[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. A. FRASER (Northumberland, Ont.) presented the second report of the standing committee on public accounts, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the customary notice has not been given of this motion for concurrence I would respectfully say that we are not prepared to give approval at the moment.
Motion stands.



INTERNATIONAL CURRENCY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: I desire to direct a question to the Prime Minister based upon a press dispatch from Washington, dated April 5. First, is Canada one of the thirty-four nations to whom, according to United States treasury secretary Henry Mor-genthau, has been communicated a broad plan for international stabilization of world currencies after the war on a basis of gold? Second, if so, when may this house expect the Prime Minister to submit this plan to parliament for discussion?


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: The Prime Minister is unable to be present, but I will bring this matter to his attention. The question can be treated as notice.

Coarse Grains



GRAIN MARKETING POLICY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MaeKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday last I intimated to the house that I expected to be able to make a statement shortly with respect to the coarse grain situation. This matter has been fully considered and I wish to make a statement outlining the government's policy.
Members of this house will recall that the government's programme for the 1942-43 crop year was a programme designed to stimulate the production of coarse grains and to remove any fear of a decline, in the. prices of these grains as a result of increased production. Minimum basic prices of forty-five cents for oats and sixty cent} for barley were guaranteed, with the Canadian wheat board instructed to purchase in the event that the market declined to these floor prices. At times last autumn the board had to purchase both oats and barley in order to prevent a further decline in prices, and it was only because of the development of a heavy feed grain demand from the United States and difficulty in making delivery that this situation has not continued. It was clearly stated last year that the ceiling prices of 51i cents on oats and 64| cents on barley would be maintained, and this part of the coarse grains programme has effectively contributed to the maintenance of our live stock programme.
Since early in February, Winnipeg prices for oats and barley have been at or close to ceiling levels. In the meantime, United States grain markets have been advancing, and the difference between our prices and United States prices has widened considerably. The government were naturally concerned about finding a means to enable the western farmer to benefit from the United States market, and at the same time to maintain those price controls in the domestic market which are a part of national policy.
Another problem arising from these circumstances which had to be considered by the government was the fact that exporters of Canadian feed grains were placed in a position to obtain more than a normal margin, had export permits been freely issued. The government is naturally concerned that the full American price less transportation, duty, and forwarding costs be returned to the western producer.
The price ceilings on coarse grains in the Winnipeg market were imposed as part of our national price control policy, and were
based on the highest prices recorded during the base period. With the price control policy in effect, it is important that domestic feeders who purchase coarse grains will be able to keep their feed costs in proper line with the prices received for the bacon, beef, dairy and poultry products which they are producing and upon which there are various ceiling and contract prices, in order to meet the needs of the United Kingdom and our own domestic food requirements. Without the ceiling protection, feed prices could and might rise to a level which would prejudice the effective prosecution of our extensive and vital live stock programme.
It is of the greatest importance that any action taken at this time should not disturb the basis of live stock production. It is the considered view of the government, therefore, that the ceilings on oats and barley in the Winnipeg market must be retained. To the extent that coarse grains can be exported at prices above our ceiling levels, the government have sought to develop a workable basis which would give producers who sell coarse grains the advantage of any higher export prices on that portion of the total coarse grain marketings which go into export.
With this principle in mind the government are instructing the Canadian wheat board to charge an equalization fee on the issuance of export permits to exporters of Canadian oats and barley. The equalization fee will, as nearly as possible, represent the difference between Canadian prices and United States prices, less transportation costs, United States import duty and forwarding costs, and with allowance for exchange. The equalization fee will not be fixed but will vary in accordance with the United States prices as compared with Canadian prices.
The Canadian wheat board will set up two special funds into which equalization fees for oats and barley, respectively, will be paid. These funds, in turn, will be distributed at the end of the crop year on a pro rata basis to the growers who have delivered these grains since March 31. Naturally, the amount in either of these funds for distribution to farmers will depend upon the future margin between Canadian and United States prices and upon the volume of exports.
By the method I have just outlined, the growers who sell their coarse grains will receive, in effect, a combined price, which reflects the ceiling price on that portion of their sales which has been disposed of in the domestic market, and the export price on that portion which has been disposed of in the export market.
Coarse Grains
[Stage Direction]
This policy will, I trust, commend itself both to the producers and the domestic buyers of coarse grains as being fair. It assures the continuation of Canada's food production programme in so far as meat, dairy and poultry products are concerned. In regard to export markets the government are determined that the full advantage of these markets will be shared by producers marketing oats and barley on any surplus of these grains available for export, after the domestic requirements needed to maintain a full live stock production are adequately met.
The clear object of these arrangements in regard to oats and barley is to ensure that the full export returns for these grains should go to the producer and should not accrue to the exporter or to the purchaser abroad. The situation in respect of rye is different. Out of a western crop of 23 million bushels, only about one million bushels are disposed of commercially within Canada, and a considerable part of that is for uses for which other grains are equally good. The government's object can therefore be achieved most easily in the case of rye, having regard particularly to economy and facility of administration, by permitting the price of rye to conform to export prices rather than by adopting the system of an equalization fee for the sake of a small and relatively nonessential portion of the crop.
I am, therefore, authorized on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Finance, to announce that he has discussed this matter with the wartime prices and trade board and that the ceiling on rye will be removed as soon as the Canadian wheat board has completed a survey of the market po*sition in that grain. At the present time there is very little difference between rye prices in Canada and the United States after taking into account transportation costs, forwarding costs, exchange and duty. On this basis it would not appear that there would be any substantial rise in Canadian prices of rye. If a substantial rise in price does take place, however, there will of course be a corresponding increase in the cost of rye to Canadian consumers. As already explained, the quantity of rye disposed of commercially within Canada is very small, and it is clear that most of what is consumed could be readily replaced by other grains. There may be a few cases of essential use, however, and the Minister of Finance has directed the wartime prices and trade board to make a thorough investigation of any claims that arise and to make appropriate arrangements for absorbing part or all of these increased costs where it can be shown that the consumption of this grain is essential.
Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: The minister mentioned only oats and barley. Will this apply to flax? Will the minister explain also how the money collected by means of equalization fees will be passed back to the producers of coarse grains?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: The statement does not refer to flax.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is being exported.


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes. The money will be returned to the producers according to their shipments. This will be handled through the wheat board.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Proportionately?


James Angus MacKinnon: Proportionately, according to their shipments.


Mr. SENN:: May I ask for the sake of clarity whether these regulations apply to grain grown in eastern C.anada or only to grain that comes under the Canadian wheat board?


James Angus MacKinnon: They apply to grains grown in western Canada only.


Mr. WRIGHT:: Why is flax not included in the new regulations?	-


James Angus MacKinnon: There is a set price on flax.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: There is a bigger spread between the United States and Canadian prices on flax than there is on other grains.


Mr. PERLEY:: Is there to be any relief for those who are holding coarse grains, such as oats, in western Canada? There has been no increase in the quota since some time in January. Has any scheme been worked out under which a portion of these grains will be marketed in the near future?


James Angus MacKinnon: My understanding is that the quotas are being increased at all country points just as soon as local conditions permit.


Mr. LECLERC:: I have here representations from the farmers in my constituency that they are short of feed for cattle. Is this just a temporary situation, or is it due to the fact that the grain is going to the United States?


James Angus MacKinnon: I was unable to hear the hon. member fully. I understood him to ask whether this policy had to do with the matter of feed grain in eastern Canada. The policy just announced is tied up very closely with the feed situation :'n eastern Canada, so that the eastern Canadian feeder will be able to secure feed at a price that will enable him to produce and market his finished product in the export markets.

Pensions


Joseph-Hermas Leclerc: Is this just a temporary situation? When can the farmers expect relief from the present scarcity of feed grain?


James Angus MacKinnon: The scarcity of feed grain is a matter of transportation, of railway cars. AVe are giving very close attention to the problem.


John Horne Blackmore: Has the minister made any provision for taking care of the price of bran and chopped grains? It is reported to me that there is a definite rise in these prices, which appears to me unjustifiable.


Mr. GARDINER:: Control over bran and shorts and other feeds has been in effect since 1941. It is exercised by the prices board, which sets a price in consultation with the Department of Agriculture, which provides freight and other subsidy assistance.


John Horne Blackmore: The Minister of Agriculture may be interested in knowing that the communications I have received indicate that there is a definite rise in the price of bran.


Joseph-Hermas Leclerc: Since the creameries have more butter than they know what to do with, and we cannot sell our surplus butter in Montreal either retail or wholesale, and prices will drop within the next month, will the minister say what we are going to do with our surplus butter?


