the start, before it was put into legislation.
I did not wish to speak at any length on this question but I have put my position clearly before the minister. If the Department of Labour and national selective service are just ante-rooms to national defence, with the lowest number of young men there, less than in the air force and in the navy, we shall have trouble, and the fuel and wood business will be discussed every day. We shall hear more and more about the coal business, the fisheries and so on.
I hope that the minister will not be actuated by what was described last year by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres as fear of a vote of censure from the opposition, for the establishment of conscription. What is the duty of the government? To govern is to foresee, and the trouble we have now could have been foreseen if there had, not been so much drum-beating at the wrong time. What I say now is simply for the protection of young men in any branch of the armed forces as well as for the protection of the civilian population.
I hope that members will be able to get a copy of the instructions that have been, forwarded by the government or the minister to the national selective service. There is apparently only one in which it is said that the farmer is protected; we had no such circular from the army and we cannot get it. Their orders are secret most of the time and it is impossible for us to get them, but I hope the minister will realize his duty is not only to fill requisitions from the Department of National Defence. It is a department which should see to it that everything runs smoothly in this country in war time as well as in peace time; and he will be able to 
do that so long as he does not remain subservient to his colleague the Minister of National Defence.


Mr. KNOWLES:: There are two specific matters to which I should like to make particular reference this afternoon, but before doing so there are a few comments of a general nature I should like to make. I confess that I was amazed yesterday afternoon, listening to the speech of the Minister of Labour, that during practically two hours, with the exception of a sentence or two, he found it possible almost completely to ignore matters of labour policy such as the right to organize and collective bargaining-


Humphrey Mitchell: If I might say a word,-


Stanley Howard Knowles: although he did say the right to organize was fundamental.


Humphrey Mitchell: I did say a word in that regard, either to the hon. member for Cape Breton South or to the hon. member for Vancouver East. I know my hon. friend wants to make a speech, and I do not care much what kind of speech he makes-


Mr. BENCE:: You did not like people interrupting you.


Humphrey Mitchell: If the hon. gentleman will stand up and say what he wishes to say-


Alfred Henry Bence: Very well. When the hon. member for Lake Centre asked the minister a perfectly simple question, which should have been answered but which has not been answered yet, the minister became rather rough with the hon. member, to the accompaniment of applause from the government benches, and refused to answer the question, saying that he did not want anyone interjecting remarks or questions while he was making a speech. Yet he is continually getting up when other hon. members are trying to make speeches. I suggest to the minister that he should remain in his seat while hon. members who want to make speeches say what they wish to say.


Mr. REID:: As one who interrupts perhaps less than any other hon. member, except those who remain silent all the time, I want to say that it has always been the custom for any minister to correct' what he thinks is a misstatement right at the time it is made.
I think hon. members generally recognize that this has been the custom in this house.


Humphrey Mitchell: I just wanted to point out, in order to keep the record straight-

War Appropriation-Labour


Stanley Howard Knowles: I know what you are going to say.


Humphrey Mitchell: I just want to say it. These are not my departmental estimates, and there is no appropriation here covering the subjects about which my hon. friend is going to speak; that is all. I do not object to what he is going to say; but while I did not say much about collective bargaining, I think I said enough.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When the minister interrupted me a moment or two ago I was in the middle of a sentence and was going on to refer to the fact that the answer he has just given to this criticism was voiced also last evening to one or other of the members of this group, namely that his reason for not discussing trade union organization or collective bargaining at this time was that these matters should be discussed when we come to deal with the civil estimates of the Department of Labour. My reason for mentioning what I consider to be the significant omission in this regard is that to me the very fact that there is no place in the war estimates of the Department of Labour for the discussion of these matters indicates the failure of the government to realize the importance of trade union organization and collective bargaining in relation to war-time efficiency and morale. My point is that when we are dealing with the relationship between the Department of Labour and the war there ought to be a place for a discussion of these very important matters.
I realize that whenever we raise our voices in the midst of war for an extension of the right of trade union organization and an extension of the principle of collective bargaining, it is said in some quarters that labour is demanding a price for its cooperation in the war effort. This is said by the same people who express the view that labour should accept a truce, as it were; that it should be satisfied to maintain things as they are, and should not use the war as a means of extending its rights and privileges. That objection reveals a total misunderstanding both of the aims of organized labour and of the philosophy of trade union organization and collective bargaining. I think perhaps I can best express those aims and that philosophy by saying that in the view of those of us in this group there are two main reasons for our insistence that trade union organization and collective bargaining should be extended in time of war. The first of these reasons is that there may be
the most efficient production; that our working men and women may have the consciousness that it is their work they are doing and that, as a result of that consciousness, they will really produce to the limit of their capacity. Britain has been referred to time and again in this connection, and the references are deserved. We know that over there the principle of the effective say by labour in the conduct of the affairs of industry is an established right. We know that as a result of the voice labour has been given all down the line in Britain, we have a truly remarkable story as far as war production is concerned.
Many of the problems that are with us in this country are handled much more expeditiously in Britain than in Canada because the workers themselves are in charge of the matters in connection with which problems arise. One instance that was brought to my attention not so long ago was the problem of absenteeism, which concerns the authorities a great deal in this country. The only way we seem to be able to deal with it is by methods of law and attempts on the part of the authorities to put a stop to it if at all possible. It is my understanding that in Britain men who are guilty of unreasonable absenteeism are dealt with by their own fellow workmen through the medium of the shop organizations. As a matter of fact the way in which their fellow workmen deal with them is perhaps more severe than is the case in this country, but the result is a great deal less absenteeism there than we have here. So it is with the matter of getting people to do extra work after the regular hours in their particular line of work are over. Labour, the actual working people, are conscious of the fact, in their shops, in their organizations throughout industry, in the say they have on the various boards, and the fact that they have a labour man in the ministry of labour, that not only is it a people's war over there, but that it is a people's industry, and accordingly they are putting everything they have into it. In my view they take this attitude very largely because of the consciousness that it is their country and their work that they are carrying on, and that they control. I feel keenly that labour in this country, in asking for an extension of the right of trade union organization, the principle of collective bargaining and representation on war boards, is sincerely and genuinely seeking these things because it is deeply interested in the outcome of the war, and because it feels that if it had these things it could produce to a much greater extent and
72537-253J
War Appropriation-Labour

in a much more, efficient manner than it does at present. I assert most definitely that it is not at all true to imply that labour is trying to use the war as a means of increasing its own advantage. Labour is by no means merely asking a price for its cooperation, but is genuinely interested in the best and most efficient ways of industrial production.
The second reason why labour is seeking an extension of the right of trade union pr-ganization and the principle of collective bargaining is that there may be in this country a real experience of democracy. We say again and again that out of this war there must come a wider extension of the principle of democracy. That means something more than words. It is a fact that in this country we have political democracy; while we have a few abuses in it, we have political democracy and we are proud of it. If we are going to extend democracy it means infusing that principle into certain other phases of our national life. One of the phases into which it is most important that the principle of democracy be infused is that of the relations between workers and owners of industries, and the whole conduct of industry itself. At the present time less than twenty per cent-and that figure is on the safe side-of industrial workers in Canada are organized. In other words less than twenty iper cent, so far as industry is concerned, know anything of the actual practice of the principle of democracy.
In recent months and years we have done a great deal of thinking about democracy, and I think we are coming to realize that if it means anything it means the control by the people of the things which affect their daily lives. While the people of Canada exercise considerable control over the things which affect their lives, through their right to elect their political representatives, we must face the fact that for thousands of our people, particularly those in industry, the most outstanding phase of their lives, the part of their living which is uppermost with them, is their day-to-day work. And if domocracy is to mean anything to them, it is in that day-to-day work in industry that they should have some voice and some control. If we are to get anywhere with the idea of extending democracy in the post-war world, I submit it must take place in the field of industry.
May I make it perfectly clear that my references to the post-war world do not mean that we can wait until the war is over to achieve this experience of democracy on the part of industrial workers. If we are to have any real faith that this is a war for democracy, 
and if our people are to have any real faith in the democratic process itself, I suggest that now, when they are hard at work in industry, working in a great cause, is the time that our workers should be getting this experience. We in the House of Commons who are so loyal to the ideals and principles of democracy, and who are so tremendously anxious that there shall be no set-back to democracy when the war is over, should be most keen to see to it that our people, our workers-the same is true of our farmers-should have actual experience in the control of the things which affect their daily lives.
Because of the sacrifices involved in the present war our workers have been doing a great deal of thinking. They are working hard. Those in industry have their sons and brothers in the armed forces. They are not in two different groups at all; they are all intermingled in our society. And as they do the things which the sacrifices of this war demand, they are realizing more and more that if it is democracy we are fighting for we ought to 'be getting some experience in it now. We ought to be having an experience which will increase our faith in the democratic process.
I submit that for this reason, as well as for the reason that it would be a much more efficient way of bringing about a maximum war production, our workers are on sound ground and are perfectly right in insisting upon an extension of the right of organization and the principle of collective bargaining. Just to make myself perfectly clear, perhaps I should say that when we speak of democracy in industry we have in mind two main expressions of that idea: on the one hand, trade union organization and collective bargaining, and on the other hand, labour representation on war boards and all governmental bodies which have any effective voice in the shaping of policy.
The minister said yesterday that the right to organize and the right to collective bargaining are fundmental. It is also true that in words at least these rights are recognized in P.C. 2685. Yet we know that very little progress has been made so far as trade union organization in this country is concerned. I have already referred to the fact that less than twenty per cent of our working people are organized; and our industrial workers feel-I think rightly so-that so far as the government is concerned advantage is taken of that fact. We have the encouragement of the company union plan. We have the use of one of the most deadly weapons, that of delay

War Appropriation-Labour
in dealing with applications made by trade union organizations for collective bargaining agreements or for adjustments in wages. We have now a constant use of the charge that "it is a jurisdictional dispute". I am sorry I did not take the time to look up in Hansard the number of times that phrase has been used during the present session. It is perfectly true that there have been some jurisdictional disputes, but even as we used to hear the charge of communism or agitators from the United States we now hear it said that there are jurisdictional disputes. That is the choice phrase which is used when there seems to be any labour difficulty. The other evening we heard the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) make a most reasoned statement with regard to the situation at the Toronto shipyards. I am sure it was perfectly clear to practically all hon. members that he was making a correct statement of the situation, but to our surprise the minister with whom he was dealing at the moment could not see the point at all. He simply came back and said, "No matter how you disguise it, it is still a jurisdictional dispute".
The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) who spoke a short time ago, expressed the hope that some day labour might be more united than it is at the present time. I imagine that he will agree with me when I say that the same ought to be true of the profession to which he belongs. As a matter of fact there are such things as growing pains. It is no surprise to those of us who are defenders of labour and advocates of the rights of labour that there are these troubles and these difficulties, particularly when you realize that for years and years every possible means has been 'used to keep labour down. Labour is beginning to feel that it has some future, that by organizing and getting together, by exerting its weight, it may get somewhere, and it is only inevitable that there should be some difficulty and some confusion among human beings as such. What we deplore is the fact that we have a government which is committed to democratic principles, but which seems to be unable to understand the real democracy involved in the struggles of the labour movement. Instead of helping to advance the cause of labour organization and collective bargaining, it is only too ready to point out that labour is divided, that there are jurisdictional disputes, and to attempt to discredit labour as a whole. Despite these attempts, labour organization is increasing and the thinking that is going on about the real meaning of democracy is having its effect, not only among industrial workers but throughout the community as a whole. I am satisfied the day will come when we will attain the ideal sought by the hon. member for Fort William, a united labour movement expressing with one voice its desire for democratic control of the things that affect the people of this country.
I said a moment ago that in my view democracy in industry involved two things. For a few minutes I have dealt with the right to organize and collective bargaining. The other point which is important at the present time is that of labour representation. I mean effective representation on the different boards that have been set up and which have some say in government policy. When I say "effective representation" I mean representation in sufficient numbers to have some say in the decisions arrived at. Every time we bring up this matter the minister replies that there are labour representatives on all boards. I have in my possession a copy of one of the lists he prepared to prove his point, but he knows that it is minority representation throughout.


Humphrey Mitchell: Would my hon. friend explain the minority aspect?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The representation of labour on these boards is in all cases the minority of the membership.


Humphrey Mitchell: I would- not like to have that go unchallenged. I should like to know the boards where labour is in the minority.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I aril sorry I did not bring to my desk the file which I have. I shall get it later and deal with it then.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not think my hon. friend should make a statement like that without having the facts in front of him. The national selective service advisory board contains five representatives of the employers and five of the employees, and the boards of referees contain equal representation. I do not think the hon. member should say things like that when he must know that the opposite is the case.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is a chairman in each case. The minister knows that there are many other boards on which labour has less than half the representation.


Humphrey Mitchell: I hope my hon. friend is assuming that there is an independent chairman.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who is appointed by the government.
War Appropriation-Labour


Humphrey Mitchell: The chairman of the [DOT]national war labour board is a judge.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When this matter was being discussed last evening the minister sought to make the point that we should not be too much concerned about getting representation on these boards because the laws of the country were really made here in parliament.


Humphrey Mitchell: I never said anything of the kind. It may be my hon. friend's lack of knowledge of the function of trade unionism that makes him make an observation of that description.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall look that up and come back to it later. If my memory serves me aright, the minister said that he did not know of any country where the laws were being made outside of parliament, and the hon. member for Cape Breton South said he knew of one, this country right here. Our point is that these boards set up by the various ministers have some power. They make recommendations to the privy council, and, on the basis of these recommendations, orders in council having the effect of law are passed. It is because these boards have this power that we contend that labour should 'have a more effective representation in terms <of membership.
At the outset I said that there were two '.matters to which I wished to make specific reference. I am going to say at once to the minister that I shall not mind now if he interrupts me. There are two matters I should like to get straightened out. The first is the question of minimum wages and their relation to the wage-freezing orders now in existence. I have before me sessional paper 316, and upon studying it I find that this matter has been under discussion among the Department of Labour, the national war labour board, various provincial ministers of labour and the regional war labour boards, for a year or eighteen months. I find that as far back as May 26, 1942, a letter went out over the signature of the associate deputy minister, as he was at that time, Mr. A. MacNamara, addressed to the chairmen of all regional war labour boards. This letter referred to the fact that at a then recent conference at Ottawa this question had been discussed and the promise had been made that an attempt would be made to clarify the situation. The letter made further reference to a proposed order in council which accompanied it and which the chairmen of the

regional war labour boards were asked to study and to report back to Ottawa. The actual draft order in council does not appear in the sessional paper. The letter to which I have just referred says that the matter was to be treated confidentially, at least at that stage.
As I studied this sessional paper I found out that there were two ways in which this matter was being approached. On the one hand there was the possibility of amending order in council P.C. 7679. That is the order in council that deals with minimum wages, under the provisions, I believe, of the War Measures Act. The other proposal was to present a new amendment to P.C. 5963 to clarify the status of dominion and provincial minimum wage rate regulations. To try to make it a little clearer, let me say that there was on the one hand the possibility of doing something on a national basis, the fixing by order in council of minimum wage rates throughout the country. On the other hand, there was the possibility of clarifying the situation with regard to existing minimum wage rates and regulations, both dominion and provincial.
This latter phase of the matter came to a head particularly in the province of Manitoba, where the minimum wage board was anxious to amend some of its regulations and increase certain minimum wage rates in that province. Nothing having been done along the lines suggested in this sessional paper and in the documents contained in it, the Manitoba Department of Labour was advised that the changes it proposed to make in minimum wage rates could not be made because of the wage-freezing order. As I understand it, the wage-freezing order refers to basic wages. The situation is that basic wages can not be changed, certainly not without notifying all employers affected. On that ground the Manitoba minimum wage board was denied the privilege of amending the minimum wage regulations of that province.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the idea of putting a ceiling on wages should not have carried with it the possibility in some cases of making the floor the ceiling. To put it in another way, the minimum wage rates surely ought not to be regarded as basic wages. I understand that under the wagefreezing order it is possible for some employees w"ho are above the minimum to make application to the regional war labour board and in some cases to get adjustment of their wages. But for those whose wages are down on the floor there is no possibility of having an adjustment made in their minimum wage. In

War Appropriation-Labour
the answer of the deputy minister of labour, appearing on pages 2 and 3 of sessional paper 316, it is said:
It was decided to amend P.C. 5963 to clarify the status of dominion and provincial wage rates and regulations. This amendment has not yet been implemented and consequently is not tabled.
I would ask the minister whether any further progress has been made with this intention, to amend P.C. 5963 with respect to the matter to which I have been speaking. There is another matter to which I wish to refer but I shall be glad to yield now if the minister is prepared to answer that question.