Mr. SPEAKER:: I think I have allowed a good deal of latitude on the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I did so by way of clarification of his statement, but I think the questions have been ample.



REPRESENTATIONS WITH RESPECT TO PRICE IN RELATION TO COST OP PRODUCTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. S. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborough):: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture arising out of a telegram I have received from the secretary-treasurer of Hastings county cheese producers association. I will first read the telegram, a copy of which has been sent to the minister and then put my question.
Hastings county cheese producers protest against the recently announced price of cheese because the price increase does not cover the increased cost of production. It will be extremely difficult to get the required production of cheese at the announced price. We suggest a two-cent subsidy to bring price to twenty-two cents f.o.b. factory. Copy wire sent to Minister of Agriculture.
After the minister has reviewed the representations made to him, will he provide an opportunity of discussing this important matter before the Easter recess?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have had about a dozen wires similarly worded, and have replied to most of them. So far as a discussion is concerned I am entirely in the hands of the house. I do not know when my estimates or any other matter concerning my department will be before the house, but I can assure the hon. member that this question can be discussed at that time.


Mr. BOUCHER:: In eastern Ontario where cheese production is starting right away the situation is serious. All the cheese producers' associations are alarmed about it, and I believe it will be in the interests of the producers for the minister to make a statement before the Easter recess, before it is too late. This whole question is subject to the policy of the department as to 'the production of cheese in eastern Ontario.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Pensions and National Health. It relates to a matter we have had before the pensions committee in the last two sessions, when I have made representations on behalf of pensions for veterans of the Northwest rebellion. I laid on each member's desk to-day a histoiy of the case by Mr. Fred Williams in the Globe and Mail of March 26. Is the pensions committee to be reappointed this session, and if so will it consider the case of these men, or will the government consider the matter and give me a reply before or after Easter?
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health): Mr. Speaker, with reference to the question asked by my hon. friend I have nothing to add to the letter I wrote him dated April 15, 1942, which is included in the return tabled in this house on March 11, last. In the memorandum which has been placed on our desks dealing with the northwest field force the statement is made: For many years the men who formed the northwest; field force have been asking for pensions. Government after government has rejected their claim.
That statement is absolutely incorrect. In 1866 orders in council were passed making provision for those who fought at that time. Later on a further order in council was passed, and in 1920 the Pension Act was amended to
1SS6	COMMONS
Privilege

Mr. Douglus (Weyburn)
make provision for these veterans at the same rate as that provided for veterans of the great war.
The reference made by my hon. friend must be with regard to an extension of the War Veterans' Allowance Act to include the veterans of the Northwest rebellion. That was carefully considered by the 1940 and 1941 committees and their recommendation was that the matter of hospital allowance and the question of extension of the War Veterans' Allowance Act be considered. That consideration has been given. If a committee should again consider the War Veterans' Allowance Act the case of these veterans can then be considered.


Thomas Langton Church: I can see no reason why they should not be given the same treatment as the South African veterans.
PRIVILEGE-Mr. DOUGLAS



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD-MARKETING OP 1943-44 CROP

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I desire to raise a question affecting the privileges of this house. On March 17 an order of the house was passed for a return of all correspondence, memoranda and other documents received from the advisory committee to the wheat board, agricultural and cooperative organizations, with reference to the marketing of the 1943-44 crop. When that was passed the Minister of Trade and Commerce said, at page 1324 of Hansard:
I assume that this motion refers to correspondence, memoranda and other documents addressed by the organizations mentioned to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I have no objection to the passing of the motion subject to the withholding of any confidential or privileged documents.
The minister made no specific statement as to considering any of the documents mentioned in the motion as being privileged; he was merely making a general statement that the motion would be passed subject to the reservation of withholding any documents which might be considered privileged. That order was brought down in sessional paper No. 76B on April 1. It says this:
1. Memoranda and other documents received from the advisory committee to the wheat board are considered privileged documents.
I submit that the advisory committee to the wheat board is not a branch of the government; these are not officials of a department reporting to a minister, they are private citizens, representing the producers, the grain trade, the milling trade and the

line elevators, who have been asked to act on a committee to make reports from time to time to the wheat board. I claim therefore that the reports of this committee cannot be considered in any sense privileged. If I remember correctly, at a previous session the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) quoted from one of the reports* of the advisory committee to the wheat board. The persons acting on this committee are private individuals representing a certain class of the people of Canada. The people of Canada have a right to know what recommendations are being made by the members of this committee, and also to what extent their recommendations are being implemented by the government. I therefore protest against the withholding of these reports. I believe that such an action is a violation of the privileges of this house.


James Angus MacKinnon: I took occasion in speaking of this matter a few days ago to say that earnest consideration was being given to the extent to which we could make a return to the hon. member's request. It is our considered opinion that if we are to get the best advice from a committee of that kind, their advice to us, particularly on a matter such as is being dealt with here, would have to be considered as privileged.


Gordon Graydon: Upon the point of privilege raised by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) which has been answered by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon), I think members of parliament should be very careful not to build a fence around the whole matter of information so far as the government is concerned. I am not familiar with this particular question, nor have I been able to give it attention except when hearing what the hon. member for Weyburn has just said. But it seems significant to me, first of all, that yesterday we had a battle on the floor of the house with respect to the matter of the production of correspondence between the dominion and the provincial governments; further, from time to time ministers, heads of departments, decline to answer questions in this chamber because in their opinion to answer them is not in the public interest; and now comes this further evidence of a trend which, I think, is peculiarly unfortunate at this time when the public are anxious to find out what is going on behind the scenes in parliament and in government.
It seems to me that this issue transcends many of the matters we have discussed here,

Privilege-Mr. Douglas (Weyburn)
because it goes much farther than an ordinary question of privilege. If this practice is allowed to develop, those who sit on the opposition benches are likely to be confronted with difficulties more substantial than those which we encounter now.
I would urge upon the Minister of Trade and Commerce, with all the vehemence at my command, that he reconsider and reverse the decision he has just announced with respect to the bringing down of information such as has been referred to this afternoon. It indicates a dangerous growth and a serious practice. An important principle is involved, and we members of the opposition would be derelict in our duty if we did not see to it that this tendency shall not be allowed to continue, to the detriment, if I may say so, of intelligent criticism of the government's war effort.


Major James William Coldwell: May I say a word on behalf of our group? I do not think it is the duty of this house to ask a minister to reconsider 'his decision; it is the duty of the house to take such a decision itself. In my opinion we are getting away entirely from the basis upon which the institution of parliamentary government rests. It has always been understood that the only privileged documents are documents passing between governments dealing with affairs of state; and when I speak of "governments" I mean sovereign governments ruling nations. From time to time we are faced with refusals to grant the tabling of documents which will enable this house to judge of what is going on. If the advice of the advisory committee to a board set up by a statute of this parliament cannot be tabled in this house, we are, I think being denied rights which the house should have. If the gentlemen who comprise that committee are making reports which they do not wish the people they represent to see, that is. subversive of the public interest and the time has come when we should get a clear understanding. My reading of constitutional procedure is that this is a sovereign parliament, that the government is merely an executive arm responsible to this house, and that the government and the minister have no right to constitute themselves a supervisory body to decide what this house shall know and what it shall not know. Parliament itself, not the ministers, ought to take cognizance of what is going on and decide the procedure in the light of the traditions of British parliamentary institutions.


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: May I be permitted to say a word? I do so
simply because I am a member of the wheat committee of the cabinet. That committee has to spend a great deal of time in framing the wheat policy each year, and naturally we send for the wheat board and spend many hours in session with the board and obtain its advice. Now we would never consider ourselves obligated to tell the House of Commons or the public just what passed between us and the wheat board in those discussions, any more than we would1-


Major James William Coldwell: I am not asking that.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I know the hon. member
is not; I am coming to the second point in a minute-any more than we would reveal discussions which take place between ministers and their deputies or other officials of their departments. The theory that the people are entitled to know and parliament is entitled to know everything that is said or written to a minister or by a minister sounds attractive; but the plain fact is that if there is to be complete frankness of discussion, many persons communicating with the government will not be completely frank if what they say is to appear on the pages of Hansard or in the public press.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Why?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Well, if the hon. gentleman does not know why, he should.


Mr. McGREGOR:: Tell us.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is a highly political atmosphere in which we are dealing with all these things; and the experience of everybody is that there must be a certain degree of confidence in communications to and from persons advising the government, and the government. The advisory committee is in exactly the same position in advising the wheat board as the wheat board is in advising the government. It is not a body of citizens constituted as a board of trade or something of the kind; it is a statutory body set up under the wheat board act to advise. Their reports are marked confidential. They have always been treated as confidential, from the very beginning, and speaking as a member of the wheat committee I do not want further reconsideration of this any more than the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) wants reconsideration of it. I think it would be very harmful if the members of the wheat advisory committee felt that whenever they put anything down in writing or whenever they said anything, they were doing so for everyone to see or learn.


Gordon Graydon: Are you sure about that?



Privilege-Mr. Douglas (Weyburn)


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Does the minister think they would make a different kind of statement if they thought it would be made public?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Perhaps they would not make a statement at all on a good many things.


Ernest Edward Perley: I should like to ask the minister how long the wheat board have been in session in Ottawa considering the plan that has been suggested and which he outlined here to-day. Also I should like to ask him if the advisory committee made any recommendation with respect to this price situation or how it might be dealt with and also whether the wheat board or the government asked the opinion of the advisory committee in this regard.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Ernest Edward Perley: I think those questions are perfectly in order.


Thomas Vien: This discussion has gone much further afield than I had intended, in the light of what I have already intimated to the house. Questions such as those asked by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle are certainly questions which the minister would wish to consider before answering. Now he has notice of them, but I do not think he should be expected to answer them to-day.


Ernest Edward Perley: I think the question as to how long the committee has been meeting in Ottawa to consider this question could be answered.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. HOMUTH:: Wait a minute; we have some rights here.


Ernest Edward Perley: I think the question as to how long the wheat board have been in Ottawa considering this plan is quite in order. I understand they have been here for three or four weeks.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member has asked questions to which I do not think the minister should be expected to reply to-day.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct attention to a matter which I consider to be of the greatest importance; I

refer to labour conditions in Canada. This question has cropped up every now and then during the debates which have taken place since the opening of this session. But a speech made in Montreal yesterday by one whom I would call a government employee or government official, cannot, I think, be allowed to pass without some comment. In the few minutes of the time of the house I shall take up I shall place before hon. members the .position of the workers, as it was not placed before the select audience which was addressed by Mr. Justice McTague yesterday. On the front page of to-day's issue of the Montreal Gazette there is an editorial dealing with that speech; and I am quite convinced that whenever the Montreal Gazette carries a front page editorial on matters affecting labour, then labour had better look out because it bodes no good to labour.
Before going on with the comment I want to make on this speech let me say that I have had occasion to refer to Mr. Justice McTague in not an unkind way in this house on previous occasions, notably when he was made chairman of the national war labour board. I considered then and I consider now that he is preeminent in his understanding of the questions with which he has to deal and is progressive and generous in regard to labour matters. I think I can say the same in regard to the labour representative on that board. I cannot say anything in -regard to the third member, because I do not know him; consequently I am not saying anything either for or against him.
I am going to quote some excerpts from the speech made yesterday by the chairman of the national war labour board which in my opinion are very good, but I question the right or even the wisdom, if you like, of a person in his position making a speech of this kind particularly at this time, because the chairman of the national war labour board is in a certain sense a judge. In referring to the board at the time it was set up the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said it was the intention to build up a labour jurisprudence so that the matters referred to it might be dealt with from a juridical point of view. Mr. Justice McTague said:
It is my view that industry's day of being paternalistic and deciding by direct and indirect means just what type of union it will deal with, has long gone by or else is going by so rapidly that only he who is afflicted with a mote or a beam or a combination of both, can fail to see it.
Really it is this combination of the mote and the beam, this opposition to trade unionism, that is at the bottom of most of our labour troubles. I noticed in the same issue of the Gazette a news item dated

War Labour Board
Hamilton, April 5. It referred to a letter signed by fifty-six industrial firms in the city of Hamilton opposing the collective bargaining bill now before the legislature of Ontario. Here we have the largest industrial province in Canada, the most important industrial province, without any labour legislation recognizing and regulating trade unions. Then when an attempt is made to provide that kind of legislation we have all- or not all; it would not be fair to say that -at least a majority of the employers of labour opposing a measure which is long overdue in a province so important industrially as is Ontario. I fully agree with the chairman on that point. He says further:
The present situation-by that I mean now- places a grave responsibility on industry, on labour and on government. All must think in terms of fundamentals. Either we are fighting and all fighting in this war for our very existence, or we are not. Either the war we are in is a total war, or it is not.
I agree -with that. But before I sit down-I shall show this house that one of the difficulties is that labour is not at all convinced that in its operations industry is carrying on an all-out war effort at this time.
With the next item I quote from the chairman's speech I do not agree at all. In the select audience of employers that he was addressing, he went out of his way to attack certain persons unnamed, which attack, because of the position he holds was quite unjustified. If the chairman of the board can go out and make speeches of this kind, what is to prevent other members of the board from doing the same? And if that kind of thing is indulged in, what sort of labour board are we to have? He said:
Demagogues, whether union organizers or politicians, must consider with care and caution the forces of mob rule which they may be letting loose in this country-letting loose not only on the country but on themselves as well.
Let me point out that according to the chairman of the national war labour board all demagogues are either politicians or union organizers; there are no demagogues in industry; there are no industrial demagogues in Canada. From the point of view of the chairman of the national war labour board there may be no industrial demagogues in Canada, but there are many industrial reactionaries, which, in my opinion, are worse than demagogues. They would put the lid on progress and by the very action of trying to prevent orderly progress they make the social upheavals the chairman referred to inevitable. The utterances of demagogues can have no appeal unless the material conditions of discontent are there already. The chairman went on to say:
72537-119}
There can be no excuse in times of war for strikes, if there is lawful means available for obtaining the justice sought. It must be recognized by governments that these outbreaks cannot continue to be regarded as isolated events, they are not isolated. They cannot be kept isolated.
If they take place-
Note this:
-they must be stamped out with the same ruthlessness with which they are promoted.
That is very strong language for an employee of the government to use in advising the government.
I will connect with that another statement in the speech:
Even an unusually patient government will have to take drastic action if more of these events occur. When that time comes-and it must come if we have not changed the morali code and made the illegal the legal-people will be hurt, and seriously hurt. Blood has run before in this country in strikes.
I want to say to this house that that is a speech that should not have, been made, particularly at a time when the board of which Mr. Justice McTague is chairman has made a decision which has not yet been accepted by those whom it affects. What effect is that speech going to have? It can have none other than to inflame all the passions and prejudices human nature is heir to and that a man in the chairman's position should try to allay.
Labour may have legal means to attain its ends. But these legal means move very slowly at times. Just to show what are some of the grievances which the workers in industry labour under let me read some passages from a document which was left with: me by some labour men only yesterday. This is a copy of a brief submitted to the Montreal members of parliament on February 27 by a delegation of trade unionists from Montreal war plants. I believe that all hon. members of this house should read this document; here is something of which they should take notice. The delegates make certain points very clear. They refer to-
The big number of layoffs taking place in the different war plants. Montreal Locomotive has laid off many hundreds from their big tank plant, said in some quarters to be the best equipped tank plant on the continent. Two. thousand men are being laid off from the tank plant of the Canadian Pacific Railway Angus shops; Robert Mitchell has also laid off hundreds, as did the Engineer Products not long: ago. The Cherrier plant of the Canadian Car and Foundry Company also laid off thousands of their munitions workers. Layoffs have become general. This is having the most demoralizing effect on the workers in general, who are asking for an explanation. So far no satisfactory explanation has been given.
I point out that workers are at this time particularly fearful of being laid off work..
War Labour Board