Humphrey Mitchell: When the original wage stabilization policy-not the freezing policy- was introduced at a joint meeting of all the provincial ministers of labour, or the ministers responsible for wages and hours of labour under peace-time conditions, it was felt that the regional boards and the national boards should deal with all wages within the confines of their respective jurisdictions. Afterwards some of the provinces felt that these minimum wage regulations should go back to the provinces. Fortunately or unfortunately, according to the point of view one takes-the hon. member thinks they should go back to the provinces, and there is a great deal of merit in the contention-there has never been complete agreement amongst all the partners to the original understanding, and that to some extent has delayed progress in the direction 'my hon. friend desires to see it. But he can rest assured that as a result of recent meetings of the national war labour board there may be some crystallization of viewpoints on the question of minimum wage laws in the provinces, and when the proper degree of understanding is arrived at between the provinces and the dominion perhaps the end which my hon. friend is seeking will be the decision that is made. Hours of labour and wages are, under the British North America Act, a matter of provincial jurisdiction.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thank the minister for the statement he has made. I am glad to ' hear that there is some possibility of something being done in this matter shortly. If action is being taken in this matter by order in council along the lines of P.C. 7679, it seems to me that the federal government should seek to establish minimum wages for the entire country at rates higher than were set out in P.C. 7679. The minister has pointed out that these are matters coming within provincial jurisdiction, but as a matter of fact,
under the War Measures Act, national minimum wage rates were set up by P.C. 7679. He has pointed out that he had some difficulty with some of the provinces when any proposal was made to increase the rates set out in order in council P.C. 7679. I am sorry that the correspondence was such that it could not be included in the sessional papers to which I have referred; naturally I should have liked to know the basis of the opposition to increasing the rates from the minimum now set out.


Humphrey Mitchell: It was not a question of opposition on rates; it was just a question of difference of opinion on jurisdiction. If my hon. friend will read that minimum wage order in council he will see that these rates are stipulated only in war production industries which come under the jurisdiction of the federal government. May I express this as a personal opinion. After all this country is a continent in extent, and the various provinces, particularly the province from which my hon. friend comes have worked out what I regard as satisfactory machinery to deal with the question of minimum wages, although possibly not as good as some would like. You have all the machinery in the other provinces where they have established the minimum wage law, and I am convinced that whether you or I like it or not, when this war is finished and the War Measures Act goes into the discard, the respective provincial governments will again demand their jurisdictional rights. I think that is inevitable. That may be in the direction in which my hon. friend is thinking. I do not know, but I assume it is, in view of the observations he made about the minimum wage laws of the province of Manitoba.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As I was about to say before I yielded to the minister at that point, on the other hand if it is impossible to get agreement on upward revision of the rates set out in P.C. 7679 or a substitute order in council; if in other words that is being left to the provincial governments at the present time, I regret very much that the government found it necessary to use the technicality to which I have referred to prevent the Manitoba minimum wage board from revising its schedules in certain cases. I have already pointed out that there is machinery for workers who are receiving pay above the minimum rates which can be used to make application to the regional war labour board to have those rates increased; but here is a class of people down at the bottom, at the floor, and their minimum rates are
War Appropriation-Labour

also treated, so far as the administration of these acts are concerned, as though they were basic and no provision is made for any adjustment in those cases.
The other matter I wanted to speak about is one which I raised in the house on the orders of the day on June 7, and to which the minister replied on June 9. It has to do with complaints made on the floor of the Winnipeg and district trades and labour council concerning the activities of the selective service office in Winnipeg. The complaint was that it looked as though that office was being used by certain employers who weje paying low wages, to help those employers retain their workers. The minister's reply on June 9 really did not deal with the matter as I had presented it to him. He rather pointed out that his information was that there had been no formal complaint lodged by the Winnipeg and district trades and labour council. He was quite correct in that statement. Complaint was made by members of the council at one of its regular meetings, and the executive of the council was instructed to get information on this matter. A few days later, on June 16, answers were placed on Hansard to a set of six questions dealing with this matter, asked by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MaoNicol). I should like to refer to questions 1 and 6 and the answers thereto:
. 1. Is there a priority list or classification of industries or firms for the guidance of national selective service in placing workers?
For the present I am not dealing with questions 2, 3, 4 and 5.
6. What is the order of priority?
The answers, which are given on page 3771 of Hansard, are:
1. Yes.
6. The detailed order of priority is confidential and is continually changing as the war production programme requirements vary.
The answer continues at some length. I am not going to read it all unless the minister so wishes. It starts off, "Generally speaking", and continues. The point to which I wish to take exception-and I shall be glad if the minister will give some explanation for it- is the keeping confidential of this order of priority. The result of that situation is that it certainly gives workers the chance to feel that employers are able to use selective service to keep them at low paid jobs if the employers are able to get on that confidential list. If there is no abuse in this regard it would clear the matter up if these priority listings could be made public rather than kept confidential.

I asked for a return of documents in this matter, which return was brought down as sessional paper No. 68D under date of June 16, 1943. Part of paragraph 5 of the answer of the Department of Labour is as follows:
A copy of the circular No. N.S.S. 225 is attached as exhibit 7 to this memorandum. This instruction provides that with reference to persons employed in the designated establishments, if these persons separate from their employment, they may not be given, except under exceptional circumstances, permits to take employment other than in the designated establishments they have just left. In other words they are to be redirected to the employer from whom they desire to separate. Again it should be noted that this is not a "freezing" provision because the employee is at liberty to actually serve notice of separation on his employer.
I am puzzled at the wording, of that paragraph. It strikes me as a bit of sophistry to say to a man, "You are not frozen to your job; you have the right to quit by giving seven days' notice, but when you get to the selective service office after that seven days has expired you will be given a notice to go back to the employer whom you just left, and you can get work at no other place." I am told by workers in Winnipeg that even with respect to non-war industries they have considerable difficulty in getting permits to leave one employment for another, particularly where the employment they are seeking to leave is one in which the wages paid are very low. The minister realizes quite well the suspicions aroused in them by such a situation as this. If he can set aside these sus- [DOT] picions, well and good. I suggest that one of the best ways of doing this would be to change the situation with regard to the priority listing and bring it out into the open. It strikes me that this practice of having it confidential lends itself to abuse and to the kind of suspicions that I have voiced. I want to make it clear that we are not opposed to the principle of selective service, to the government stepping in and seeing to it that people work where their abilities are most useful in the present emergency. But we deprecate, with all the power of which we are capable, any use of the principle of selective service for the purpose to which I have referred, namely, assisting employers who pay low wages to retain their employees at a time when it is difficult for them to get workers, because of the low wages they are paying.


Humphrey Mitchell: Let me say without equivocation that national selective service is not, to my knowledge, being used to cut down wages. That is question No. 1. As to number 2, with regard to the priority schedule, that

War Appropriation-Labour
of course is confidential for obvious reasons. Before that decision was reached, the question was considered by the national selective service advisory board, composed of permanent officials of the respective war departments, by representative employers and employees. It was felt that the priority schedule, by its very nature, changes from day to day and that we cannot have a public debate on priority. A plant may switch from one thing to-day to another thing to-morrow, and we cannot have public hearings in the midst of that change. We have to move quickly. If you had public hearings you would be continually discussing and arguing about priority in the respective war industries of the country. I want to be perfectly frank. We found that in the placement of people through selective service offices they could be placed on the basis of that priority listing. The priority listing is the heart of selective service. What we endeavour to do is to put people in those industries where they are most essential, and when the hon. member reflects he will see the absolute necessity for the procedure that is being followed by t'he department in this very important activity under the selective services regulations.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it not true that other matters, such as deciding on industry generally so far as the priority list is concerned, are made public by order in council without there being any debate on the question? Why is it not possible to do the same thing here? Even if it is done by oyder in council, to which we object, these decisions could be made public.


Humphrey Mitchell: I cannot say more than I have already said, that it is the considered judgment of all the departments of government and of the representatives of employers and employees that these lists should be confidential.


Mr. MacNICOL:: I did not find any objection to the answers given except as regards No. 5. Perhaps the minister will give the reasons for the answer to No*. 5: Were representatives of the various industries consulted? The answer was, no. I wondered why the representatives of various industries were not consulted.


Humphrey Mitchell: On the national selective service advisory board, national organizations of employers are represented, such as the chamber of commerce, the manufacturers' association, the mining association, the construction association. They cover that field. On the labour side are the Canadian* congress of labour, the railroad trades,, the Catholic
syndicates, the .trades and labour congress of Canada, and of course the departments concerned in the production of war materials.


Gordon Graydon: In taking some part in the discussion of the estimates of the Department of Labour under the war appropriation resolution, I wish first of all to indicate to the committee one or two rather important points in the background with which the minister was faced upon his assuming the office of Minister of Labour. In .part, the responsibility for the man-power problem, so far as the Minister of Labour personally is concerned, is an inheritance, though of course the responsibility in .part is his for the time during which he has administered the department.
Let me call the attention of the committee to this fact. The measure of efficiency of a nation effectively to plan in a time of war may .properly be regarded also as the yardstick by which we may measure what this nation, or for that matter other nations, may be able to do in the time of peace that will follow the cessation of hostilities. The all but unanimous decision made by this parliament on September 9, 1939, with scarcely a dissenting voice, was to. enter the struggle on the side of righteousness, freedom and liberty; and it will be interesting to recall what this parliament actually declared a.t that time. To that end I might quote some words from the speech from the throne which was adopted on that occasion by this parliament. I will read only the pertinent words bearing upon the matters which are now under discussion. These are the words which his excellency read to parliament:
My ministers are convinced that Canada is prepared to unite in a national effort to defend to the utmost the liberties and institutions which are a common heritage.
Let me emphasize and underline the word "utmost" which was used on that occasion. Reference to the Oxford dictionary shows that "utmost" means the most that we can do. In other words, on that occasion, we endorsed, and quite properly so, the government's proposal to engage in these hostilities on the basis of the utmost that this nation was actually capable of doing. I think that may properly be regarded as an endorsation of total war.
So far as I know, this parliament and members of this parliament of ours still approve and preach war-time doctrine of total war. I think there will be little disagreement among hon. members that to approach the goal of total effort, to get the maximum possible and
War Appropriation-Labour

to do our utmost, it is essential that our wartime economy should be well thought out, that plans should be carefully laid and that such plans should be diligently executed, taking the long view of things. Either parliament meant what it said in 1939, or it did not; and I want to range myself on the side of those who believe that parliament did mean what it said at that time.


Mr. CLEAVER:: We all meant it.


Gordon Graydon: I am not going to enter into an argument with anyone as to who meant it or who did not. I thought I had pretty well given a blanket endorsation to everyone in this house, and I would also include the hon. member who just interrupted me. In any event, on the presumption that we meant what we said, the responsibility which has rested upon parliament and particularly upon the government to give effect to parliament's intention in entering this war has been heavy, to use the words of the government in the speech from the throne. It is not entirely sufficient that we should be able to say that we have done well or that we have done better than others. The question should be: are we living up to the undertaking we gave when we entered this struggle, and are we doing our utmost as a Canadian people? Are we doing as a government, as a parliament and as a people that which we pledged ourselves to do?
This means, of course, that there must be careful scrutiny and diligent criticism on the part of those who are not members of the government, in order to see how far that mandate has been carried out and whether or not we have taken the steps necessary to do those things to which we are committed, efficiently and properly, leaving no stone unturned. It may be that with regard to a total war effort, on some fronts total war has been waged as far as the government is concerned. It has been waged on the government's publicity front, because the government has not been modest as to its accomplishments. I am not going to take the Minister of Labour to task on this point, because I do not think he is given to being as boastful as some people might expect a cabinet minister to be. I am not referring to the Minister of Pensions and National Health either, though his guilty look betrays a great deal to me at this moment. But it seems to me that even if the opposition were in a less critical mood than it is its duty to be, our opportunities in regard to further blandishments would be extremely limited, because certainly on the publicity front total war is being waged by the government.
When we come to consider what we have done since the declaration of war there will be tMr Graydon.}
those who will say, and perhaps properly-I do not intend to enter into any argument in this regard-that much of this is water under the bridge. There may be men and women in Canada, who will say, "What is the use of crying over spilled milk?" I submit, however, that so long as the same people are carrying the pail we still have the right to go back and at least review the position in order to ascertain whether or not we have carried out our obligations in connection with our undertaking of September 9, 1939. I think it may be said quite properly that from September 9, 1939, to June, 1940, man-power was on the loose. That was a go-as-you-please period. Certain situations did develop during that period, which I need not recall for the purposes of what I desire to say this afternoon; but in June, 1940, under the pressure of most disastrous events which perhaps many members of this house would not like to recall, events which left Britain herself in the gravest danger she has faced in many generations, the Prime Minister rose in his place and urged that this parliament give him and his government certain powers under the National Resources Mobilization Act. Those powers were given; the legislation was passed perhaps as quickly as any legislation to have come before this house for a number of years.
That legislation called for a registration of our man-power; but despite the great urgency which was pleaded by the Prime Minister, the registration was not completed until August, 1940. I am not particularly raising that point now, but I mention the matter in order to indicate that, in spite of the alleged urgency of the matter, there was this lapse of time. Perhaps it might, be of interest to see what the government actually believed that registration would do.. As reported at .page 854 of Hansard for June 17, 1940, the Prime Minister said:
It will enable the government to make the most efficient use of our man-power for the varied needs of modern machine warfare.
The Minister of Agriculture, who was also in charge of the registration of man-power at that time, had this to say, as reported at page 2125 of Hansard for July 30, 1940:
That cooperation is given to the end that every available man, every product of industry and primary production and the whole credit of Canada shall be placed at the disposal of the governments of Canada and Britain to drive back the forces of Hitler and reestablish freedom in the world.
Those were worthy statements with which I do not think any single member of this house will find fault to-day. But there is some criticism which may be properly directed to the government and those in charge of affairs

War Appropriation-Labour
in connection with the realization of those objectives. As the months rolled on, from August, 1940 until March, 1942-and I believe one might properly take in that space of time-in my opinion there was not to be found in government policy a forthright desire or effort to carry out what that registration actually should have meant; because, if the registration was to be useful, so far as our man-power situation was concerned, it should have been used right away. Everyone knows that registrations made to-day are of little use to-morrow. They must be used immediately, if one wishes to obtain the greatest good from them. While it may be urged that in some respects moves were made to place in position men and women who had registered especially in respect of certain skilled operations, nevertheless I think no one in Canada would say that there was any real attempt on the basis of that registration to allocate man-power in an efficient or effective way, having regard to the conditions existing in those years.
And so the months rolled on. In March, 1942. two and a half years after the beginning of the war, paper plans-yes, paper plans-were made. I*am not going back to the speeches made when the legislation introducing national selective service was before the house. But shortly after that it appeared as though the government were really paying serious attention to the situation in regard to man-power. I say that because they created the position of director of national selective service, and to that position appointed a prominent man, one who had the confidence of a large section of the Canadian people. There are, however, many who feel that, so far as the government are concerned, Mr. Little was too good a planner for what the government had in mind. Apparently he attempted to bring his branch to a point of efficiency and dispatch, despite the lateness of the time, and other factors which must be taken into consideration in assessing what was done at that time. But he found in November, 1942, some eight months after the date of his appointment as director, that a number of things had happened, things the exact details of which are not known to many. So far as the public knew, however, Mr. Little tried to do an efficient job. I do not think the government will say he was not conscientious in his effort to perform the job given to him. I think the most the government will say is that it disagreed with the manner in which he operated. And I am not so sure that the government was altogether ready to accept the carrying out of some of the policies contained in the throne speech of September 7, 1939. Apparently Mr. Little was attempting to see
if in respect of man-power the government was prepared to do its utmost, in compliance with that undertaking of 1939.
As a matter of fact, he failed. There have been those who said that he was not a good enough politician, and that he did not understand public opinion well enough. Well, on this score one might say the worst that could be said of him was that he failed to realize that the government programme and policy had not progressed further than to the adoption of half-way measures.
I shall not deal in detail with the events which led up to Mr. Little's resignation, nor do I think there is any special point in my doing so. But I do say that one can read from the various public documents released from time to time clear evidence of a battle in progress back of the scenes, one for which the minister and the Department of Labour must accept some responsibility. That battle was perhaps a natural thing; but having regard to what was at stake, I suggest it is not quite as natural to find that it should have been allowed to run rampant.
When Mr. Little accepted the position of director of national selective service he was given the machinery of the unemployment insurance commission. But as time went on, and the order in council of September 4, 1942, was brought to light, it became clear that the unemployment insurance offices were to be finally given over to national selective service and to be used in the field of operations over which that body had control. I believe most of us realize what took place behind1 the scenes, so far as the unemployment insurance commission was concerned. They were jealous, if you like, of their position as an unemployment insurance commission, and jealous of this new body which was to be superimposed upon them, and which in their opinion at least was going to alter the picture as it applied to them.
I should like to bring one point to the attention of the committee, one which we cannot overlook, because it is understood that in the result the battle was won by the unemployment insurance commission and lost by the national selective service. That being so, I should like to read part of a letter addressed to " The Hon. Humphrey Mitchell," upon the resignation of the director of national selective service. I do not purpose reading all the letter, nor shall I read the minister's reply. Had I the time I should be glad to read more, but the part I shall read is the one in point. Neither the minister's letter, nor parts of Mr. Little's letter apply. In part, Mr. Little's letter of November 16 states:
While I have made every effort to obtain your assistance, I have not only failed to do so but
War Appropriation-Labour

have found your actions inconsistent with your word. This makes my position as director of national selective service an impossible one.
At another point in this letter Mr. Little says:
As director of national selective service I find myself carrying grave responsibilities without commensurate authority. The present situation is one of ambiguous and divided authority, which has led progressively from confusion to friction and obstructionism. The result has been virtual paralysis in the organization.
My only reason for reading this is to show the various rays of light by which we, the public, may be able to catch something of the extent and intensiveness of the difficulties behind the scenes.
When Mr. Little resigned in November and his resignation was accepted, of course the unemployment insurance commission had won the day. I want to give everyone due credit during the war-time period. I do not think any of us have any right to ascribe ulterior motives to people, no matter where they are or who they are. I do not want to do that to-day. But where their actions come in conflict with the national interest, then I think these facts must be brought out, especially when they have a direct bearing upon the effectiveness with which the whole man-power scheme or plan has been attacked and approached. When Mr. Little left his position in November, 1942, there was a feeling that many of the recommendations he had made were in line with the words of the government, even though they were not in line with all the intentions of the administration. So that we find to-day, some six months after Mr. Little retired from the public service, such things as the compulsory order of May 4, 1943, and the declaring of a state of emergency in the coal mines of Canada. We find the government and the minister's department gradually moving into the position into which they felt at one time that Mr. Little was moving. I am not suggesting it was the only reason, but that was one of the reasons why they declined to follow the particular policy at that time.
In November, 1942, the government had reached another fork in the road. Having reached that fork, they took the turn which led, shall I say, to a more delicate and more pleasant political climate. I do not intend to find any special fault with the government for taking that action, but they did fail to take the turn in the road to which the elongated finger of necessity and the elongated finger of national interest pointed. In his speech yesterday the minister painted a very

bright picture. I do not blame him for that, because he is quite capable of doing it. He said:
In my opinion, and I believe the opinion of a great majority of this house, we have the best possible man-power policy that can be devised.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Graydon: I have no objection to
hon. members endorsing that if they like, but I think it can be said that there is rather violent disagreement on that particular point. There are many who do not hold the same political views as the party which I represent as leader in the house at the moment and who are not entirely satisfied with the whole man-power position. I think the minister from time to time must have noticed that various people were writing in the newspapers, people who have previously supported the government and who, I believe, still support the government. If the minister ever makes another speech of this kind, I think he might refer to the Halifax Chronicle which contains an article by a writer who is no great friend of this party, although I must confess he is quite fair-minded. I refer to Gralft Dexter, one of the leading men in the press gallery, a man who is highly respected by the government and by all. Under date of April 8, 1943, referring to selective service, he said:
There is no dispute to-day about what happened last year. None of the objectives of selective service were reached.


Humphrey Mitchell: That was three months ago.


Gordon Graydon: The minister must have worked much faster during the last three months than the government has in the last four years if he has made the progress which warrants the praise he feels he is entitled to.
I could go on and quote others who are also government supporters and who do not think the minister's plan is the best one that could be devised. I have not the clipping with me, but I can remember taking it from one of the Vancouver papers. This was an article written by another writer who has at least been friendly toward the government and who is also fair-minded. I refer to Mr. Bruce Hutchison. He described the situation in connection with national selective service in a most homey way. He said, in effect:
We are going to lock tbe door after the horse has been stolen, but we are going to do more than that. We are going to unlock the door and go out to try to find the horse that got away and coax him back into the stable with oats paid for by the taxpayers of Canada.
I wanted to put that on record because "it has a direct bearing upon the minister's

War Appropriation-Labour
statement. He may find the majority of this house in agreement with his statement, but there are some important people in Canada, and many people generally, who do not believe that this is the best plan that can be devised. May I point out that in so far as the man-power policy for the needs of industry and of agriculture-


Mr. GRANT:: You might tell us something about the old horses that were used in the last war.


Gordon Graydon: I am busy now, but I may see my hon. friend afterwards. We should be frank and truthful about this whole matter of meeting the needs of industry, of agriculture and of the armed forces so far as man-power is concerned. We should consider what the people across Canada are really thinking about this. We have not used the most effective scheme or plan for the best utilization of man-power in these three particular branches. We might as well be frank about it. I should like to see the minister expunge that statement of his from Hansard. He will be a bigger man if he does. He should admit that we have made mistakes -who would not make mistakes?-but this is now our new plan, and we are not going to depart from it. He should say that we are to have a national compulsory selective service in its broadest form. I should like to see the minister take that position, because then I think the public would react more readily to his statement. There is nothing worse from the minister's point of view than to try to defend the indefensible, and that is what he has been attempting to do in this particular case.
I know the minister will not mind my referring to the Winnipeg convention, nor will the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Grant) who wanted to interrupt me a few moments ago and w7ho perhaps will be more successful on another occasion. This has been put on the record before, but I wish to put it on the record again because it represents the views of a great party which has its responsibilities well in mind and which represents all classes of our people. This party unanimously endorsed the following proposal, which I submit to the minister ought to be put into effect by him and by his government:
Recognizing that the world struggle in which Canada is engaged requires a total war effort, we believe in compulsory national selective service, and that all those selected to serve in the armed forces should he available for service wherever required.
I\ leave that, because as a matter of fact we have problems with respect to the competition of various departments for men. It
is only necessary for a man to sit in the house for a time to see the position in which the government finds itself with respect to these competitive demands for man-power.
There are certain questions affecting the whole man-power front. What is the government's position with respect to industry, labour and agriculture? When I hear the Minister of Labour talking of cooperating with labour,
I really wonder whether this government has actually taken labour into its confidence and made labour a major partner in the war effort. Industry and agriculture are our two main civilian activities in connection with the war, and surely there is no reason why labour and the farmer should not be made major partners in our war effort. To hear the Minister of Labour talk, one would think that had been done, but what are the facts? On the general advisory board for national selective service there is but one farmer. That is not good enough. The people engaged in agriculture in Canada will not be satisfied with that.
The minister speaks of the representation of labour on various boards, but I was astounded to hear an answer he gave to an hon. member to my left. The Minister of Labour said: Of course, labour has equal representation in labour matters. But, Mr. Chairman, I see no reason why labour should not have majority representation in labour matters because they are not given sufficient representation with respect to any other matters in Canada.


Humphrey Mitchell: I did not say that.


Gordon Graydon: I am not very good sometimes at remembering a man's actual words, but I was not trying to misquote the minister. I am quite prepared to accept any statement the minister might wish to make by way of correction. I was saying, Mr. Chairman, that labour and agriculture have not been brought into this war effort in the way they deserve to be represented.
When the former director of national selective service, Mr. Elliott Little, was attempting to put through compulsory labour orders he had the backing and support of labour generally in this country, and I will tell you why, and why labour was so concerned over his departure from that office. He had the backing and support of labour because he took labour into his confidence as director of national selective service. You cannot ask labour to move, to shift their position, to suffer every inconvenience unless the government, yes and the director of national selective service, are prepared to cooperate and work with the representatives of the great body of labour in this country. That is the
War Appropriation-Labour

solution, and that is one of the reasons why the Little way was so popular with labour in this country.
We hear much about the compulsory aspects of the man-power problem. But when the wartime prices and trade board was set up and when the anti-inflationary price ceiling and wage freezing policies were enunciated by the government and adopted by parliament, surely it must have been apparent to every member of the house that with compulsion applied to prices and compulsion applied to wages, an important leg of Donald Gordon's stool was left out, namely the compulsory power to allocate labour and man-power generally throughout Canada. When I talk about compulsory labour and man-power I talk about the kind of compulsory labour and man-power that has the backing and support of the trades union movement in this country and of our working men generally. Without that cooperation from labour, without their approval and consent, this problem becomes more acute and may perhaps become insoluble.
I want to say this, and the minister himself being a labour man knows it, that labour in every branch of our civilian activity has shown that it is prepared to do anything to help our national war effort. I defy anybody in this house to say that labour cannot be relied upon to play its part, no matter what it may be called upon to do. Labour is too loyal, too patriotic, to do otherwise. Labour, of course, does not want to be moved and jostled about unnecessarily. Nobody is asking that. But when the minister indicates that all our activities have been keyed up in a total allout war effort, one thinks of the situation in the coal fields in Canada and of the shortages that exist in many other lines. Not so very long ago, I think it was in this debate, I heard the Minister of Labour say that the shortage of man-power in Canada actually indicated the extent of our war effort. I think he had better tell the whole story. The committee is, I believe, well aware of the fact that one of the members of the minister's own department, Doctor Couper, when he was in Toronto and talking of his department as people sometimes do when they are away from home-I do not blame him, because it is one way in which we can get information just as the hon. member for Lake Centre found out yesterday-said when he was away from home and free from the overshadowing wing of the Minister of Labour, that we did not have the right men in the right place at the right time. I cannot quote his exact words because I have not them with me at the moment, but the statement has already been put on Hansard

and it was to the effect I have stated. Doctor Couper let the cat out of the bag. He told us what the trouble was with our man-power problem.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Square pegs in round holes.


Gordon Graydon: My hon. friend the member for Davenport has always a better phrase than I have and I thank him for it. The minister talks about the measure and the yardstick of our man-power, but I think he will have to revise his remarks because, if there was one idea behind national selective service, it was to take out of non-essential industry and put into essential war-time activities the maximum of our man-power. The Minister of Munitions and Supply the other night, using figures rather recklessly I thought, said that between forty and fifty thousand men could be utilized in munitions industries generally, and I am not so sure but that he confined it to one particular industry.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The aircraft industry.


Gordon Graydon: My hon. friend the member for Davenport helps me out again. He says that it was in the aircraft industry alone. That makes my argument all the stronger. It is all right for the Minister of Labour to say that all is well under national selective service, but I point out to him that there are industries closely allied to the furtherance of our war effort which require immediately and urgently men and women to fill vacancies in their plants. What do we find with respect to civilian activities generally? I am going to take the liberty of quoting again from one of the minister's favourite journals, the Regina Leader-Post. I do not want to hold up that newspaper as more accurate than any other, but at least it is reasonably accurate and fair, as the Minister of Mines and Resources has so often found in relation to his own affairs.


Mr. CRERAR:: I wonder if my hon. friend always accepts what the Regina Leader-Post says.


Gordon Graydon: This is the only issue I have, and if I can judge it by this article, I might be ready to accept its statements on other points. This is an article which I do not think the minister could have read when he spoke of this plan as being the best that could be devised, because Mr. Dexter again comes to the front with a headline in the Regina Leader-Post, "Disquieting Facte." I shall not go over the whole story, which is very interesting, but I wish to quote one paragraph.

War Appropriation-Labour
He says:
Hitherto the positive side of man-power policy has been reviewed. The record shows that grave mistakes were made.
The negative side is equally disquieting. The failure of the government to use men and women effectively has meant that they have been allowed to remain at non-essential work. And the proof of this statement is to be found in the statistics on employment and sales.
He goes on to make comparisons by index numbers of employment in several industries. These, he points out, are civilian industries and not necessarily directly connected with war material production in the usual sense of the term. Take, if you like, from his article, the making of furs. Employment rose from 96-5 in 1938 to 103-9 in 1942. Increases are registered practically all along the line. In beverages of all kinds, for example, he says that employment has risen from 168-9 in 1938 to 241-9 in 1942. As regards personal trades, meaning laundries, et cetera, the figures for 1938 are 141-5, and for 1942 194-6. It may be possible for one to make deductions from these statistics which are not warranted as far as man-power is concerned', and I do not want to do so, nor do I desire to reflect on the industries just mentioned. But it must be abundantly clear that on the question of manpower the government has not carried out the undertaking and the pledge made to the people of Canada on September 9, 1939. To those who deny that the man-power policy is not a good one I would repeat that, having in mind the history of the problem and the puny efforts made to deal with it, those adjectives which 'have been applied to it in the past are applicable to it now, namely, that we have a muddled, misconducted, misconceived and mistaken policy with respect to our whole man-power problem.
The national selective service system has paid sufficient attention to the matter of the local offices. It is there that the whole heart of national selective service is to be found. We are dealing with human beings, not commodities; and, having that in mind, is the minister satisfied that the local branches of the national selective service as at present constituted are capable of carrying out the work which actually has been assigned to them?


Humphrey Mitchell: If my hon. friend will let me say this, I think he will appreciate that in the last six months we have developed an enormous organization. These people in these selective service offices are human beings like ourselves; they are working in a virgin field, and I think they are entitled to all the credit that can be given them for what they have done in the most difficult job that has been undertaken during the present war emergency.


Gordon Graydon: I do not take a back seat to the minister in paying tribute to those men and women who were brought in there at the last minute, at a time when they should have had years of training in job placements and in special analyses of work. The minister now rises in his place and asks that special consideration be given them because they are amateurs in the field. Of course, in many instances, they are amateurs; of course the minister was right in rising in his place and defending them; but my contention is that upon the government rests a heavy responsibility for the fact that they are amateurs when we are nearing the end of the fourth year of the war.
Upon the item of national selective service I want to make a few more detailed remarks and ask the minister a few questions. I wish he would explain to the committee why there were so many other resignations from national selective service after Mr. Little's own resignation. I should like to know why it is that, so far as I know, no real records have ever been kept-records which are efficient and really mean something-in the local offices. Perhaps the minister may be able to give an explanation. I hope he can. It is not sufficient to change men's jobs just on the basis of something which happens to be on a card.


Humphrey Mitchell: If my hon. friend will tell me what he wants, I will try to get it for him. His question is a little vague.