There are two reasons for that. Despite anything that any "demagogues", or reactionary industrialists may say, the workers in this country are anxious to win this war. That is one reason why they do not want to see plants standing idle at the same time as they are idle. But there is another reason. So many of our workers suffered so terribly from unemployment during the ten years prior to the war that they are frantic at the mere mention of anything that would even remotely resemble those terrible conditions in the hungry thirties. Paragraph 2 of the brief says:
Certain inequalities in wage rates as between those paid in the province of Quebec and the prevailing rates in other parts of the country. The laws are such as makes it well nigh impossible for the Quebec workers to aspire to equality with the workers in the west. This is greatly resented by the workers in our province. We believe that if proper adjustments were made, our war effort and national unity would be strengthened immeasurably.
I suggest that the chairman of the national war labour board should read and ponder paragraph 3:
The attitude of many employers which makes cooperation almost impossible. Here we refer to the fact that even in the face of recommendations by boards of conciliation there are still *employers who refuse to deal with their organized employees. Moreover, company unions are being set up, workers practically forced to join-
These are the people who oppose workers being compelled to join ordinary trade unions. They have no compunction, however, in making them join company unions. The brief *continues:
-and then tied up hand and foot through contracts drawn up under the Quebec Collective Agreements Act. At Arvida the company refuses to deal with the international union representing the great majority of the employees, and are actively supported by the Quebec government.
4.	Discrimination is rampant. Workers are fired for union activity. Young men are threatened with the draft for joining the union. Bribes are offered the workers to keep them from organizing. This is again very demoralizing, and should be prevented by severe penalties.
It is time that these matters were brought to the attention of the house. There was an opportunity for hon. members to do something before. Possibly if they had taken advantage of that opportunity something would have been done to further an understanding in respect of these questions affecting labour and employers.
Then, paragraph 5-and evidently Mr. Justice McTague, when he refers to legal means, has never heard of delays:
5.	The long delays attendant on having cases dealt with by the regional board are notorious.
[Mr. Maclnnis.l
Company unions can have wage adjustments made almost overnight, while bona fide unions have to fight for months to get fair treatment. We believe the board should sit continuously, and that in case of dissatisfaction with a decision, the unions should have the right of appeal to the national board.
I believe an amendment to the order in council now provides for that appeal.
I am not going to read the whole of this brief. There are some recommendations which in my view are quite reasonable, and should be considered. But what I wish to emphasize is that the facts-and they are facts-laid down in the brief can be duplicated in every industrial centre across Canada. I hold in my hand a letter received by myself only a few days ago from a worker in Hamilton. He had spoken to me verbally in the first instance, and I told him to put his complaint in writing so that I could bring the matter to the attention of the Minister of Labour. He said that in certain industries in Hamilton-and I do not know whether it was so in this particular case-employees are laid off, not discharged. There is no work, and they are told when laid off that while there is no work they are still on the payroll. But when they apply for unemployment insurance they are told that they cannot be paid unemployment insurance benefits because they are still on. the payroll of the company. And, -worse, the employees of the selective service branch associate themselves with the company in carrying out this sort of discrimination.
I have a letter in my hand written on March 27. This one is from the president of local 2352 of the United Steelworkers of Canada, and, is in these words:
Dear Sir:
I have been instructed by the members of Local Union 2352 of the United Steelworkers of America, National Steel Car, Hamilton, to protest the continual lay-offs through cancellation or completion of War work. This procedure has placed employees of this plant on the street and speaks very distastefully of our war effort.
In May, 1942, the 4-5 shell shop was closed and in fact boarded up when the management found out that employees intended placing stickers on the idle machines reading "This machine is working for Hitler." This department has never operated only in rebuffing salvaged shells and approximately 10 per cent of the machines were actually used.
That means that ninety per cent were not used.
These machines are gathering dust and the employees have been transferred to other departments. But, production in other shell departments has been cut to one-third of the normal production and again the employees are losing time until placed.

War Labour Board
Improper planning and the malicious use of selective service has caused discontent to such a degree that a third strike at national may occur at any time although the union officers have done their utmost in cooperating fully with the management.
Two statements are frequently mentioned quite openly by the employees:
(a)	The management is provoking the employees to take militant action.
(b)	The directors of the company are endeavouring to cause "another Malton" condition so that the government will purchase this plant also.
In conclusion may I state that there is considerable heavy equipment for the fabrication of ship-plate, tanks, etc., that lies idle for periods of time in this plant. An investigation would prove this statement. The employees are desirous of producing in an all out effort to win this war.
Trusting you will give earnest consideration to this communication.
A great commotion is made about a strike, a lay-off by workers or by a certain amount of absenteeism; but I am satisfied that not one-tenth of the time lost through idle machinery, for some reason or another, is lost through strikes or absenteeism. To-day machinery' should not be idle. If we cannot produce tanks, or if tanks are not needed, then ships and more ships are needed. There is no reason in the world-with the exception, of course, of indifferent planning-why we should not be engaged in producing ships if other work is not available.
I do not- wish to delay the house longer in discussing this matter. I believe I have shown clearly that the workers have grievances, and that those grievances cannot be resolved by making unwise speeches to Canadian clubs or service clubs or organizations of any other kind. Manual workers do not belong to the Canadian club. They do not belong to it for two reasons; first, they cannot afford the admission fee, and second, they cannot take two or three hours off in the middle of the day to attend a luncheon and hear someone make a speech. They have useful work to do; they are necessary in keeping the country's production going. I say again that if the other members of the national war labour board are going to take advantage of the circumstances taken advantage of by the chairman, then the government had better disband this war labour board and set up another.


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I did not know that my hon. friend was going to raise this question this afternoon on going into committee of ways and means or perhaps I would have been better prepared to answer him. I was grateful to hear the kind things he said about Mr. Justice McTague. It takes me back to sixteen
months ago when I took over the chairmanship of the national war labour board, when many kind things were said about me.
Mr. MaeINNIS: I am not guilty.


Humphrey Mitchell: Let me say to my hon. friend that it takes considerable courage to be chairman of the national war labour board. It is much easier to make the kind of speech the hon. gentleman made this afternoon than it is to assume that responsibility. He talks of passion, but rarely have I seen more passion displayed in this house than was displayed this afternoon. If he does not use more judgment when he goes up and down this country than he used in this house this afternoon, there is reason for some of the industrial controversies we are having at the present moment.
My hon. friend spoke of the national board and the regional board. These boards are composed of members of labour organizations and others who represent the employers. In the provinces the chairman is the provincial minister of labour, whereas the national board is made up of Mr. Justice McTague as chairman and the other two members.
He spoke also of people being laid off, of there being a reduction at times in the industrial tempo of the country. If my hon. friend had had as much experience of war as some members of this House of Commons-I mean war in its practical sense-he would understand that it demands change. We are engaged in a mechanical war and we must be continually changing from one type of equipment to another, from one tank to another, from one aeroplane to another. This means retooling of plants in order to go on with the new production. It creates what in the old days we used to call technological unemployment. As an old trade unionist, I think he will agree with me when I say that years ago when we were always asking for an effective employment service we never expected we should have anything like the national selective service which we have at the present time. I think he will agree also that as compared with three years ago, the machinery in existence to-day for the transfer of workers from one industry to another is far greater than what we had contemplated in relation to the present war. The rules and regulations that have been put into force, the changes that have been created, are out of all proportion to what existed three years ago. In creating this machine we have had to deal with human beings, but I think it must be admitted that they are doing a very effective job, a much more effective job than I dared to hope they would be able to do.
My hon. friend read some letters. My hon. friend knows as well as I do that ever before
War Labour Board

I was in charge of the department the conciliation service was improved. When the Secretary of State (Mr. McLarty) was Minister of Labour, order in council 4020 was passed. I think he will admit that by means of the provisions of that order in council we have eliminated to a large extent the discrimination that existed. Then my hon. friend spoke about blood running.


Angus MacInnis: I did not talk about blood running; it was Mr. Justice McTague.


Humphrey Mitchell: It does not matter who. said it.


Angus MacInnis: It matters a lot.


Humphrey Mitchell: I just missed that when I was jotting down my notes. Recently iwe bad a tramways strike in the city of Montreal. I have been taken to task by certain sections *of this community for not endeavouring to settle that strike in a way that may have led to force being used. Prior to entering this bouse, my hon. friend was a street railway employee; I understand he was the business agent of the amalgamated association of street railway employees of Vancouver. He knows as well as I that street railway strikes are difficult things to handle. Sometimes if they are allowed to continue, blood is apt to run, the blood not only of the strikers themselves but of innocent civilians. I do not know who wrote the advertisement which appeared the other day in the Montreal Gazette. I do not think this government can be blamed for that strike. I did not notice my hon. friend getting on his feet to defend his own organization while that strike was in progress.


Angus MacInnis: Why should I?


Humphrey Mitchell: I notice that quite often when a difficult situation arises he stands in his place and criticizes the government, but on this occasion when his own organization was the victim of a strike he did not get up to defend them.


Mr. COLD WELL:: There was no opportunity to discuss the Montreal strike.


Humphrey Mitchell: There are always the
orders of the day.


Major James William Coldwell: We were ruled out of
order.


Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. member was
not ruled out of order to-day and he could have defended his own organization.


Angus MacInnis: I have to be in order
sometimes.