Gordon Graydon: I appreciate that it may have been. I should like the minister to bring down at the appropriate time when the national selective service estimates are on, the whole picture, by statistics and otherwise, as to the records held and how they are kept in the local offices of the national selective service all over Canada.
I intended to say something more, but in view of the lateness of the hour I shall close my remarks in a few moments. The national labour board is doing a job with respect to labour, and will shortly bring down its report. But I point out to the committee that what this board should also be doing is making a sweeping investigation into the whole inefficiency of national selective service, from top to bottom. I am amazed when I recall that the House of Commons' industrial and international labour relations committee has not sat for years. Surely the gwernment might appropriately have remitted this matter of selective service either to the war labour board or to the House of Commons committee I have mentioned, because, if ever there was the need of a sweeping inquiry, there is need of it in all aspects of national selective service,
War Appropriation-Labour

even at this late date. We owe it, I believe, to the country, because this body will be used not only during the war but with respect to the demobilization of our men, which perhaps is a more important matter than any of the things we have mentioned this afternoon.
Without delaying the committee any longer, I ask the minister to accept the suggestions I have made as not actuated by carping criticism but, rather, as presented in a spirit of goodwill. There is not a gentleman in this house, nor a lady either, who can claim a monopoly of patriotism in our effort to win the war. We may differ in methods, but we are one so far as our objectives are concerned, and I think we may all thank God for that. Therefore I ask the minister, in the light of what I have said this afternoon, to see to it that his department is brought up to a standard which is worthy of the great war effort to which this house pledged the country on September 9, 1939.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Hughes Cleaver: Mr. Chairman, the leader of the opposition has just concluded an able presentation of the position and platform of his party with respect to our man-power problem. Some of his remarks were a bit severe; I recall once when he referred to Canada's man-power policy and added, "if we have one", and again when he said the man-power policy was a "muddle". In the main, however, I want to compliment the hon. gentleman upon a very thoughtful, well-reasoned and rather clever exposition of a weak cause.
In the time at my disposal I wish to try to advance before the committee the other school of thought in regard to our general man-power policy. I know my hon. friend will concede at once that practically everyone in this country, and certainly all political parties, desire the maximum and most efficient mobilization of Canada's man-power in order to achieve victory. Since we are in full agreement as to the object we wish to achieve, this narrows the subject under discussion to a reasonably small problem, namely the mefcns by which the maximum mobilization of Canada's man-power can best be attained. The hon. gentleman went back into history to quite an extent in order to build up his argument, and I should like to remind him that in 1940 both major political parties were opposed to the conscription of

man-power. If my memory serves me correctly, the leader of the opposition was one of the first private members in the 1940 election to commit himself strongly on the public platform as being opposed to conscription. I do not wish to say anything more about that, because in my opinion that stand, like the greater part of my hon. friend's speech this afternoon, is now past history.
To-day we have two schools of thought. The Progressive Conservative party is pledged to a 100 per cent regimentation of man-power by way of national selective service. They believe-and they have a right to their views-rthat Canada's man-power can be more efficiently mobilized by some selective service officer telling every grown person in this country just what job he or she should do. This, of course, means nothing less than the most autocratic form of bureaucracy, to the nth degree; there is no question about that. In the light of the many statements I have heard from members of the opposition in recent weeks opposing bureaucracy, I am a little bewildered and confused as to how they harmonize those two viewpoints. I concede at once that there is a certain mentality abroad in the world-and Canada is no exception-possessed by certain people who do not consider that they are accomplishing anything unless they have a master plan and are pushing or bossing somebody around. The other school of thought, the one with which I associate myself, is this. We believe that in any freedom-loving democracy a much better war effort can be attained, and a much more efficient mobilization of man-power can be achieved, on a voluntary basis. I believe that most individuals know what they can do to further Canada's war effort better than some selective service officer in Brampton or Burlington or Oakville can know. We believe that regimentation or selective service should not come into play and should not be used until the actual need for it arises.
In the light of that belief let me discuss some of the arguments advanced by the last speaker. The first comment I wish to make is in regard to his desire for a master plan and his statement that because we have not what he terms a master plan, we have a muddle or no policy or no plan at all. In advancing that argument and believing as he does-for I know he honestly holds this belief-that the plan is the all-important thing instead of the end to be achieved, it is only natural that he should devote much of his time to criticisms with respect to the

War Appropriation-Labour
plan. He spent quite a good deal of time in discussing the resignation of one official from the department. He spent a good deal more of his 'time in referring to the fact that, as he put it, one commission had won a victory and some other commission had sustained a defeat. Then, of course, he had quite a generous display of criticism with regard to the lack of a master plan. In all charity, I suggest that my hon. friend entirely ignores the fact that a voluntary system can be a plan, and that it is the most effective plan for any freedom-loving democracy. I should like to remind the committee that year after year we have heard our war ministers forecast the man-power needs for the air force, the navy, the army, war industry and the like; and at the end of the year we have heard reports from these ministers telling us that these forecasts have been fulfilled under a voluntary plan. Just let me remind the committee that yesterday the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) told us that only a year ago, in March, 1942, the forecast was that we would require 100,000 additional workers in war-time industry. Now, with this "man-power muddle" that we had, and "no plan at all", did we raise 100,000 men for war-time industry? We increased our wartime workers not by 100,000 but by 320,000 in that period of time.
Then, coming to the armed forces, our ministers of national defence forecast that from March 1, 1942, to March 1, 1943, we would require an additional 193,000 men for the armed forces. Did we get them? We got
220,000	for the armed forces during that time. Once again the objective as forecast was more than achieved.
I should also like to remind the committee that when these forecasts were given I cannot recall any serious opposition from any member in the opposition as to the size of the forecasts. I think we al'l believed at that time that the forecasts were optimistic, and were quite as much as this country could expect to achieve in one year of war. To me the results speak much louder than words. With regard to the armed forces, by our voluntary system, in the air we have raised all the men we need, and we still have a waiting list in some departments. In the navy we have recruited all the men we can use up to date, and we have a waiting li^t that runs into thousands. In the armed forces, the field forces, we have recruited by the voluntary system all the men we need for overseas service, and in addition to that we have a good sized back-log of men taken on a compulsory basis, and trained.
These men will be available, should any unexpected emergency arise, and should they be actually required for overseas sendee we have them already trained.
In agriculture and in war-time industry it is true that we are running into shortages. That is to be expected. As this country nears its maximum war effort it is inevitable that we should run into shortages of certain supplies, and surpluses of others. In war-time industry I believe that in the main there are three branches in which we have shortages.
Let me remind the committee of the terrific expansion that has taken place in aircraft production. At the beginning of the war just over a thousand men and women were engaged in the aircraft industry. They were working in nine little plants, involving less than half a million feet of floor space. What have we to-day? We are nearing the 100,000 mark with respect to workers in aircraft production, and factory floor space is well over 5,000,000 square feet. That is a terrific expansion. I do not think too great a compliment could be paid to the director of aircraft production, everyone in that branch and everyone in the aircraft industry for the tremendous results which have been achieved.
Then, we are running into shortages in shipbuilding. And yet, look at our production figures. One speaker yesterday was more interested in the shortages of man-power in the shipbuilding industry than in the number of ships we were producing. We are also running into shortages in coal production. On the other hand we are approaching a tapering off with respect to some other types of production, and this means of necessity that there will have to be a substantial transfer of workers from the industries which are tapering off to other industries where we still have unsatisfied demands. It also means, too, that we shall have to make still further draws on woman-power.
The Minister of Labour has outlined our forecasts of requirements for the coming year, both in war-time industry and in the armed forces. He has outlined, in an extremely able address, just what steps he is taking to ensure for Canada that this man-power and woman-power will be made available to meet our requirements. At this point, notwithstanding what has closely approached ridicule from some hon, members opposite, may I pay a well-earned tribute to the Minister of Labour, and to every official in his department, from the deputy minister down to the last grade clerk in the outlying office. They have earned the well-deserved tribute of the people of
War Appropriation-Labour

Canada for the way in which they have kept man-power and woman-power supplied to industry and to the armed forces.
It is true that as we reach our maximum war effort-and by the way, Canada's war effort apparently is much more appreciated abroad than it is right here in the House of Commons-some forms of compulsory direction have become necessary. A state of national emergency has been declared in connection with our coal production. Some forms of direction and compulsion have become necessary.
At this point may I comment on the fact that the leader of the opposition is already dissatisfied with the way in which national selective service is commencing to interfere with some people's private freedom and private lives. He took pains this afternoon to remind the minister that he is dealing with "human beings," not with "commodities." Bless you, did the leader of the opposition not find out until to-day that national selective service deals with human beings, not with commodities? I have known it all along.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Wonderful I


Hughes Cleaver: All right; my hon. friend will have a chance to speak later on.
That is why I am opposed to any unnecessary compulsion. I believe that every man and every woman in Canada have consciences, that they want to do their utmost to help win the war, and that each one individually can best decide what contribution he or she can make to the furtherance of victory.
Then, again, we are asked why we did not have selective service years ago, the implication being, that because it has been instituted comparatively recently the officials are ill-trained and not ready for the emergency. My answer to that is this:	We did not have
national selective service in its present modified form any sooner for the very same reason that we did not have rationing sooner, and for the same reason we still have voluntary victory loans, the reason being simply that compulsion and regimentation, down to the time they were brought into force, were unnecessary. I wish also to remind my hon. friends of the fact that while we have a very much modified form of compulsory savings in the income tax field, to help finance the war, still a very large part of war financing is done on a voluntary basis. I have not heard any member in the opposition say that the financing of the war or the victory loan drives have been a "muddle", a "half-hearted effort," or no plan at all"; and yet we are carrying 
out exactly the same policy with respect to man-power as we are with respect to dollars to win the war. To my mind the freedom of the individual and his right to choose the job he wishes to choose, where he thinks he can serve best, are much more sacred than dollars and cents. I suggest that that is the reason why for well over two years in this war the government permitted every individual to get fitted into the type of work he or she could best perform.
In studying the present attitude of the opposition and trying to harmonize their protests of the day before yesterday and their great opposition to bureaucracy with their protests of to-day When they have stated that they want an autocratic bureaucracy to the nth degree with respect to man-power, the only inkling of an explanation I have been able to find is an article by Bruce Hutchison which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press *not long ago. This afternoon my hon. friend quoted from an article by this same gentleman. This article from which I intend to quote I think rather explains, if there is any possible explanation, this hot and cold position of the opposition. It is all very well for an opposition when in opposition to try to remain on both sides of the fence, but if they ever have the misfortune to get on the government benches I suggest that they will find it rather difficult to supply boiling hot ice-cream and the like. We have heard a lot about the Winnipeg convention, and it was quoted today. It is my view that the Winnipeg convention is couched in such high-flowery language that the man on the street does not understand it. Personally they have put the feed far too high in the rack for me. I think in this article by Mr. Hutchison there will be found an explanation of Mr. Bracken's interpretation of the Winnipeg convention which the man on the street can understand. I quote:
Profiting by the recent utterances of Mr. John Bracken in these parts I have prepared the following address to the electors of Saanich, where I hope some day to be elected to some high public office like the school board.
Ladies and gentlemen: In these grave times it is necessary for a public man to speak out frankly the faith that is in him and declare the policies 'by which he stands. I must tell you, therefore, that I stand unequivocally for general prosperity and a higher standard of living for everyone. For this reason I shall oppose depressions. I am a disbeliever in hard times.
I stand for the right of every man to have a job, a wife, two children, a home, a car and vigorous health. I stand for the right of every man to be insured against all the hazards of life, but I object to any deductions from his

War Appropriation-Labour
pay for these purposes. Nor should insurance be a charge on industry. To be fair, it must be financed without expense to anyone.
I stand for the right of every man to high wages. At the same time, I insist on low prices. As for inflation, I shall be frank. I am against it. But anyone except a slave of the banking system knows that, by creating more money, the state can pay higher wages without causing -any rise in prices. If the state will only have the courage to take away from the working people, through taxes, all the extra money it pays them.
I believe in the right of capital to earn a fair income on its investment, provided, of course, that the public does not have to pay it.
I favour private initiative. But on the other hand, I have an abiding faith in socialism, applied with discretion. Private initiative must be given every opportunity to expand, unmolested by the state. But the state must certainly remove the last vestige of the profit motive.
I may be called a Liberal. Or, if you prefer it, call me a Conservative. I am also a member of the C.C.F. in good standing, with strong leanings towards Social Credit, technocracy, communism, British Israelism and somnambulism. Also I am an Elk and an A.R.P. warden.
In international affairs it is my opinion we should have world peace, after this war. Speaking bluntly, I think we should seek to avoid world wars. I also deprecate famine and pestilence. I stand for collective security. But I am opposed to any reduction of Canada's sovereignty. I want a strong league of nations, but I certainly would refuse to give it any power.
Provided our own industries can be protected from the competition of cheap foreign goods, I strongly advocate a reduction in tariffs. World trade must be restored but not, of course, at the risk of importing foreign commodities.
In provincial affairs, I favour a coalition government composed of Liberals, Conservatives, members of the C.C.F. and anyone else who cares to join it, so long as I am in it.
I ask the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) to take note of this. He attended a Cooperative Commonmealth Federation convention a few days ago which passed a resolution on beer. I continue:
While I am a prohibitionist, I am not a fussy one and favour more beer for the public, at less cost.
All provincial health, education and other services should be expanded. More roads should be built. Taxes should be reduced as part of the same programme and the budget balanced. The government should take over the British Columbia electric railway company-
Will the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) please note.
-provided the management remains in private hands and is kept out of politics.
As a farmer I insist on higher prices for all farm products. But, of course, the consumer must not pay more for his food.
In all such problems I believe in long range national planning, a programme which will cover every part of the whole country. But I shall oppose to the last the centralization of authority in the government at Ottawa. What
we need is control of and regulation of our whole economic system, without bureaucracy.
Summing up my views as to the future, I should say that the future undoubtedly lies before us. Let us face that fact boldly.


Gordon Graydon: That sounds like a 1935 election speech of the present Prime Minister.


An hon. MEMBER:: 1930.


Mr. McKINNON (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Chairman, in opening my remarks this evening I should first like to pay a tribute to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) for the comprehensive and excellent address he gave us yesterday. It is no mean job for any man to deal with so many subjects in the limited time he had at his disposal. I wish to pay a sincere tribute to him for the success he has made of his department. It is all very well, and I know they are within their rights, for our hon,. friends of the opposition to adopt the attitude they have, but I think we must all be frank and admit that when one looks at the general picture there is not a person, regardless of his partisan politics, who will not admit, when he sits down and' studies the matter, that in so far as the Department of Labour is concerned, particularly since the present minister took office, it has contributed its fair share to the development of the things that had to be developed in Canada and to the welfare of our war effort as a whole. Speaking as a campaigner of forty years' experience, I sometimes sit back in amazement at some of the things our hon. friends of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation have to say, because I happen to have taken part in these affairs for considerably over forty years as a member and officer of a trades union movement. They seem to overlook many of the things that have been accomplished in days gone by and try to focus on the things they hope will be accomplished in the immediate present.
I happen to have come up the hard way. I am not talking because somebody wrote something in a book or because somebody else thinks it is a nice thing to say. I came up the hard way and went down into my pocket when it hurt and paid to get the things I now enjoy. I often say to myself-I have never said it here publicly before-that I wish some of our hon. friends of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, whose motives I do not question for a moment, had had some of the forty years of hard battling that brought about the conditions which my organization happens to enjoy at the present time.


Thomas Miller Bell: Give us a chance. We are not all that old.
War Appropriation-Labour

*


Hugh Bathgate McKinnon: Probably you are not. But I think your party long before it is as old as this will change many of the policies it so strongly advocates to-day. Experience is one of the greatest teachers that anybody has. There are some things one cannot learn out of books; one has to learn them the hard way, and the hard way is, in my opinion, the way that pays dividends in the long run.
At the present time, when man-power policies are of such great consequence to our country and its war effort, it is not easy for a member to choose the particular topics to which he should address himself. As the minister's address shows, such a broad field is opened up by a consideration of his estimates that a member must make a careful selection of the items he chooses to discuss if he wishes to contribute something specific to the debate. Therefore, if I speak of some phases only of the labour department's activities and not of others, it is not that in my opinion they are not of importance but rather because consideration of time make it impossible for me to deal with them all.
It seems to me that nothing is more truly basic to a successful war production programme; nothing is more necessary for the welfare of our people, and nothing is more necessary for progress within Canada than peaceful industrial relations-a clear and satisfactory understanding between employers and their workers. Perhaps the public is sometimes to blame more than it realizes for strikes and other disturbances to industrial relations, not through any action the public causes to be taken, but on account of its complete neglect of the importance of industrial peace until a work stoppage occurs. Once a clash takes place; once employer-employee relations have passed the breaking point, the public, especially in war time, demands that something be done about it, that industrial peace be reestablished immediately. That, however, is quite late for effective action. A good deal of damage has then been done. Had public opinion been brought to bear earlier; had the cause of misunderstanding been removed in advance, no strike would have occurred; no interruption of production would have taken place, and continuing ill-feeling would have been avoided.
As a worker myself, as a member and sometimes an officer of a trades union for more than forty years, I am absolutely convinced that no strike ever occurs which could not have been avoided by men of good-will, representing employees and employers, sitting down together and settling differences in a spirit of give and take. During the period of more 
than forty years to which I have referred, I have been an employee of the Canadian Pacific Railway. As a union member, I never was called upon to vote "yes" or "no" on the question of a strike. Yet we had grievances and plenty of them. Some we got settled in our favour; others went against us. Maybe we were not always right, and I am sure that the company was sometimes wrong. But I must say this for the company as an employer: they were always agreeable to meeting us; they would always discuss grievances with us; they would explain their point of view and listen to ours. The company would give in here, and we would have to yield there. We tried to be reasonable, in order that the company would respect our views and would give in a little more readily the next time. It worked, for the company acted in a good deal the same manner. Mutual confidence was won and established. Union handling of cases was taken for granted. An excellent understanding has certainly resulted.
With a proper disposition on both sides, similar understanding can be developed in any industry. To encourage such a trend in industrial relations, the government should go all-out to support the workers' claims to collective bargaining rights. The right to join a union of his own choice; the right of workers to bargain collectively, should be corner-stones of our civil liberties, of our social arrangements. Leading employers will, I am sure, agree with this view. Those who do not should be convinced by government policy that they are wrong and must change their attitude. Advancement of the workers' recognized rights through trades union organization is the democratic way. Government policy and legislation should support it at every turn. Some leadership the government has given; I might mention the grant of bargaining rights to employees of government companies. But I wish to urge even broader action, greater support of collective bargaining as a means to industrial peace founded upon recognition of mutual rights. As evidence of the attitude of a forward looking employer on the subject of labour relations I wish to call attention to a statement recently made before the reconstruction committee of this house by Mr. W. M. Neal, vice-president of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Mr. Neal stated that his company takes for granted the settlement of working arrangements with their employees through dealing with trade unions; that he felt that organized labour through its leaders would make a big contribution to post-war developments in this country. I think anyone will agree that employees will respond to that attitude on the part of their employers will

War Appropriation-Labour
give their best and will cooperate fully. We must try to have all Canadian employers come to the same point of view.
I trust that when the national war labour board reports on industrial relations, no time will be lost in putting into effect any recommendations it may make which promise improvement for labour and management in their relations with one another, and also, if any action in the same direction which is not recommended seems called for, such action will be taken. No one can disagree with the statement that full war production as well as post-war reconstruction demand improvement *of industrial relations, removal of the causes of unrest.
To come now to man-power policies: the summary given by the minister of the steps taken in recent months is an impressive record. To say that more must be done is not to say that past policies have not been effective. I think the policy the government has pursued is the only possible one in the light of all the circumstances. An over-all plan, with all details blueprinted for the future, has a great appeal to it, I will admit, but I am not at all impressed that it would get us anywhere. Surely Germany is the example of a country with an all-out man-power plan; yet what do we find? That country has constantly to shift its plans, to get labour from Italy, from the occupied countries. Clearly Germany has man-power shortages; a blueprint did not avoid them. I subscribe to the idea that man-power policy must be a piecemeal affair in relation to the armed forces, in relation to industry-in relation to the different branches of industry. Of course, policies in regard to each section of the problem must be related to those of other phases of the problem-the forces related to industry, farming fitted in with mining and logging, and similarly with other phases. But the plan must be built up in sections, and pieced together later. It is not practical, in my opinion, to take a blank sheet of paper and draw up a broad plan to cover the whole case. I think the government has followed the wisest course, the course related to reality. Such errors as have been made are in detail, it seems to me, and many mistakes must be expected in such unusual conditions. But, generally speaking, the plans followed have given reasonably satisfactory results.
As one quite familiar with the views of Canadian workers, I believe it is necessary to say a few words on the compulsory measures to move men in industry, which have been taken lately. This is one subject which has been very much under discussion during the
last couple of days, and I should like to express my opinion as one who is not speaking from the book, but speaking from forty-two. years' experience in what makes the wheels of industry go round.
Labour shortages in wartime are bound to occur, and, at least in my opinion, no great plan for the distribution of workers can prevent them. The pressure on us to provide men and women for the armed forces, and at the same time for a stepped-up industrial organization, together with unforeseen changes, weather changes and other causes, must have their effects on the supply of workers. Then, of course, there is the question of skills, of technical training in industry; no man or woman can master overnight a trade which it takes years to learn. The consequence of this is that, as war develops, abnormal demands arise for some classes of workers; there may be people available, but they will not be people with the skills required. This has occurred in the present war; this may cause the less thoughtful to feel that the best use of our man-power is not being made, but that is not necessarily the case.
To overcome labour shortages; to cause men to shift to more important work-even if less desirable employment in some cases

the government has thought it necessary to bring in compulsory labour transfers. I consider that in doing so the government followed the only course open, and yet one must feel-and I do feel-that even in war time, when we grow used to taking orders from the government, there are dangers in this kind of compulsion. I suggest to the Minister of Labour that he give constant and careful study to the problems connected with these transfers to see that the rights of the workers are safeguarded as far as possible, that the coercion is administered in such a way that injustices will not be inflicted on those affected, and that inequalities and hardships will not exist if avoidable.
I suppose that these transfers are still in an experimental stage, that they will be studied and the system improved as time goes on. I hope this is so, and I would recommend that course to the minister. We know his problem. We need coal, farm production, lumber production and production of other types, and his is the job of getting the labour. But care should be taken to base the procedure on experience and on fundamental fairness. It seems to me that the method of placing large powers over the individual in the hands of a selective service officer has its difficulties. It must place that officer in a very difficult position at times, as, for example, in the case of these transfers. My suggestion
War Appropriation-Labour

would be that the actual transfer of a worker should be decided by a small local committee, made up of local citizens, and representing, say, labour and employees, together with some general members.
I realize that a man to be transferred may appeal to a board. But I think the whole transfer system would be put on a more secure basis, that it would earn more public support, if the transfers were first decided by local representative committees, rather than by officials. This is a suggestion I should certainly like to see considered. It would undoubtedly inspire greater confidence and should lead to more effective results.
In conclusion, one thing that has always worried me.is the rate of wages paid to grade one employees of the government. I congratulate the government upon recently deciding to increase the remuneration of these employees. In my opinion the lower paid services, grade one and grade two, should be put under the Minister of Labour. The finance department is no place to decide on the merits of these cases. Recently it has been decided, I gather from press reports, to pay $70 a month, but there is a period of waiting of eighteen months before the $70 becomes effective. Just recently a hostel has been opened here for grade one employees. My latest information in the matter is that only twenty-five have applied. These people cannot afford to live there.
In all fairness I suggest that the government should be a model employer, and if these people cannot afford to live in this hostel, which the government has spent many thousands of dollars to build, it is pretty nearly time that some of the milk of human kindness was injected into the members of the treasury board, so that when people are employed they may be given reasonable consideration. Eighteen months is a long time, and many people could starve to death in the first eighteen months of their employment by the government.


Mr. STIRLING:: I should like to begin by expressing the opinion that it has been a pleasure to listen to the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. McKinnon). He has spoken words of sense with sensibility, and he has been speaking to us on a matter on which he is well informed. That must always be a pleasure in this House of Commons.
It has already been said that in our opinion the application of the regulations concerning man-power has not been carried out with equality right across the country among different sorts and conditions of men and women. To that opinion I subscribe, and 
I wish to speak for a few moments this evening on a manifest instance of inequality in the incidence of the regulations. I mean the Doukhobors in British Columbia.
The minister is one on whom we look with a good deal of kindliness. He has inherited a task which to many would be an unenviable one. He has had to add to schemes which were in preparation before he assumed his present position. He has a different crop of difficulties with his breakfast each morning, I imagine, and to that crop I am going to add one more, namely, the Doukhobors.
The minister knows that the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Esling) and I, rep-' resenting two neighbouring constituencies inBritish Columbia, and having acquired a certain amount of knowledge with regard to these-people, have always done what we could with succeeding ministers to give what assistance we could to the minister in handling this problem which is so difficult. But I think it is quite-manifest that there has been inequality of treatment so far as the application of the-regulations is concerned.
In 1940 there was a national registration. That numbering of the people had of necessity to be spread equally over all the people, men and women, old and young, for otherwise the result would have been of little value; and yet it is within the knowledge of all who live in the neighbourhood of Doukhobors that many, many of them took no notice whatever of the registration. Although penalties were attached to those who did not register, I am not aware of any case in which a Doukhobor has been proceeded against for failing to register. A year and a half after that, there was a manpower check-up. Those in employment had to fill in certain cards and give more recent statistical information to the department. There were Doukhobors employed in southern. British Columbia in sawmills and in this industry and that. Many of them did not fill in the cards, and it was intimated to at least one sawmill owner that perhaps he should not be too stiff in his requirements but should do-all he could to assist the unregistered' Douk- hobor to answer the questions on the card, if the employer wished to continue to use him.
I am informed that in a considerable number of cases those forms were sent to the registrar with little more than the names of the men, on them, and they continued to be employed.
Then, when we came to the call-up by ages under the mobilization act, the medical notices-were sent out to Doukhobors in common with other people, and in many cases no attention, was paid to them. I am not aware of any.

War Appropriation-Labour
instance in which the regulations attaching to non-compliance were made use of with regard to Doukhobors. As a consequence, the people who live in that neighbourhood, the ordinary Canadian citizens, have seen their sons and daughters, their brothers and sisters, comply with the regulations at the time the registration was taken; they have seen them comply with the medical notices, and there have been instances when those who have chosen not to comply have been proceeded against, but I know of no instance in which action has been taken against a Doukhobor when he neglected to pay attention to the medical notice.
I am not going to weary the committee with a long, historical dissertation on this curious sect, but in a very few phrases I would remind the committee of one or two facts. This was a highly religious sect which followed agricultural pursuits in southwestern Russia. Because they conscientiously objected to military service they were accorded such treatment in their own country as to amount in their opinion to persecution. At the end of last century Canada required to expand her agricultural population and also needed labour to assist in her development. Therefore in 1898 she entered into arrangements, under an order in council, to bring some thousands of these people to Canada. There was just one proviso: that here they should be immune from military service. I do not join with those who, with wisdom after the event, say this experiment should not have been tried. It appears to me that with the facts before the Canadian government of that day it was not unreasonable to suppose that if these hardworking people should be offered liberty in a new country, there was a reasonable prospect that they would become citizens worthy of Canada.
Unfortunately they have not. They came to Canada and went to the northwest provinces, settling in that part which subsequently became the province of Saskatchewan. Very soon trouble cropped up. They were obstinate; they did not care for our laws and regulations; they desired to go their own way; and they did so to such an extent, with their nude parades and their indecent behaviour, that the council of the northwest provinces at last decided that it should be intimated to them that they must subscribe to our laws or get out. They had come with money; they had provided themselves with land and equipment; some of them were on the road to prosperity in farming. The consequence was that the majority decided that probably it would be better to give at least apparent allegiance to our laws, but a smaller number
decided that they would not do so and started to trek. Unfortunately that trek ended in southern British Columbia. The provincial government of the day also was rather taken with the notion that all these people needed was kindness, that in time their difficulties would be overcome and that they would settle down and be amenable. Unfortunately for the second time a Canadian government was wrong; for trouble cropped up; schools were burned; they harnessed their naked women to their ploughs and did all sorts of things which were not in accordance with our way of life. They have given trouble off and on ever since. In the eighteen years that I have been a member of this house I have made one or two trips annually into the Grand Forks country in my constituency, where the Doukhobors are settled. I have endeavoured to keep in close touch with those public men and official people who are able to give me authentic information with regard to these troublesome folk, and I have made use of that information in Ottawa in discussing the matter with officials here.
It should be borne in mind that the first leader of this sect, Peter Veregin, who came with them from Russia, died as the result of a bomb explosion in the day coach of the train in which he was travelling. There is no evidence, and there never will be evidence, as to who put that bomb under Peter Veregin's seat; but in the minds of the people of that neighbourhood there is not the shadow of a doubt that it was an unruly, recalcitrant member of his own band who did so. After a year or two he was followed as leader by his son, Peter Veregin the second, and despite the man's dreadful character-intemperate, bestial, a bully, a perjurer-in spite of that, these people maintained a fanatical worship of him because they believed him to be the direct descendant of God Almighty. He died a year or two ago, and he has been followed as leader by a grandson of the original Peter of whom I know little and to whom I shall not refer, other than to say that he is a young man and as yet we do not know what sway he may have over his people.
I come, then, to the present state of affairs; I am not going to tell the committee many of the incidents which have occurred throughout the years. I will admit that these people have not been as unruly in recent years as they were previously, but still they will not obey regulations, law and order. Here we are in time of war. It is our purpose to endeavour to harness all the labour of this country in order to do our utmost in the war effort.
War Appropriation-Labour

The minister made only passing reference to this subject in his speech; these are his
words as reported at page 2937 of Hansard:
As of May 25 last mobilization boards had postponed 4,747 men as Mennonites, Doukhobors or conscientious objectors.
Then he proceeded to describe the steps the government has taken in the treatment of conscientious objectors. What I want to ask the minister is why he treats Doukhobors differently from conscientious objectors? He described how conscientious objectors have been put into certain camps, and have been used in that way. He points out that many of thein have given their labour willingly and that good results have followed. The Doukhobors certainly object conscientiously to military service, but they should not be allowed to go scot-free simply for that reason. As a matter of fact, governments in Canada have taken a generous and lenient view of the clause in the 1898 order in council, because it does not strictly and in so many words apply that proviso to the descendants of those who originally came. Still they do conscientiously object-or at least they use that conscientious objection as a fence. It appears to me, and it most certainly appears to those I represent, that there should be equality of treatment as between their sons and young Doukhobors.
I would draw your attention, Mr. Chairman, to a paragraph in a letter from a prominent business man of Grand Forks written to me last February. He writes:
It is a disgrace and an insult to our soldier men and women that something is not done with the younger generation of these people. With the crying need for labour in our forests, mines and war industries, and the existing fuel shortages, in every town and city in the country, to see these strapping young men by the hundreds loafing around, doing absolutely nothing, is enough to cause any red-blooded Canadian to wonder whether our government had any guts left at all. There is not a day in the week this winter that at least twenty-five to fifty of these young men of military age cannot be picked up in the streets of this small town of Grand Forks, and still the timeworn policy of "hands off the Doukhobors" still goes on.
Through the course of the years I have been of the opinion that time would solve this difficulty. That time might be a very long period, but judging from what had passed I was inclined to think I did see some improvement. When I was in the district last year, however, and once more had an opportunity of meeting the principal people, and discussing the Doukhobor question, I was shocked to find that these people now say that it is the young people, the young Doukhobors-those who have been through the schools-who now are inclined to say, "Oh, you do not need to
[Mr. Stirling.l
take any notice of that legislation. The government does not dare to do anything to us. We can go our own way." That is a sorry reflection on this problem. And it must be grasped more firmly than it has been grasped yet, if we are to do justice to our own Canadian people.
Upon returning from my visit last year I wrote to the minister, reporting what I had found. In my letter I made the suggestion to him that he should send an official of his department, not as a royal commissioner or anything as important as that, but just one of his officials whose opinion would be of value to the minister, and that such official should be permitted to go here and there and see the Doukhobors at their work or. at their farming, see those who on occasions employ them, see the leading people in the communities, and report to the minister so that he might have first-hand information. Some months later the minister was good enough to accede to that request, and asked the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to send in an officer. That police report is now before him, and I have a copy of it. I have gone through the report, and in my opinion it contains some very useful suggestions.
There is no doubt whatever that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the provincial police of British Columbia are well informed on this problem, and it is with their assistance that a solution may one day be found. For instance, it is suggested that in connection with the work of the selective service organization an office should be opened at Grand Forks. Hitherto the selective service office has been at Trail, which is a considerable number of miles away from this settlement of Doukhobors. They are more likely to ignore the notices they receive, unless they are able more easily to go to a local office. He also suggests that when the medical notices are sent out they should be sent in an entirely different form from that used in respect of those who are to be taken for military training. Then he suggests that in view of the fuel shortage, a condition which unfortunately is not getting any better as we go through the summer, there being a considerable quantity of mature timber in that neighbourhood it would be desirable to employ the Doukhobors in cutting fuelwood. This would be a means of reducing fire hazard, since these are mature trees. The cutting could be carried out under the guidance, and taking advantage of the experience of the provincial forestry officers. He suggests that if the opportunity to cut wood is offered to them, and they still refrain from

War Appropriation-Labour
playing their part in the game, then the minister should decide that they be put under restraint in selective service camps, where they would have to work.
These Doukhobors have been used to a certain extent in local industry, in connection with picking fruit, hoeing vegetables, cutting lumber and working in the sawmills. But there again we are met with the difficulty of inequality of treatment. On many, many occasions Doukhobors who had not registered were employed. The person who did not register, and still accepted wages, and the employer who paid the wages are both subject to penalties. Those penalties have been exacted against others, but I am not aware of their having been exacted against Doukhobors. That is another instance of inequality in the effect of these regulations.
It appears to me that the minister should discuss the question of treating these people as conscientious objectors, which they certainly are. Then, while honouring our word to their predecessors that they shall not be used for military purposes, they should be drawn in to do what work they can, so that there may be equality of treatment for all Canadians, and so that these people may no longer hang around the beer parlours and pool halls, before the eyes of the parents of those Canadian lads who have to conform to the regulations.