Humphrey Mitchell: Let me say this in
*conclusion; I do not want to delay the house

too long. Criticism has been made of the speech delivered by Mr. Justice McTague in Montreal. Upon reflection I think it will be found that certain strikes which have taken place in this country have in fact been challenges of the decisions of the war labour board and of legislation that exists for the settlement of industrial disputes in Canada. Mr. Justice McTague referred to fundamentals; he spoke of the fundamental that you cannot challenge the state and get away with it. I was always taught that in the trade union movement, and I am sure my hon. friend was taught the same thing, that the duty of the union was not to challenge the law, but to have it changed. I think the judge was in goodly company when he spoke in Montreal yesterday.


Angus MacInnis: Oh, yes.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am not referring to
the Canadian club. I am talking about people who understand what makes the clock tick so far as labour legislation is concerned. I have always told my people that if we did not like the law we should try to have it changed through normal constitutional procedure. I think when the history of my generation is written it will be shown that we were somewhat successful in that regard.
Mention has been made of a patient government. Whether we. like it or not, the whole price ceiling is in jeopardy unless the national labour board and the regional boards are given that support by the people of this country which they richly deserve if they are to face up to the problem of inflation. I have always held this opinion, that when you go before a tribunal such as the national war labour board and they make a decision you are in duty bound to abide by that decision. I have never taken any other position since I have been connected with labour. I know that sometimes it is difficult to go back and explain the decision to your own people. In organizations people sometimes make promises which they know they cannot carry out, and my hon. friend knows that because he has been through all these things. Often the achievements have fallen short of the promises. But it is the duty of responsible leadership in this country, whether it be on the one side or on the other, to give to both sides the leadership to which they are entitled in the trying times through which we are passing. I still hold the opinion which I quoted yesterday of Sir Stafford Cripps, and I think it might be well if I quoted it again before I sit down. Speaking to

War Labour Board
the people in the aeroplane plants in the United Kingdom after he had made a two-day tour of inspection, he said:
I know there are grievances, differences and disputes, but none of these to-day justify a strike in the factories any more than they would justify mutiny in a ship or at the front.


Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, on the chance of keeping the ex-leader of the opposition away from the war, I am going to occupy a little of the time of the house this afternoon. The last time that this group raised a question in the house the leader of the opposition waxed eloquent on the theme that we were not getting on with the war, and then immediately afterwards he spent two hours discussing an extra cent postage stamp. So that I feel justified in occupying a little of the time of the house this afternoon.
The question raised by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) is very pertinent to the war effort and to the future prosecution of the war. In fact I consider it the most important discussion in which this house could engage at the present time. I have stated on at least two occasions in this house that I consider the Department of Labour the most important war department in the government in that they have completely under their jurisdiction the organization and allocation of man-power and woman-power in this country. That is a job which requires considerable organization. In keeping the wheels of industry moving to produce the necessary war materials the departments of national defence and munitions and supply are merely the fifth wheel on the coach without the complete organization and functioning of the Department of Labour in its many ramifications.
The hon. member for Vancouver East this afternoon correctly pointed out that the new chairman of the national war labour board chose a very inopportune time to make the speech he did yesterday afternoon. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) quoted Sir Stafford Cripps with references to stoppages of work in war plants, and would lead the house to believe that the situation in the United Kingdom is analogous to that in Canada. I should like to make this observation, that in Great Britain labour is solidly organized. In Great Britain they still have the freedom of collective bargaining. They still do business with their employer. They have in practically every production plant in Great Britain workers' committees which are making their full contribution to the war effort. The trades union congress of Great Britain sits in with the cabinet in planning the war effort.
But in this country less than seventeen per cent of the workers who are eligible for membership in trades unions are in any kind of labour organization, and the result is that you have from coast to coast, in every industry necessary to the war effort a constant battle by the workers for the right to exercise that freedom of democracy which is enjoyed by the industrial workers of Great Britain, led by Bevin, Morrison, Attlee, Cripps, and other leaders who sit in with the cabinet safeguarding the rights of the average worker in Great Britain.


Gordon Graydon: Just at that point, may I ask a friendly question for information? Would the hon. member mind telling the house just what percentage of British workers are organized?


Clarence Gillis: There are over 7,000,000 organized workers in Great Britain. If we had the same percentage we would have 1,700,000 organized workers in Canada.


Gordon Graydon: The hon. member has not the actual figures?


Humphrey Mitchell: You have to make allowance for the fact that over forty per cent of our population is agricultural.


Clarence Gillis: I said that less than seventeen per cent of our industrial workers who are eligible for membership in a trades union are in any labour organization. By and large ' the workers of Canada are engaged in a battle on the home front for the right to sit around a conference table with their employer. There are hundreds of valuable men engaged in the work of trades union organization to-day who could be doing an important job in the war effort were this work taken off their hands, were the government to decide that collective bargaining is the thing in Canada just as it is in Great Britain and in every other civilized country in the world. This is the only country in the civilized world that has not on its statute books trade union legislation.
But I did not get up this afternoon to go into that story again, because we have gone into it time and again. My purpose was to say that in every section of Canada there is in the minds of many people to-day a growing fear and a suspicion that instead of the Canadian people bending every effort towards making our maximum contribution to this war there are people in key positions behind the scenes who are pulling the thing back. Just stop and think for a moment how the industrial workers in this country have been treated during the past three years; and now after three years of war we are still talking about this question of the
War Labour Board

right of the worker to sit around the conference table with his employer and help him win the war. That is all they want to do.
The conciliation machinery of the labour department has not been improved since the war began. It is not as good as it was when the war broke out. Your conciliation machinery has been cluttered up. The taking of a strike vote is provided for by the conciliation machinery when no strike is intended; in order to get a board of conciliation the workers of a plant have to take a strike vote and decide by a majority that they are going on strike-something they do not intend at all. You sow in the minds of the workers the seeds of an idea that a strike is to take place; for the Minister of Labour knows that a large percentage of the workers who take part in that ballot have not the least conception of what the department's regulations are.


Humphrey Mitchell: I would point out to my hon. friend that we have not had a strike over recognition in the last year.


Clarence Gillis: Over recognition? What
does the minister call the Montreal tramways strike?


Humphrey Mitchell: It was a jurisdictional strike.


Clarence Gillis: No such thing. That may be "the minister's interpretation; it is not mine.


Humphrey Mitchell: I think I know as much about that as the hon. member does.


Clarence Gillis: Maybe the minister does and maybe he does not. At any rate there is a lot he has not said about it in this house and I am going to jog his memory this afternoon. There are things he omitted; if he knew them, he did not inform this house of them.


Mr. SLAGHT:: My hon. friend knows that the Montreal strike was illegal.


Clarence Gillis: I do not know any such thing.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: The hon. member has not looked to see.


Clarence Gillis: I have looked. The hon. member does not appear to know very much about the laws of the Department of Labour, or he would not define the strike in that way.


Mr. FRASER (Northumberland, Ont.):: You certainly indicate that you think you know.


Clarence Gillis: I do. I do not "think" at all. This is my business. I do not make any pretence to know about your farming or 
your stockholders or coupon clippers. I do not bother about that. This is my business, and I know something about it.


Mr. McLARTY:: If the hon. member will permit me-does he suggest that the strike was legal?


Clarence Gillis: Yes; I say it was legal, and I will prove to the satisfaction of any fair-minded man in the chamber this afternoon, that it was; that the men in Montreal were forced into it.
I want to discuss the machinery as it functions. Take your stoppage in the basic industry of steel. Were the steel workers responsible for that? I say they were not. They utilized every piece of machinery provided by the Department of Labour. Not only that; away back in November, 1941, they started in on the job of getting a conciliation board to iron out their grievance. They followed it up week after week, month after month, and there was no redress. After conferences, and boards, and appeals to both regional and national boards, the whole matter finally culminated in a walk-out. It was not a strike. No official of the steel workers' union called it; it. was a matter of the steel workers at the Sault, Trenton and Sydney becoming disgusted after two years' delay. Having endeavoured to talk to everyone who had authority to settle the matter, they ultimately said "what is the use?" and walked off the plant.
The reason these walk-offs are occurring is that they seem to be the only means at the disposal of the men in the mines and the plants to get their grievances listened to. No attention is paid to anything else, so that finally they walk out. I say this after much experience in negotiations. I am, just as strongly as the minister or anyone else, in favour of amending the laws, and living up to them religiously. You will find that ninety-nine per cent of the trade unionists across this country, particularly of the leadership, take this attitude. They want to obey the laws and they will fight to improve the laws. But the time comes when they have to go back to their men. Month after month they have met the people who have the authority to settle their grievances, but without effect, and the men become disgusted and say, "There is no solution along this line; the only way to get an answer from these people is by a walk-out." After two years' delay that is what happened in the steel industry. It occurred because of the slowness of the machinery, because of lack of attention to the men's legitimate grievances by both regional and national boards.