Humphrey Mitchell: I appreciate the sentiments expressed by the hon. member with respect to these people who for many, many years have been the problem children of Canada. Like the hon. member, I sat in this house some years ago, at a time when he was on this side of the house, and I have a vivid recollection of two members, one a bachelor prime minister and the other a bachelor leader of the opposition, discussing the question of a parade of thousands of naked people on a back lawn on a sunny morning. I remember vividly the burst of humour that occurred in a house that was so dismal in those days of desperate depression. What the hon. member said about these people is absolutely true. They were invited here and were granted certain privileges. When he referred to the beer parlours and poolrooms some would think it is an indication that they are becoming civilized in a way they were not in the old country. Like my hon. friend I have seen quite a bit of the government of British peoples in various parts of the world. I think one reason for the success of our type of government is that we do not interfere too much with other people. We do not try to make Britishers out of Indians, and so on.
Notwithstanding the criticism offered by people who sometimes have not seen or experienced the contributions that our people have made toward the development of what are sometimes called the subject races, I believe considerable good has been accomplished. What my hon. friend has said this evening is an indication that these people will eventually become assimilated within the bosom of the Canadian family.


Thomas Reid: Not in our lifetime.


Humphrey Mitchell: That may be quite true, but let me say to my hon. friend that his life or my life is just a heartbeat in the life of the nation.


Thomas Reid: The minister is very optimistic.


Humphrey Mitchell: When my good friend, the hon. member for New Westminster, is pushing up the daisies there may even be a Doukhobor mayor of New Westminster. A good many of these people are now engaged in what might be considered callings of national importance,, namely, farming, logging and so on. I should like it laid to the credit of this department while I have been minister that we have got these people to cooperate more than they have in the past. We have not given up the will to do something with them, and I say that with due regard to the difficulties which have been experienced by every government since these people first came to Canada.
I remember that last year-I want to say this on another occasion-the Department of Labour received a great deal of criticism about the Japanese problem. I think in a large measure we have solved it for the time being. H my hon. friend will leave the Doukhobor problem with us for another six months, we shall see if we can get it on the rails and have 'these people play the same part that other conscientious objectors are playing at the moment in the life of this country.


Grote Stirling: I do not think the minister has touched upon the main question. I was endeavouring to put before him the inequality in treatment accorded this young Doukhobor as compared to that given a young Canadian.


Alfred Henry Bence: Mr. Chairman, I listened with a great deal of interest to the speech made yesterday by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell), and I have since read it. If, when he made the statement that "we have the best possible man-power policy that can be devised", he meant that it was the best policy that could be improvised in the last six months after things had been allowed to drift into

War Appropriation-Labour

the position they were in, there may be some basis for the statement on the ground that it has yet to be proven. I must confess that listening to the minister I could not help thinking of the small boy who, while passing the graveyard, whistled in order to keep up his courage. The rather dogmatic assertions that were made by him were nothing more than pious hopes. It is self-evident that the policy which the government claims is the best that can be devised has only been conceived and put into effect in the last six months. That is proven by the fact that the minister asked my leader not to be too harsh on the organization, because it was a virgin one and could not be expected to iron out all the rough spots within that space of time. So far as I am concerned the old saying still stands: The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The first pudding was not very good, but I am hopeful that the second one will be better. However, I have not much hope, because most of the ingredients have been lost. It may be that this is the best plan that can be conceived now.
I should like to point out to the minister that this is the time of year when there is the least pressure as far as labour requirements are concerned. The minister quoted certain telegrams the other day with reference to the farm situation. Anyone who knows anything about farming, especially in western Canada, knows that this is the best season as far as labour is concerned. We know also that there is not the same pressure at this time in regard to the coal situation as there will be later on. People do not require coal now, but they will require it next winter. The proof of whether the policy of the government is the best that can be devised will be forthcoming at that time when a great amount of labour will be required on our western farms and coal will be required from our mines. Coal will be required to heat our homes and factories, and to run our railways and industries. When that time comes; when the maximum amount of labour is required, we shall be in a position to judge how this policy is going to work out.
The responsibility is upon the administration to see to it that the people of this country have things like coal. If there is not sufficient coal available, many phases of our war effort will bog down. We must have coal to heat our houses and as fuel for our factories. We must have it for our transportation systems. If the scheme which has been worked out does not solve that one problem, there will be many difficulties with which we shall be confronted. I am quite prepared to
 '
admit that all the responsibility does not rest upon the shoulders of the Minister of Labour. He has been minister for slightly less than a year and a half. Since the beginning of the war the responsibilities of this department have been divided with another Minister of Labour. My belief is that this is a governmental responsibility. The working out of a policy to bring about a state of affairs which will be effective as far as labour for the war effort is concerned rests squarely upon the shoulders of the government.
It seems to me that a comprehensive plan should have been worked out months ago rather than to continue on the basis that was announced by the minister and by his deputy, Mr. MacNamara, as late as last fall. They said they would continue on a voluntary basis until that system broke down, and then compulsion would be resorted to wherever necessary. It seems to me that the administration should have shown some imagination in that regard and realized that we would come to the position we are now in where compulsion must be resorted to. The fact that there is and has been for some time a difficult manpower problem; the fact that there has not been any comprehensive policy available to the people of this country, is evident from the statements and assertions of many responsible organizations and public men throughout this country. I need only refer to a few of' them, but they have been filling the newspapers for many months past. For example, the great wheat pool organization of western Canada sent a resolution to the administration last winter urging a new man-power scheme. One of the great voices of western agriculture, the Western Producer, as late as December 17 last, after the man-power problem for farmers was temporarily over, had this to say:
On the opposite page we publish material issued by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture which we commend to the attention of all farmers and farmer organizations. The material shows conclusively the chaotic condition into which the question of adequate farm labour has been permitted to degenerate by the absence of a coherent enforced plan to guide the relevant authorities in maintaining agriculture as a vital part of war industry and to facilitate the production of the foodstuffs which are imperatively necessary in the war effort.
The United Farmers of Alberta, in the latter part of November of last year, had this to say as reported in the Star-Phoenix of November 25:
"If the efficiency of Canadian farmers is regarded as desirable, there has been a serious bungling in man-power policy," the executive of the United Farmers of Alberta has informed Agricultural Minister J. G. Gardiner, in a statement sent to Ottawa.

War Appropriation-Labour
I quote further from the same statement, and this is in answer to a reference made by the minister yesterday to the farm situation in western Canada and his statement that he had no control over the weather:
Many farmers have reported at this office they could have been completely threshed at this time or sooner had there been available sufficient men skilled in handling harvesting machinery.
One of the outstanding agricultural experts of Saskatchewan, Professor E. A. Hardy of the university of Saskatchewan, on January 18 of this year said:
The major problem of the Saskatchewan farmer is not one of power or of machinery, but one of skilled farm labour, capable of operating power machinery.
Mr. Grant Dexter, writing in the Star-Phoenix of December 23 and referring to the coal situation-this was just after the appointment of the emergency coal production board-made this statement:
Uncontrolled competition for man-power between the army and essential war production has become evidenced in the appointment of this board whose task it is to avert a coal famine in 1943.
I should like to refer to the statement made by the minister as reported by the Canadian Press on November 7, 1942. I quote:
Mitchell said the way the British labour ministry's man-power activities are coordinated with production functions of supply departments on both national and regional levels impressed him deeply.
"We have been groping for procedure of the same kind and I hope I have found the key to it" said the minister.
He said that if he was able to judge what he had seen of production in visits to factories since he has been here the tempo in British plants is faster than in Canadian factories. And he added: "I shall have some wholesome things to say to Canadian employers and workmen on my return."
My leader this afternoon referred to a series of articles which was published in the western press of this country last November and December. These articles were written by Mr. Grant Dexter, who, to say the least, has been favourably inclined toward this government for a number of years and certainly has never been anything but critical of the party to which I have the honour to belong. I do not refer to these articles for the same purpose for which some of them were referred to this afternoon by the leader of the opposition. I do so for the purpose of discussing what I would call the Elliott Little case. I must confess that this matter has been on my mind for many months. From what I have been able to ascertain from a reading of the press and discussing the matter with people, some of whom purport to be in a position to know 72537-254}
or have been able to find out, it does seem to me that this man Elliott Little was given a very unfair deal by the administration.
May I say, first of all, that I do not know Mr. Little. But I do know this, that he was held in the very highest regard by the agricultural organizations of this country. I know that at the time of his resignation statements were made by the two largest labour organizations in this country, the trades and labour congress and the Canadian congress of labour, attesting to this. I want to refer to a Canadian Press dispatch of November 18, 1942. The first statement is by Percy R. Bengough, vice-president of the trades and labour congress. He stated: '
As far as Mr. Little is concerned we believe he is honest and capable. As far as the Minister of Labour is concerned we have resented his dictatorial and uncompromising attitude. Generally, labour from coast to coast does not like him.
Here is the statement of Mr. A. R. Mosher, president of the Canadian congress of labour:
The Canadian-congress of labour is very deeply disturbed by the rumour that Elliott Little, director of national selective service, has resigned from that office as a result of a controversy with the Hon. Humphrey Mitchell, Minister of Labour.
It is a matter of public knowledge that the man-power programme has bogged down, but this, in the opinion of the press, is due primarily to the lack of an adequate government policy with regard to the whole war effort.
The responsibility for the present situation rests upon the cabinet, and especially upon the Minister of Labour. Mr. Little has been handicapped from the start by the failure of the government to make up its mind about manpower, and to give him authority to carry out a definite policy.
It is just about eleven months ago that I met one of the leading labour men of my city. He had just returned from a meeting of labour men in Winnipeg which had been addressed by Mr. Elliott Little. I was very pleased that Mr. Little was in charge of this matter then., and I must confess that I was pleased to hear the praise showered on Mr. Little by this labour man for the aggressive attitude he, Mr. Little, had taken and for the impression he had given to that labour meeting in the city of Winnipeg.
In my opinion, and so far as I can ascertain, Mr. Little did not quit the ship, as was stated by the minister a few days ago. He was pushed off. He had been given a job, but had been given no authority to cany it out. In his own tyords the trouble was:
The paralysis which has overtaken selective service was, of course, a progresive development over several months and the minister was aware of outstanding difficulties before he left for
War Appropriation-Labour

England. During his absence I prepared proposals which I had hoped would serve as a basis for a constructive solution upon his return.
His attitude then, when I pressed for serious consideration of these proposals, was such that I obviously could not expect that support from him which is necessary if this or any other plan of national selective service is to function properly. I had no alternative but to submit my immediate resignation.
I have referred to the series of articles written by Mr. Grant Dexter. Mr. Dexter has a, reputation for being an intelligent and hard working editorial writer. He is known for his diligence in ascertaining the facts, and the statements he makes in this series of articles completely exonerate Mr. Elliott Little. For example, on November 9 last he said:
When selective service was announced last March great things were expected of it. As described by Mr. King in parliament, its responsibilities -were great. But few noted at the time that its powers were strictly limited. Mr. Little and others associated with him in administering selective service took the assignment in earnest, went about the country making speeches about what was going to happen. Figuratively they were like the farmer who thinks he has much land to work, but tunes up the tractors and the gang ploughs only to discover that all he really needs is a hand trowel to cultivate a window box.
To this day, seven months after the announcement, selective service is impotent, on its own, to hire a stenographer or to pay a bill. It has no power to take men from unimportant jobs and put them to work on essential ones. It can deal with people who come to its labour offices looking for work, but no more. Great sections of the population, and therefore of manpower, are totally withdrawn from its field of action-agriculture, for example. And the areas so blocked off are increasing, not decreasing; as witness the freezing, even if only temporarily, of half a dozen basic industries a few days ago.
Most people seem to have been thinking of selective service as the agency which would coordinate the war effort. There is, however, no warrant for such a view. This may happen: the crisis may have this result.
And on November 11 in another article he wrote as follows:
Most people think of national selective service as the organization whose task it is to give to every Canadian the job he can do best in this war. Indeed these are the words used by Elliott Little, the director, in a national broadcast on April 8, 1942, some two weeks after he was appointed.
_ The record, however, proves this is a mistaken idea. The confusion which now exists is only in a minor way attributable to Mr. Little and his associates. It is the result of government policy which, it would seem, has swerved sharply since March 24. In consequence, the position wTith respect to the mobilization of man-power has become increasingly complex. Right now it is a task shared by several agencies of government.
In retrospect, the action to mobilize manpower seems to have been halting and unsure.

The explanation in part is to be found in circumstances for which Mr. Little is not responsible. His contribution to present confusion has been due only to an apparent miscalculation of the pow'ers and responsibilities of selective service.
An article to a similar effect is set forth in the Star-Phoenix of November 30, after the resignation of Mr. Little. It is practically a repetition of one of the previous articles. I will read just the latter part:
Thus selective service, after six months of confusion, vacates the field so far as coordination of man-power is concerned. The four major contestants-army, munitions and supply, agriculture and essential civilian services-remain in the battle. Each of them is represented in cabinet by a different minister.
Coordination of man-power, therefore, remains just where it w'as last March before Mr. Little w-as appointed'-a problem for the government. The moral of the Little episode is that no one man can do this job. Only the government can coordinate its competing departments.
And then it goes on, referring to the order in council which I have cited, and of which I may have something to say in a minute:
On examination the charge against Mr. Little of presenting his minister with a 70-page proposition and expecting an early answer does not stand up. The 70 pages comprise, largely, a consolidation of regulations and orders already in effect. Over 60 pages of the total are merely a re-hash of orders already approved by the government. The new material can be read in not more than 15 minutes.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I have something to say in connection with this order in council, because I believe that the manner in which it was presented to the people of this country constitutes one of the most unfair things I have ever known. For example, let me point this out. This order, this draft order in council, was, at the expense of the Canadian people to the tune of $558.40, printed so that it could be sent out for the purpose of showing that Elliott Little was nothing but a dictator-9,500 copies in English and 3,500 copies in French; and particular attention-and this is the point to which I take the greatest exception - was drawn to a certain section of the draft order in council. To the ordinary person who has not studied law it sounds pretty terrible, but may I say that I do not believe Mr. Little had anything to do with the drafting of this section, and I will explain why in a minute.
Section 21, page 32 of that draft order in council, is as follows:
No person shall, in the course of an investigation under this section, insult the director or wilfully interrupt any proceeding before the director, or refuse to obey any order made by the director in the course of an investigation; and if a person does any such thing the director may, without affecting such person's liability for

War Appropriation-Labour
contravening regulations, direct any peace officer to take him into custody and remove him from the precincts and presence of the director to be detained in custody until the conclusion of the day's sitting.


Mr. MARTIN:: What section is that?


Alfred Henry Bence: Section 21, page 32. That section was spread all across this country in black type for the purpose of showing what kind of man Elliott Little was, and there was great chortling and glee in many sections of the Liberal party in my particular part of the country because they could pick this out and say, "What kind of man is this who does not want to be insulted and puts in a draft order in council to this effect?" This draft order in council was drawn up by members of the Department of Labour and the Department of Justice. That particular section as a matter of fact is practically the same as a section in the Combines Investigation Act of this country, which was, I understand, drawn up and was certainly passed under the supervision of the present Prime Minister of Canada. Section 33 of the Combines Investigation Act, chapter 26, revised statutes of Canada, 1927, is as follows:
If in any proceedings before the Registrar or any commissioner any person wilfully insults the Registrar or any commissioner, or wilfully interrupts the proceedings, or is guilty in any other manner of any wilful contempt in the face of the Registrar or commissioner, the Registrar or commissioner may direct any constable to take the person offending into custody and remove him from the precincts and presence of the Registrar or commissioner, to be detained in custody until the conclusion of that day's sitting.
It is practically identically the same thing that was set out in this draft order in council and which was impressed on the Canadian people as an example of what a dictator this man was; yet it is a section which has been on the statute books of this country for at least the last twenty years. That was taking a very unfair advantage of Mr. Little, and it seems to me that, if the Minister of Labour had been as fair as he states he wishes to be, he would have drawn that fact to the attention of the Canadian people.
To my mind the confusion which has been demonstrated to the people of this country by the actions of the administration in its manpower policy is proven by the fact that, during the course of the last two years, they have had not only two ministers of labour, but two ministers of national war services, and now they have called for a parliamentary assistant -to whom I wish the very best of luck, because I believe that he will need it.
I wish now to refer, before I complete my remarks, to one particular thing in connection with my own constituency. I refer to the
flour mills situation, which is very grave, and which I believe, unless it is solved, will affect many sections of Canada's war effort and will put the people of this country in grave peril.
We have in western Canada many large flour mills, and I receive, not complaints, because these are not the kind of people who complain, but numerous suggestions from them that some special consideration, should be given to the men who work in the flour mills. There is a great deal of heavy work to be done there; yet it would appear that there is no special priority so far as they are concerned; at least it is certainly not as high a priority as obtains in other cases. The matter of the manufacture of flour is very important in this country, and I submit to the minister and to the officials who are in charge of the administration of these priorities that they should see to it that the necessary heavy labour, a good deal of which is required in connection with flour mills, is available. I wish to quote from a copy of a letter which was sent to the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) from one of the mills in that city, and a copy of which was sent to me by the manager of a Saskatoon firm. It states as follows:
. . . But those vital food processing industries, long established on the prairies are inexorably being forced to curtail their output or shut down altogether, because of the manpower shortage. Such a condition, at this most crucial period in our national effort, is not only intolerable, but must appear incredible. Nevertheless, it is absolutely true.
We are under present regulations, unable to help ourselves. Our rating is apparently not high enough to warrant first choice of any available labour. That, seemingly is reserved for repair depots, coal mines, or oil refineries. We consider our food industries vitally essential. We will be here long after the war is won-if we survive.
I submit that the case is an imperative one and should receive immediate consideration.


An hon. MEMBER:: Will the hon. member tell us who wrote that?


Alfred Henry Bence: Gladly. It was written by
Robin Hood flour mills of Moose Jaw, of which Mr. Larkins is manager.


Mr. FAUTEUX:: As the representative of
an important constituency in Montreal, and representing labour, I should like to say a few words, but first I would ask the committee to be indulgent with me because I intend to speak in English and unfortunately I am not thoroughly familiar with the language. My first word will be one of congratulation to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) upon the wonderful speech he made in the house. He has given us an

War Appropriation-Labour
interesting statement of the affairs of his department, and not only to the house but to the country as well, which was very anxious to get his explanation.
At the beginning of the session there were labour troubles throughout the country and in many places people were asking for the head of the Minister of Labour. I well remember, as all hon. members no doubt do, the speech which the Prime Minister made in this house when, referring to the Minister of Labour, he said that at the time when it was decided to have a labour man in the cabinet the first thing he did was to ask Mr. Tom Moore to join the government in that capacity. Unfortunately, for some reason or another, Mr. Tom Moore refused, but he did suggest to the Prime Minister that the best man he could choose in the country was the hon. gentleman who now occupies the position of Minister of Labour.
If I rise to-night to pay my tribute to the Minister of Labour, it is because, not only in my own province and in my own constituency, but throughout Canada, those who think likewise are in very good company, since they are in the company of Mr. Tom Moore.
We have heard many criticisms of the minister since the beginning of the session, and of course we need to have criticism. It is the role of the opposition; it is the role of all parties wdio do not support the government, to criticize, and I do not blame them. The first criticism we have heard is that the Minister of Labour did not succeed in allotting to every department of our economic life sufficient man-power, and in some other quarters other critics have said that as a labour man he did not treat the labour men as he should have done. It is interesting to study the part which the Progressive Conservative party has played in the criticism of the Minister of Labour, and the part which our friends of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation have taken. The Conservative party have taken the position of the patriot who wants to do more than anybody else to win the war and who thinks that we have not done enough, that w'e are not making an all-out war effort. The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation has assumed the role of the protector of the labouring classes.
I do not wish to impute motives to those hon. members. They have tried, I suppose, to do their best for their country. I realize, however, as a man who has been in politics for many years, what it would be like if there were an election. The Conservatives would go before the people and say, "The Liberal party has not done its utmost to win the war; it has not made an all-out war effort because it has
[Mr. Fauteux.l
not had conscription." And the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation would say to the people, "We are the only ones who have looked after you employees during the four years that the government has been in power."
Hon. members may recall what was said last session-and I do not like to speak about the past; I do not like to speak about measures that have been already discussed at considerable length, measures, moreover, that might create division between provinces. I think hon. members will give me credit for having done my utmost in this house to promote national unity, and perhaps they will allow me to say that, even though I am a young man, I have a son who is only eighteen years of age and who is now in the maritime provinces awaiting embarkation. In a few weeks' time he will be at sea going to defend his country, and I am proud of him.
What did we say during the last session on the question of conscription? If I refer to this subject it is because it was introduced by the member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). I remember when I spoke against conscription at the last session I said to this house that I was opposed to conscription for overseas but not for service in this country, and I did so because, like many other Canadians, I believed that we should retain as many Canadians as possible in Canada to work in order to comply with Mr. Churchill's request, "Give us the tools and we will finish the job." I was sincere; we were sincere, but during that time we heard our hon. friends opposite, the Conservative party, trying to impose upon the Prime Minister and the government of this country an all-out, total war effort, which to them meant conscription. We imposed conscription for Canada; we amended the law in order to permit the government to send men overseas or anywhere by order in council, if the men were needed. I believe, knowing the Conservatives of the province of Quebec-I will not say throughout the country-that they were sorry our Prime Minister did not impose conscription for overseas; not to save our country, not to save the allies, but to save their own party. I was greatly interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Lake Centre when he spoke of Mr. MacNamara, as reported at page 3956 of Hansard of yesterday as follows:
My hon. friends on the government side never admit that they have brought in conscription; they do not admit that the present system is a means by which men are forced to volunteer in the armed forces for overseas service, but when the deputy minister of labour was speaking at this meeting he endeavoured to explain to those who were present why it was that Canada did not have selective service by which men would serve all over the world just as they have in the United States.

War Appropriation-Labour
Then he further quoted what Mr. MacNamara had said and followed it with these words; and I ask you, Mr. Chairman, and my hon. friends from the province of Quebec to listen to this statement, to show the sincerity of those in my province who were asking for conscription:
At last we have from the mouth of an official of the Department of Labour definite proof of what we have been endeavouring to place before the house on more than one occasion, that Canada has conscription.
That is what the Conservative party were interested in saving. I said in the beginning that I did not want to impute motives to the hon. member, but I really believe that the Conservative party in my own province were interested in having conscription, not to help Canada's cause, not to help the allied cause, but to help their party. What were we asking for last year? We did everything possible to impress upon the government that we wanted selective service in order that every Canadian should serve where he was best fitted to serve. We hear complaints now that we have not enough man-power on the farms. How many members on this side of the house have been asking the government to free farmers' sons, not from their duty, not because they were cowards and did not want to serve at the front, but because we thought at the time-and I believe we were right-that we needed those young men to serve on the home front, to serve on the farms not only of Quebec but of the whole country? I believe the best proof that we were right is to be found in the fact that this session we do not hear, as we heard last session, hon. members opposite asking the government to send all the young men possible overseas. This year they are complaining that we have not enough men in this country to serve in our war plants and on our farms.


An hon. MEMBER:: Do you think we
have?


Gaspard Fauteux: Just a moment, my hon. friend. My congratulations go to the man who is at the head of the country, who has been chosen as Prime Minister of this country and has served in that office for many years. He was not only chosen by Liberals, but he was chosen by all Canada. When he was accused of playing politics; when be was accused of serving his party, he was really sacrificing himself and his party to serve his country.
I said a few moments ago, Mr. Chairman, that other criticisms came from the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party. They would have the working people of
Canada believe that they are the only men who will protect them. If I remember correctly, the present labour minister was not chosen because he was a Liberal; if I am not mistaken, only a few years ago he occupied a seat in the opposition side of this house when the Liberals were in power. He was chosen as labour minister because he was a labour man, because he was an able man and because he was recommended by Mr. Tom Moore, who, I believe, has the respect of all the labour people of Canada. I listened to the speech of one of our good friends of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party who specializes in labour problems. Everyone knows that he specializes so much that he spends a good deal of his time in travelling around Canada to meet and address labour people, which he has a right to do, I will admit. To my surprise, however, very often within a few weeks after he has left the labour people whom he addressed, labour trouble or strike followed in some instances. Let us read now what he said in his speech, as reported at page 3973 of Hansard:
I do not care what tag they give me-C.I.O., A.F. of L. or Canadian Congress of Labour.
Then, Mr. Chairman, I draw your attention to this. I quote:
John L. Lewis has taken us around by the ears so much that I do not know where we stand on these things.
Well, as a professional man, representing labour in the house and, I may say, representing one of the largest constituencies in Canada, I have done everything possible in the past to help labour, not only here, but in the legislative assembly of Quebec. May I add incidentally that I served free of charge as chairman of a board of conciliation which attempted to try to do something for labour.
But those of us who are not simply serving a party, but who wish to serve our country by serving labour will never say that we have been taken by the ears by John L. Lewis so often that we do not know where we stand. We believe in one thing-it is not the direction of John L. Lewis, or anybody else, especially if they come from outside the country-that will orient our conduct in Canada. Let me say to hon. members what I have said on many occasions to my many friends in the United States-and I have no hesitation in making this statement, and take full responsibility for it: I state, not as a member of parliament in Canada, but as a Canadian, that if we had John L. Lewis in Canada he would have been in a concentration camp a long time ago.
Canadians in general have much sympathy for labour. The people know, as I know, that
War Appropriation-Labour

labour has not received all that to which it is entitled. I know perfectly well that employers -not all, but certainly some of them-do not do what they should for their employees. So far as I am concerned, I am not interested in the racketeering alleged to take place in labour organizations. I believe it is time to protect labour first and, I will repeat what my hon. friend said, when speaking about order in council 2865-and I believe he was right-"that in veiy clear language the order in council gave the workers the right to organize."
I have had an opportunity of serving labour organizations, and of realizing how generous are the orders in council for the benefit of working men, but I realize, though, that there are no teeth in those orders in council, neither is there always a sanction. We have very generous labour laws, and we recognize the right of labour to organize. The law even punishes employers who do anything detrimental to the right of employees to organize. Provisions have been set up to appoint conciliation boards. But, I repeat, there are no teeth in these regulations; there is no sanction, and we cannot punish employers or employees if they do not follow the advice of the labour board.
May I make a suggestion to help the working man and the employer, so that we may have peace and order in our country? Is it not time that we oblige our labour unions to incorporate, in order that they may be responsible organizations? What do our labour organizations ask for? They ask for compulsory bargaining powers. And what is the meaning of that? Well, we ask employers and employees to sit at the same table, to discuss their problems, and come to an agreement. For instance, they may decide that they will take a vote in the plant to choose which labour organization will be the bargaining agent. After the bargaining agent is chosen, a man or a group of men will make a contract with the employer. Such contract would be made effective for one or two years. But what happens? Well, three or four months after the contract is made, another labour organization -the C.I.O., the A.F.ofL. or some such group -enter the plant and try to organize. They say, "We are the majority. This contract is no good. We will have to be chosen to replace the former collective bargaining agent, and another contract will have to be drawn up." After all, a contract is a contract. We are fighting this war because we believe in the sanctity of contracts. What happens among individuals when a party fails to keep a contract? The party is prosecuted in the courts. An employer can be prosecuted because he is

a responsible party, but labour unions, not being incorporated, are not responsible and cannot be prosecuted. In saying that, I am thinking of my friends, the labour class, not only of my constituency, but of Montreal and elsewhere in Canada. They are honest people, and they believe in the sanctity of contracts. I believe the time has arrived when the labour unions should be made to incorporate themselves in order that they may be responsible for any trouble that may occur through a strike.
I have great respect for union organizations, but not so much for certain organizers. If labour unions were held responsible, I wonder if some of these organizers would call strikes so quickly when they knew that there might not be enough money in the bank to pay their salaries? If we do not want to have occur here what is happening elsewhere; if we want to protect the labour organizations and employees-I insist upon this-if we want to respect the rights of the employers and of honest capital; if we want to keep order in this country the Minister of Labour should ask the cabinet to put more teeth by sanction in the legislation already enacted.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a question of privilege. I have been misrepresented by the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Fauteux) who has just taken his seat. If the remarks which I made last night and which he has attempted to discuss this evening went over his head, that is not my responsibility. If he had read my statement as set out in Hansard when I was discussing jurisdictional disputes, he would not have placed upon it the construction he has to-night. I was attempting to point out to the Minister of Labour that it was immaterial to me what tag was hung on any particular union, be it C.I.O., A.F. of L. or Canadian Congress of Labour. I stated, as set out in Hansard, that the rank and file of the labour men across this country who are attempting to organize are all fighting for the same principle, the right to a means of livelihood. I made certain remarks about my international president for whom I have a lot of respect, and who is respected by everyone on the north American continent who has had any connection with labour in the last thirty years. I merely tried to amplify my position in connection with affiliation and to show my complete disregard for it. I was not particular about what centre my international president is affiliated with in the near future. I have been in the A.F. of L.; I have been in the C.I.O., and I am now a member of the Canadian Congress of Labour.

War Appropriation-Labour


Gaspard Fauteux: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member has said that he has been misrepresented, but I quoted what was in Hansard.


Clarence Gillis: The hon. member read what suited him. He pulled a couple of sentences out of the context to make it appear as though it read exactly what he was talking about.


Gaspard Fauteux: I read what is contained in Hansard.


Clarence Gillis: If anyone compares the lot of the workers who are led by John L. Lewis in the United States with the wages and conditions of the workers in Quebec, I think he will agree that it would be well for that province if they had a couple of John L. Lewises in the field of labour. To the best of my knowledge the only crime he has ever committed is to fight for the workers whom he represents and who pay him his wages.


Gaspard Fauteux: He is even blamed by Russia.


Mr. COLDWELL:: That is rubbish.


Clarence Gillis: He fights for the members who have elected him.


Gaspard Fauteux: To lose the war.


Clarence Gillis: He takes his instructions from the international convention. Wage agreements are drafted by the policy committee which is set up by the rank and file of the union. He has no alternative but to follow the instructions of the international convention unless he is released by that body.


An hon. MEMBER:: He is no leader at all.


Clarence Gillis: He is a democrat. He takes his instructions from the people. The policy is drafted by the convention.


Major James William Coldwell: That is democracy.