War Labour Board
I am, afraid now of what may yet happen. You set up a new board, an industrial court, with three legal minds on that board. One of the first things they have done is to disregard completely one of the main representations of the steel workers, namely to make the steel industry of Canada a national industry so that the national war labour board could deal with it and settle the whole question at one time. Instead, it has been thrown back to the regions. It will be examined in Nova Scotia and in Ontario section by section, with different people taking different positions on the same question, with no uniformity in the matter of wages. So far as machinery is concerned we are right back where we were before. The only thing that has happened so far as that industrial court is concerned is that they have provided for an appeal from a regional board, to the national board. There is absolutely no improvement of machinery. The question is still unsettled after two years' negotiations. The matter started, of course, in April, 1941. At last, in August, 1942, a delegation was able to meet the war labour board. But the question is still unsettled. I think these fellows have been very patient and very reasonable.
Another point I would call to the attention of the Minister of Labour is that you cannot win this war with your mouth.
You are not going to win it in here, by arguing. I make no apologies for what I am saying, because if some attention is not paid to the matters which I am trying to bring to the attention of the government, I am just a little bit sceptical as to who is going to win this war. Personally, I want to win it; make no mistake about that; and I am not letting anyone, behind the scenes or otherwise, who is not particular about winning it pull any smoke screens so far as I am concerned. I am going to be quite frank in what I have to say.
I bring this to the attention of the Minister of Labour. The miners of Nova Scotia had a board under Mr. Justice McTague in March, 1941. The board handed down a decision to the effect that certain mechanical rates were to be levelled up to a prescribed wage. We are now in April, 1943, and the decision of that board has not been implemented yet; that money has not been paid. Mr. Justice McTague in his speech yesterday, as quoted by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), says that decisions of the labour board will be enforced from now on. I hope they will be; and I hope that the rule is to work both ways. The miners of Nova Scotia have been
awaiting new negotiations, pending the settlement of the award made by the board back in 1941. I know that the union officials have found it difficult to keep their men in line; because at the district convention where they lay	down	their	policy	they	decidedthat until	that	matter was	taken	care ofthere should be no new negotiations. What happens in the miners' union is that on the first of April of each year, if there is not a signed agreement to take care of wages and conditions for the year following, internationally	they	down	tools.	They	did notdo it on	the first of	April;	they	are still
trying to get this matter settled with the company on the basis of the award which was granted by the board in March, 1941.
A word with respect to the Montreal tramways. It is important that hon. members should understand these things. The press has not given a true picture; for some reason of which I am ignorant, it has distorted the facts. I cannot understand the attitude of any newspaper which, in the light of our present situation, will deliberately garble and twist the facts to confuse the public and make an already bad situation much worse.
As I understand that situation, there was a union functioning; it had been there-


Humphrey Mitchell: Since 1918.


Clarence Gillis: -since 1918, yes. It had a very small percentage of the men employed in that particular industry. They had an agreement signed in 1940 which contained a clause covering participation in profits, and my information is that under that clause in the agreement the tramways company owed approximately a million and a half dollars to the employees. It was necessary to enter into negotiations. A large percentage of the men employed in that industry went into other work, and the union to which they belonged had become practically defunct.
I can understand why that should happen. One of the leading officials of the old organization who signed the agreement, which was to last for the duration of the war, was Mr. Trepanier. As the Minister of Labour pointed out, this agreement contained a clause providing that this committee would hold office for the duration of that agreement, or as long as the war lasted. Mr. Trepanier was one of the committee, but he was hired by the government to undertake conciliation work; and while a government employee, receiving a salary from the government, he still retained his position as one of the main negotiators for the organization.
Mr. MITCHELL; Let us get this clear, for I think my hon. friend will agree that his

War Labour Board

statement might create a false impression. I do not think he is suggesting that Mr. Tre-panier acted as negotiator while he was in the employ of the government.


Clarence Gillis: He was a member of the
committee.


Humphrey Mitchell: Let us get it straight, now.


Clarence Gillis: I am putting the minister's own statement back on the record; it is not my statement. Speaking in this house on March 30, at page 1686 of Hansard, in reply to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) the Minister of Labour stated:
The negotiating committee referred to in this agreement, consisting of Messrs. Elphege Beaudoin, Baoul Trepanier and Osias Neveu, will continue in office during the life of the agreement.
My French is not so good; I may not have pronounced those names correctly, but this was the clause put on the record by the minister.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend will excuse me, but I want to get this clear, for I am not going to have words put into my mouth to the effect that Trepanier still acted as negotiator for that organization while he was in the employ of the federal government.


Clarence Gillis: I do not care what the minister wants put in his mouth; I am quoting his own words. I am not quarrelling with this at all; I am merely trying to show the position. This would arouse some antagonism, I think, if I were a member of that union; I know that is how it would work with the majority of the men operating those street cars. I want to make it clear that Mr. Trepanier is a member of the conciliation department of the government, and he is also set out in this clause of the agreement-


Humphrey Mitchell: Don't try to turn a corner like that; just take my word for it that since Trepanier has been in the employ of the federal government he has not been a negotiator with Montreal Tramways.


Major James William Coldwell: He has the power to do so.


Humphrey Mitchell: No, he has not, and no one would think so who had any experience with these matters. You cannot turn a comer like that.


Clarence Gillis: I am not turning a corner. What I have just read is a clause in the existing agreement which was put on the record by the Minister of Labour.


Mr. HOWE:: Read the rest of it.
Mitehell.]


Clarence Gillis: The minister merely quoted this clause from the agreement. If you will just let me finish what I have to say perhaps you will understand what I am trying to get at. I am taking this from the speech of the Minister of Labour. It is a clause from the agreement, which states that Mr. Trepanier is a member of the negotiating committee, which committee was to continue in office during the operation of the agreement.


Clarence Decatur Howe: How about the provision for replacing anyone who drops out?


Clarence Gillis: It does not say that in the agreement.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, it does.


Clarence Gillis: The ballot, the thing that precipitated the whole trouble and caused the walkout, also was read into Hansard by the Minister of Labour, as follows:
The national war labour board has just been changed. This change gives the negotiating committee the opportunity to make new attempts with regard to wages. Are you in favour of according the negotiating committee all the support it will need to undertake these attempts on your behalf?
If that ballot had been accepted and voted upon it would have meant that the negotiating committee, as set out in the agreement, would be the committee that would carry on further negotiations. The street railway men in Montreal objected to that ballot. On the 27th of the month the minority group made application to the management of the street railway to take a ballot; and you know it worked faster than any ballot I have ever seen, because they were ready to take the vote on the 29th, two days later, and it was in protest against taking that vote that these men walked off the job. The Minister of Labour set the matter out very clearly in Hansard; he used his office to try to offset that strike or walkout. He asked the men who were conducting that ballot to withdraw it, pending negotiations with the Department of Labour. It may be that this strike or walkout was illegal, in accordance with the interpretation that could be placed upon it by those of the legal profession, but personally I look at the justice of a ease in determining its legality. These men, in order to safeguard democracy, the right of negotiation and the right of majority rule, walked off the job. The minority group who precipitated the trouble in the taking of the ballot challenged the Minister of Labour when he asked them, in a very reasonable way, to withhold further action pending negotiations. The net result is that the matter has been settled and these men are back at work. I say that the right side

War Labour Board
*won, because in any case the majority should rule. That i3 my conception of it, and that is the side that won in the Montreal trouble.


Humphrey Mitchell: That could have been proven just as easily by a board of conciliation, without a strike.