Clarence Gillis: If the hon. member for St. Mary is trying to create the impression that anyone in this country is pulling me around by the nose or by the ears, he is making a mistake. I was merely amplifying my complete disregard for any of these tags. Every'section of labour in Canada is fighting for the same principle as I am fighting for. The quicker we get away from all this busines of C.I.O., A.F. of L., Canadian Congress of Labour, Catholic syndicate and what have you, the quicker the problems faced by the Minister of Labour will be solved.
The hon. member stated that I travel a lot around this country. That is quite true, and I intend to continue doing so. This is
still a free country. He has stated that every time I appeared in Ontario, Quebec or somewhere else, immediately a strike took place. I want to say that that is absolutely wrong.


Gaspard Fauteux: I did not say each time.


Clarence Gillis: My hon. friend will find if he checks the record-[DOT]


Gaspard Fauteux: It happened very often.


Clarence Gillis: -that I have never attended a meeting in any province of Canada unless I was invited to do so by the people who were sponsoring the meeting. There is not a man in this country who can say that I ever advised the workers to go out on strike.


Major James William Coldwell: That is true, and we know it. The Minister of Labour knows it well.


Clarence Gillis: Just the very reverse has been true and with very good reasons-a strike is an obsolete weapon.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I do not think any labour leader wants a strike.


Clarence Gillis: No, there is not one. I am sorry I have had1 to occupy this time, Mr. Chairman, but I have no intention in this house or out of it of allowing anyone to rise in his place and make a statement of the kind * that was made about me to-night. I would advise the hon. member to get the German labour laws. I have them in my office and he can see them. The kind of organization he would set up is exactly the same kind of organization that Hitler has in Germany. That is exactly what my hon. friend is advocating.


Major James William Coldwell: That is it exactly.


Clarence Gillis: And if that is the kind of labour organization he wants, I will give him the labour laws of Germany.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: First, I want to join with the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. McKinnon) in what he said about conditions in the civil service here in Ottawa, and more especially among the lower paid employees, those in grade 1. I think it is a crime to have the civil servants of this country paid wages by the government of Canada that are not sufficient to maintain a decent standard of living. As was pointed out by the hon. member, only twenty-five eivil service girls in grade 1 have been able to take advantage of the accommodation afforded by the new hostel that is being built here because their salaries are not sufficient for them to avail themselves of that accommodation. Anyone who has lived in Ottawa

War Appropriation-Labour

knows-I do not think there can be any argument about this at all-that one cannot live here on sixty, sixty-five or seventy dollars a month. As the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River said, and I am in entire agreement with him, the dominion government at least should try to be a model employer and set an example in that respect.
I wish to say a word about the government's labour policy in general and then refer to a particular case or two. Working conditions in this country, generally speaking, are not good. I think we have had far too many strikes, perhaps not as many as other countries have had, but still we have had too many, and there has been too much disruption of work. I believe that every one of these strikes could have been averted if a proper investigation had been carried on beforehand and efforts had been made to iron out the difficulties.
Let us go back to the first of the war to show where the lack of planning came in. The Minister of Labour said, as reported at page 3940 of Hansard:
Hon. members should keep uppermost in mind the magnitude of our navy, army and air force and the fact that our industrial output and food production is now the greatest in our history.
That is well to remember. But that is the very thing the government did not remember. That is just where they fell down. I am not blaming the present minister for that, because he was not in office when the war started. When the war first started, that was the time our labour conditions should have received attention and when planning for the future should have been done. Anyone who had to do with administration or with labour would know that to raise an army, navy and air force and satisfy the needs of war industry would take a tremendous amount of careful planning, and that if you simply took men and women from all sources of employment and put them into the army, navy and air force in the numbers in which they were taken in, and in the manner in which they were allowed to come in, there was bound to be disruption. There was no planning there. Whether these young men were enlisted voluntarily or whether it was conscription, I am not going to argue at the present time.
On the next page of Hansard, page 3941, the Minister of Labour is reported to have said:
The commendable desire of our young men and women to volunteer for service in the navy, army and air force naturally led to shortages of labour for the jobs at home.
May I suggest to the minister that he has given the cause of the trouble right there in his own words when he said that these men and

women were enlisting in all the different branches of the armed services and were allowed to go anywhere. No wonder, there is now a great deal of difficulty in taking care of the needs of agriculture, of the coal mines, of war industry and of the armed services! We started out without any planning with respect to man-power. The minister went on to say :
These shortages have been added to by the thousands of men called up for service in Canada under the National Resources Mobilization Act. In addition to the drain of man-power into the armed services, the movement of men and women into war plants creates difficult problems with which we are dealing every day.
I am not blaming, the minister for making that statement, because it is true. But when he uses these words to try to give people the impression that everything is well and under control, he is missing the point entirely.
I'want to speak of the situation in our coal fields. I think the coal shortage is going to be one of our major problems. I have spoken of this before, but I mention it again because I see great danger ahead of us. The coal situation has become so serious that the government has declared a state of national emergency in fuel. There is no danger at the present time of a shortage of coal for domestic consumption. This is not the time of the year for that. But there may easily be a crisis as regards the supply of industrial coal. The users of industrial coal may not be able to get their supplies even at this time of the year, and if mining conditions get any worse in the United States we in Canada will be faced with a very serious problem indeed. It is no use just sitting down and hoping that the United States will settle their labour troubles and that our coal requirements will be taken care of by importations from the United States. It is high time that we should begin to develop a coal policy for Canada, to produce at least sufficient coal to take care of our own needs. We have an abundance of coal on both sides of this country, and there is no reason why we should be dependent upon the United States for coal for either industrial or domestic use. The strike in the coal mines in the United States is causing a great deal of fear in Canada, because we are now dependent upon the United States for our coal supply,.
The Minister of Labour said, as reported at page 3932 of Hansard:
Last October we arranged to have coal miners receive special consideration for postponement of military service and instructed national selective service officers not to issue any permits for coal miners to seek any other employment. Then we arranged to have coal miners granted leave from the armed services in Canada if they were willing to return to the mines. Subsequently we established the emergency coal production board after full consultation with

War Appropriation-Labour
the national selective service advisory board and the man-power advisory committee of the coal^ industry.
We have issued an order requiring all ex-coal miners to return to coal mining regardless of their present occupations and are guaranteeing them full employment. .
That is a big undertaking, guaranteeing them full employment. I hope the minister can fulfil it.
He speaks of soldiers getting out of the army. If he is depending upon that, I warn him now that it will not work as smoothly as he supposes. Only this week a man from the armed forces came into my office. He is a miner; I know him personally, and I know the mine from which he came; it also is in the Drumheller area. He has tried, since the minister made his statement on this matter, to get released from the armed forces, and he told me, "You cannot get near your commanding officer."


Humphrey Mitchell: Perhaps the hon.
member will give me the man's name privately.


Charles Edward Johnston: I went
this far:	I said, "When you return to your
camp, ask to go before your commanding officer; if you cannot get to him this time let me know, and I will personally take it up with the minister." But here is the difficulty: very few of these cases are likely to come either to the attention of private members or to the attention of the minister. The man told me that as soon as he managed to get by the sergeant and went to the major, he was pushed back with the remark, "We need you here, and you are not going to get out." There are not very many men in the army who will be so persistent as to keep on trying to get out, because there are lots of ways of discouraging miners in the army from not pressing too hard to be released in order to return to the mines. Therefore I say that if the minister is expecting to get many miners from the armed services back into the mines in order to settle a national emergency, I fear he is due for a disappointment. If there is a national emergency such as the Prime Minister indicated, I am definitely of opinion that other measures will have to be taken either to get miners or to release those who are in the armed forces, because I see difficulties looming up at the present time.
I wish to bring one particular case to the minister's attention, and that is all I shall deal with this evening; anything else I have to say will be deferred until we are on the estimates under the different topics to which they refer. I believe a little more consideration should be given to the working man in
regard to his employment. Not all these strikes which are occurring are the fault of the miners. I wish to refer specifically to the strike which took place at Drumheller when seventeen mines were affected and over 2,000 miners ceased work. It lasted, I believe, for about two weeks, and thousands of tons were not produced on account of it. It is true that the strike was settled, but the problem which was facing the miners is not settled. Certainly it was not settled by the board which was appointed to arbitrate the case. Judge Tweedie, I believe, was the chairman and was appointed by the- dominion government. The difficulty in that case was a matter of principle, whether a mine operator could fire a miner at any time he wanted to, for almost any reason. It is true that the strike was settled, but only when another mine, the Red Deer Valley mine, hired the man who had been dismissed from the Star mine; that relieved the situation and these fellows went back to work. But I believe the same difficulty will arise again, and I wish to point out to the minister what I think was the very unfair attitude taken by the judge in rendering his decision with regard to this strike. The minister should take precautions that such a thing does not occur again. I happened to be in Drumheller at that time, and was talking to these fellows, some of whom I know personally, and they gave me some of the correspondence they had had. I should like to put it on record for the minister's information.
This is a copy of Mr. Justice T. M. Tweedie's ruling in the case of Mike Bokos, given by telegram. Bokos is the man who was fired and whose dismissal is supposed to have been the cause of the strike:
Re Bokos reemployment at Star mine. Bokos was a member of the local union of the United Mine Workers of America at Star mine and along with other members of the union -went out on an illegal strike in violation of wage agreement then in force between district No. 18 United Mine Workers of America and various coal companies operating in Drumheller and Wayne districts Alberta as a result of which the Star mine was shut down for two weeks in February last. Bokos thereby ceased to be an employee of the Rosedale Collieries Ltd. Star mine. The company refused to reemploy him. The company was within its rights in doing so. I do not recommend his reemployment.
Statements of fact in Judge Tweedie's ruling are obviously wrong.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: In whose opinion?


Charles Edward Johnston: The men right there on the ground. In the first place this states that Bokos, a member of the local union, along with other members of the union
4026
War Appropriation-Labour

went out on an illegal strike. That man was not even employed by the mining company when the strike was called. He was on compensation from the provincial government. He had been hurt in an accident in the mine a little while before, and was still out on compensation. That is one statement which is definitely wrong and can be so proven from the records. The telegram states that "Bokos thereby ceased to be an employee of the Rosedale Collieries." The reason given is not at all how the dispute arose. It happened that something like two months before, there had been a little dispute regarding this man in the overloading of a car. But it was never drawn to his attention, and he was not fired on that account; in fact he was not fired at all. This is a matter of principle with the miners in Drumheller. It was not that they particularly cared about an individual as such, but the case involved the principle of whether a mine owner could just deliberately fire a fellow whenever he wanted to. That is what the union were fighting about, and of course that is what a union is for.
I want to put another document on record for the minister's information. This is from Rosedale Collieries Limited, Rosedale Mine, Rosedale Mine Post Office, Alberta, dated April 13, 1943, and it was sent to Mr. William Briggs, secretary, sub-districts 1 and 2, district 18, United Mine Workers of America, Drumheller:
I wish to acknowledge your letter of April 8 together with enclosure of a copy of a letter addressed to the Drumheller Coal Operators' Association. The purpose of these communications is apparently to threaten a strike unless one. Mike Bokos, is hired by the Rosedale collieries at the Star mine.
The employment of the above person was one of the disputes referred to Judge Tweedie as an independent chairman appointed by the dominion government. As Judge Tweedie has not as yet rendered his decisions on the matters in dispute, it would probably not be ethical that they be discussed. However, your letter implies drastic action to enforce the desire of some portion of your membership and credits Judge Tweedie with certain statements in regard to the employment of this man.
In order that your membership might have the benefit of some of Judge Tweedie's statements, I herewith relate a portion of the discussion at least.
It developed that Mike Bokos is a citizen of a country at war with Canada and our allies.
I want the committee to notice this:
The judge made the following comment:
"I have no sympathy with an alien who would earn his livelihood in this country for a period of some 13 years, during which a family was supported by sending money back from this . country to the country of his citizenship. If this country is good enough for a man to earn his living in, it is good enough for him to become a citizen of, and to bring his family to where he intends to earn his living."

We are pleased to note that, in the last paragraph of your letter to me, peaceful solution of any controversy is desired as being beneficial to both parties and the country' as a whole.
The reason for my writing this letter is that your delegates may have this information before them at the discussion which you state will take place April 14, and where a decision as to your future action will be taken.
The information was the previous paragraph which I have read and which was in quotations. Apparently one of the main reasons why the judge rendered the decision he did, and agreed that the mine should not rehire this man, was that the man was an alien. Whether he is an alien from a country with which we are at war, or whether he is not, does not, I submit, constitute a ground upon which to decide a strike. I think the minister will agree with me in that regard. It is not sound. I have no more sympathy than anybody else with the man who comes here and earns his living in this country and takes his earnings back, or sends them back, to the country from which he came, and I do not care whether it is a country with which we are at -war or not. But that is a matter of immigration. In that connection, I would say that if any man comes here and after remaining in the country for five years does not take out his naturalization papers he should be deported. I would not give him ten or fifteen years; I would reduce the period to five years. Certainly, however, that is not a sufficiently good ground upon which to base a decision in a matter of this kind, and to declare that because this man is an alien we should agree that the mine is right and the strikers are wrong.
There was a considerable degree of hard feeling over this question, and the only thing that settled the strike was the fact that one of the other coal mining companies came to the rescue. This company' gets along very well with its men and, so far as I know, there has never been any trouble in the Red Deer Valley mines. It seems to be one of the few companies that have the ability to cooperate with the miners in any sort of labour-management programme.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Who wrote that letter?


Charles Edward Johnston: The letter was from Rosedale Collieries Limited, per J. F. Harvie. I believe that every one of these strikes could be solved if there were a proper relationship between labour and management.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Can the hon. member tell us what the relationship is that is so satisfactory in that colliery?
Mr. JOHNSTON 'Bow River) : In the Red Deer Valley mine?

Sugar Allotment


John Ritchie MacNicol: How do they look after their men?


Charles Edward Johnston: I do not know the details. I do not know what sort of plan they work on, but I have bought coal from them-a good deal of it-and I know personally many of the men working there. I also know the management, and to my knowledge there has never been a serious dispute. But that is one of the very few mines about which that can be said. I do not believe there are any strikes that cannot be amicably settled if we go about it in the right way, but certainly the moment one of these men is fired in the Drumheller valley again under similar circumstances, there will be another strike, because the trouble has not been settled and they are certainly not in agreement with the decision rendered by the judge. And I do not blame them. I will be frank with the minister. When I read those letters I said to these fellows that in my opinion the reason given was not a basis upon which the judge could give the decision which he rendered. They were very much perturbed about it; they were anything but satisfied. I do not know whether we are supposed to criticize a judge or not, but I think that was a very poor decision to make. I suggest that the minister should pay a little more attention to these strikes. He is a labour man and has worked among labourers, and it would not be amiss in many cases if he went to the spot himself where he would be able to settle the matter. I have my doubts whether a judge is a man capable of rendering a decision in this type of dispute.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Order. I know the hon. member realizes that he may not attack the judiciary either in committee or in the house.


Charles Edward Johnston: Well, let me say that I have my doubts whether a man occupying such a position should be chairman of such a committee. I do not believe that such men are in a position to know the true relationship that exists between labour and management. Take a lawyer out of this house-*


George Hugh Castleden: Take them all out.


Charles Edward Johnston: -or take any lawyer in the city of Ottawa, whether you give him a judgeship or not, and I could name many of them around here-


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Order.


Charles Edward Johnston: I say, take any member here who happens to be a lawyer and send him to Drumheller to settle a dispute
between labour and management, and he would not know anything about it. And definitely that was the situation here. So that, instead of appeasing these labourers; instead of settling the strike fairly, it was purely a one-sided affair. As I have pointed out, although the strike terminated it was not by reason of the decision handed down by the chairman but by reason of the good judgment of one of the operators in another company in hiring the man. As a result of actions such as I have described we have lost thousands of tons of coal at a time when the Prime Minister declares that there is a national emergency. If that is any way of solving our labour problems, then I am afraid we are heading straight for a real emergency, and when this winter comes it will be too late to start making plans to meet any national emergency. The government had better start now.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, June 25, 1943