Clarence Gillis: Yes, it could, and I say it never should have happened; but place the blame where it belongs. The small group who endeavoured to force that ballot on the large majority of the employees and against the wishes of the Department of Labour are the people who are in an illegal position, if there is any illegality attached to it.
What I am trying to point out to hon. members is the slowness of the machinery, the apparent lack of understanding on the part of many people who have to deal with the rank and file of the workers in ironing out these difficulties and arriving at a decision. Personally I cannot see any reason for it. I know that the great majority of the men and women of this country employed in industry, ninety-nine per cent of them, are fair and reasonable. It has been my experience that any time you are honest with them and tell them the truth about a thing, I do not care how bad it is, they will go all the way with you. When you are dishonest with them, when you lie to them, you run into difficulty and lose their confidence, and you find yourself in trouble all the time you remain in office.
The Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) is in his seat, and I should like to say a word to him with respect to the prosecution of the war effort. The crux of the whole war situation, in my opinion, is ships, and every available man and woman in Canada who can go into a shipyard and do anything in regard to the building of ships should be there. Before this debate closes I would like the Minister of Munitions and Supply to give this house some information with respect to the Angus shops. The situation there has been developing for some considerable time. By May 3 some 1,800 of the men employed in those shops will be out of work; there are some 200 idle now. These are skilled men, men who can take their place in many capacities in a shipbuilding yard-welders and men of various classifications. Two months ago they made representations to selective service with a view to putting the facilities of their organization at the disposal of selective service-and they have a good organization. Just a few days ago they were permitted to help selective service in the reallocation of their man-power.
There is no difficulty between the management and the employees in the Angus shops. There is complete cooperation. The union
communicated with the shipbuilding yards to find out whether their men could be utilized in any of the yards, and the answer they received was: No, there will be nothing in shipbuilding until late in the fall.
I should like the Minister of Munitions and Supply to explain this; it has never been explained to my satisfaction. The Valentine tank was being produced in the Angus shops. According to a statement I heard in the house the Valentine was considered the best tank that was sent to Russia. It is good in snow; it is good in the sand; it has a wide tread; it has a diesel engine as against the other tanks that have gasoline engines. When a tank with a gasoline engine is hit once by a shell or a bullet it becomes hot and blows up, but you can batter that diesel engine until further orders and it does not blow up. According to my information the Valentine tank is the best machine of the war; it is the thing with which to lead infantry. I want to know why it was taken out of production in Canada and some 1,800 men who could be used in the war effort left idle.
Another thing I should like the minister to say something about is Dominion Engineering Works in Montreal. That plant is capable of turning out one thousand guns a month, and our information is that at the present time it is turning out around four hundred. There is no night shift. Why is there not another shift working there? Why is that plant not working at its maximum.
The Angus shop people tell us also that during the time they were operating they were capable of turning out, I think it was, six tanks a day, but under orders from somewhere all they were producing was three. They were told that was the schedule and it could not be stepped up beyond that. The Minister of Labour says that war is a practical thing; I know a little about it too. I am not a flag-waver, but there are not many in this house who have seen more war than I did; I will let it go at that. We have to fight this war. These matters must be answered. We have to make full use of the man-power of this country. I have not met anyone in any industry who is not really anxious to do a job. The shoe is on the other foot; they are frustrated; they claim they are being held back. You get that story in every section of industry. We should' know something about it. It is one of the first things the Minister of Labour has to do, and: as Minister of Labour he owes a direct responsibility to the working people of this country. We should know in no uncertain terms.
War Labour Board

Those who are operating industry are being assisted. The government has been very generous to them in rebuilding and tooling plants and all that kind of thing. They are acquiring some wonderful machines, and they should be compelled immediately to do what is being done in Britain. According to a British white paper the trades union movement is considered one of the most essential factors in their war machine. I will give this to any one who wants to look at it. They would not be without it; they call the labour people in and consult them. They get a lot of work done in that way that you cannot hire dollar a year men to do, because the dollar a year men do not know that job in the way that men who live with it and grow up with it know it. They have not the contacts. If the Minister of Labour wants to do an efficient job-and I think he does-he should not permit anyone in this country to keep the machinery from him. If he had a collective bargaining organization in each plant, if production committees were in every plant and factory submitting reports about what is going on, you could plan ahead of time. You cannot buy that kind of organization. In the sections where it is operating they are doing that work themselves. But there is no coordination machinery; no one at tha.top who has power and authority is receiving these reports or doing anything about it.
I was in Sudbury two weeks ago. They are rrying to form a union. There are over four thousand men in the organization. There are two hundred stewards. These fellows tell me they are paying about $1,000 a year in order to belong to that union. Discrimination, wages cut; and they are still there fighting a little company union set up and sponsored by International Nickel. I wish the Minister of Labour could have sat in on that stewards' meeting with me. There were four hundred stewards reporting directly to the head of the union from every section of that mine on production, on what they are doing, what they could do and how they could improve things. That machinery is lying idle, rusting; the men are frustrated, cannot do anything. The answer to the troubles and problems of the minister so far as I am concerned is the organization of labour, its complete cooperation in these production committees. If I were in his place that is the fight I would be carrying on; I would not be on the auction block as he is to-day. The machinery necessary for him to work with is being withheld from him by the big industrialists of this country who do not want organization. That was well demonstrated when Elliott Little began to talk to the manufacturers' association; he was not on the inside very long.


Mr. BROOKE CLAXTON (St. Lawrence-St. George):: When I came into the house today I did not expect that this debate would come up. But as one of the members from Montreal, where the Montreal Tramways strike occurred, and as the member for the division where the company has its head office, I feel it my duty to say something on the subject.
I agree completely with the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) and with the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) who preceded me, as to the importance of the subject of labour relations in Canada at the present time. I regret, however, that beyond that I find it impossible to follow them in the rest of their remarks. They criticized Mr. Justice McTague, chairman of the national war labour board, for having made a speech before the Canadian dub in Montreal yesterday. Mr. Justice McTague needs no words of commendation from me; everyone in Canada knows that there is no one who has a better reputation for being a true friend of labour, a true Canadian, or who is more trusted by labour than Mr. Justice McTague.
In the course of his speech he said:
The board which I head is prepared at all times to give each side full opportunity to present its case and will deliver its judgments on the merits of the case as it sees them, without labouring for technical ways out of difficulties. As far as we can do it, we shall not stand for any flouting of our judgments or the wringing of further concessions because of the agitation of pressure groups.
Demagogues, whether union organizers or politicians, must consider with care and caution the forces of mob rule wffiich they may be letting loose in this country-letting loose not only on the country but on themselves as well. The wise union leader who has been adhering and is adhering to a non-strike policy must receive support and not discouragement. Neither he nor his union can survive in a world where illegal action is rewarded with concessions.
I think I can say that I have been sympathetic -with the cause of Labour. I have worked for labour, attended labour meetings, in every way I can. On that account, because I have the true interest of labour at heart, I feel that in respect of this Montreal Tramways strike it is my duty to put before the house and the country my conviction, having some knowledge of the circumstances, that the strike was, as the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) said, illegal, unjustified and unwarranted. Because I take almost precisely the opposite view of that strike from that of the hon. member for Vancouver East and the hon, member for Cape Breton South,

War Labour Board
and because I feel the matter is important, and because it is already having repercussions right through the country, I propose, if I may, to -spend some minutes in discussing the facts surrounding the Montreal Tramways strike.
In the first place it should be remembered that in July, 1940, the Montreal Tramways Company negotiated an agreement with three representatives of the men, called the negotiating committee. Those representatives of the men had been selected by the men by secret ballot. The negotiating committee, working with the Montreal Tramways Company, worked out an agreement. That agreement, a long one, is public property, and is printed in the Quebec Official Gazette for September 21, 1940.
Before the agreement became law-because that is what happened-it was submitted to the men over a period of forty-eight hours, during which time copies were made available to them. Following that, another secret ballot was held, in which the men voted whether or not they would agree to the terms of the agreement. By an overwhelming majority they voted in favour of its adoption.
That agreement was then sent, as a collective labour agreement, to the minister of labour of Quebec who, in due course, published it in the Quebec Official Gazette, and gave notice that anyone who had any objection to make before it was declared to have the force of law should make such objection within the next thirty days. The Gazette reads:
Pursuant to the provisions of section 5 of the Collective Agreement Act, notice is hereby given by the honourable Edgar Rochette, Minister of Labour, that the Montreal Tramways Company has presented to him a request to the effect that the collective labour agreement entered into between:
On the one part:
The Montreal Tramways Company, hereinafter called the "company",
and, on the other part:
The association of the employees of the Montreal Tramways Company, hereinafter called the "negotiating committee", be rendered obligatory for the employer and the employees of the industry and the trades concerned according to the following conditions.
Then follow the paragraphs in the agreement, running to some 110 in number. As I have pointed out, the agreement then had the force of law, under the law of the province of Quebec, the Collective Labour Agreements Act, 4, Geo. VI, chapter 38. This was a collective labour agreement, having the force of law.
The agreement itself contained three provisions to which I shall refer the house. In
the first place, after providing for wage rates for the various classes of labour, and after making provisions for holidays and the like, the agreement states this, in paragraph 107:
All conditions of this agreement, except those applicable to wages and holidays, shall remain in force for at least three years, or for the duration of the war, whichever period is longer.
The agreement was for three years or for the duration of the war.
Then, in paragraph 109, this was expressly stated:
The negotiating committee referred to in this agreement, consisting of Messrs. Elphege Beaudoin, Raoul Trepanier and Osias Neveu, will continue in office during the life of the agreement.
Later on in that paragraph provision was-made for the replacement of any member of the negotiating committee who might cease to act. In accordance with that provision Raoul Trepanier, upon being appointed to the Department of Labour, was replaced by the action of the other two members, and ceased to act for the committee-contrary to the impression given by the hon. member for Cape Breton South.


Clarence Gillis: Would the hon. member tell us by whom Mr. Trepanier was replaced? According to this clause in the agreement he was not replaced.
Mr. CLAXTO'N: The agreement was made in 1940, and paragraph 109 provides for the method of replacement, which was followed out in this instance. Who replaced him escapes my memory at the moment, but I can give my hon. friends the name immediately after the adjournment of this sitting. He was replaced. He was not acting at the time this, matter in dispute arose.
In addition, the contract provided for a bonus, to which the hon. member for Cape Breton South referred. That was provided for in paragraph 110. The provision, which I shall summarize, is that 25 per cent of the gross income of the company over $15,000,000 in any year, ending June 30. shall be paid to the employees of the company who have been in its service for one year, and who are earning 82,500 or less. That paragraph was in full force and effect until! the dominion government passed order in-, council 7440.
The negotiating committee for the employees of the Montreal Tramways Company-made application to the Quebec regional war labour board for a declaration that this bonus, of 25 per cent of the gross profits over S15,000,000 as provided for under the agreement, should be paid to them. The
War Labour Board

Quebec regional war labour board held a number of hearings. Briefs were filed and, ultimately, on June 2, 1942, the board gave a decision stating, if I may summarize it, that the provision with regard to the bonus could not operate in conflict with the wageceiling provisions; that the bonus had to be paid by the company only up to November 15, 1941; that it could be paid at the company's -option up to January 1, 1942, and that it -could not be paid after that date. In lieu of the bonus there was to be a cost-of-living ibonus.
Pursuant to that order not only did the company pay what it had to pay in accordance with the decision, namely, the proportion of the bonus for the period up to November 15, 1941, but it went on and voluntarily paid what might be payable up to January 1, 1942. Then it had to stop because the regional war labour board, presumably acting in accordance with the authority conferred upon it by the government, had given the direction that this bonus was not payable, but that -cost-of-living bonus was payable. Since then the company has been paying the cost-of-living bonus, which at the present time I think is $2.40 a week.


Clarence Gillis: What union made the application for the bonus?


Brooke Claxton: I thank my hon. friend for making that interpolation. The application was made by the negotiating committee which, as everyone knows, was made up of three officers of the union, which I shall call the A.F. of L. union-. This is the Amalgamated Association of Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees, which is associated with the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada and also with the A.F. of L. For convenience, I shall call it the A.F. of L. union.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker-


Brooke Claxton: If -my hon. friend will not be so speedy I shall try to finish what I am saying. The application of the negotiating committee was supported by the Catholic Syndicate and by the Canadian Brotherhood.


Clarence Gillis: I understand it was the
Catholic union that made the application.


Brooke Claxton: My hon. friend may see the application order. I have the briefs here, and the application was made by the negotiating committee, which was the proper body to make it. That application was supported by the Canadian Brotherhood and by the Catholic Syndicate. At that time the matter was disposed of, but I am told that further applications were made to the Quebec regional war

labour board and to the national war labour board, but without success. If those applications were made, and that is my information, they were presumably disposed of by those boards on the ground that the application could not be acceded to on account of the cost-of-living bonus order.


Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: Is it not true that at the present time there is an application from the Catholic Syndicate before the regional board?


Brooke Claxton: I have no information of that.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I think that is
correct.


Brooke Claxton: It may be. Those applications were made. Certainly one was rejected, and I think one or two more as well. This brings us to the beginning of January 1943, when the brotherhood began to correspond with the company and to represent to the company that it should replace the negotiating committee as the negotiating committee. It represented in correspondence which was made available to the press that it had the support of the majority of the men, and it urged that it should replace the negotiating committee as the negotiating committee. Further correspondence ensued, and then on March 2, 1943, the brotherhood, that is the union on the way in, made application for a board under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. The conclusion of that application was that they be recognized as the negotiating committee to represent the men,
Whether or not there was a strike vote before that application was made escapes my memory. There should have been a strike vote in order to justify it under the act, but my impression is that there was no vote taken at that time. In any event the application was made. The brotherhood recognized that the proper way to proceed was to make an application to the minister for a board under the act. It did so and a board was appointed. The board sat in Montreal on Wednesday, March 24, and heard the brotherhood, the A. F. of L. union and the company representatives, and then stated that a report would be made to the minister. That report could not have reached the minister before Thursday or Friday. When it did reach him I do not know, but presumably it must have reached him on Friday or Saturday. Then occurred the incident to which the hon. member for Cape Breton South referred. The A.F.of L. union asked that a ballot should be taken of all employees in order to obtain a vote of confidence. At that time the question was pro-

War Labour Board
pounded in the form which has already been put on Hansard by the Minister of Labour. The A. F. of L. union or the negotiating committee asked the company if this ballot could be taken on the company's premises, and I think the company granted that permission on Saturday. That is the course of events up to the time when the word "strike" was first mentioned.
On Saturday afternoon the brotherhood, acting through its president, Mr. A. R. Mosher, said that if this ballot was proceeded with, there would be a strike on Monday. The matter reached the attention of the minister or his officers on Sunday, and the minister sent telegrams, which are already on record, to Mr. Mosher of the brotherhood; to Mr. Beaudoin, president of the A.F. of L. union, and to Mr. Blair, general manager of the company. In the telegrams to Beaudoin and Blair the minister urged that the ballot be called off and said that a board would be held to decide the matter of jurisdiction. In the telegram to Mr. Mosher he urged that the strike be called off and characterized it as being illegal, or used words to that effect. He also suggested that a board would be held to decide the matter of jurisdiction. As the Minister of Labour has said in the house, the formula selected by him and urged by him on the three parties was the right formula to end this dispute. Unfortunately all three parties replied in the negative or not at all to the telegrams. So that the strike began on Monday morning.
I have lived in Montreal all my life, and the faces of a great number of the striking motormen and conductors have been familiar to me for thirty-five or forty years. Many of them are in the category of friends. A great number of them have many gold stripes on their sleeves, each representing five years of service. I think it is fair to say that during the terrible conditions of this winter, despite tremendous congestion they rendered a fine service. When the strike occurred the men who were supporting the brotherhood were kept in the Atwater market, and of course their officers negotiated for them.
Montreal was almost totally unprepared for this strike, but from the beginning the people took it exceedingly well. They walked long distances to work. One of my staff walked over five miles to her work and this was characteristic of many of the population. There was a spirit of camaraderie. By late Monday afternoon many of the munitions plants had organized their own transportation services. All through, the spirit and organization of the people of Montreal was worthy of all admiration.
But the fact is that this strike interfered with the ordinary passage of a million passengers a day. A million passengers a day were inconvenienced and put to no end of trouble, some to distress. Of this number at least 100,000 were engaged in munitions work. One munition plant is reported not to have been able to do any work that day. Newspapers reported that some sixteen of the principal munitions plants in Montreal were working throughout the day at a capacity of from fifty to eighty or ninety per cent. There can be no doubt that the strike affected the production of munitions by those plants in Montreal.
On Tuesday, Mr. Goldenberg, sent by the minister, arrived in Montreal and that morning got in touch with the various interests. The next morning, Wednesday, he announced that a settlement had been arrived at. The settlement was virtually this, that the brotherhood was recognized as having the right to nominate the negotiating committee. In other words, precisely what the brotherhood had sought from the board appointed under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, precisely what had been under discussion before that board on the previous Wednesday, was obtained by this union by reason of this strike, which was stated by the minister to be illegal.
Therefore it seemed that if you wanted to obtain what you wanted, you should ask for a board, issue an ultimatum, have a strike declared illegal, hold up a million passengers, hold up 100,000 munition workers, cause distress and inconvenience, have the Minister of Labour declare the strike to be illegal, unjustified and unwarranted, and then on Wednesday get precisely what you wanted.
I take a serious view of this situation, equally serious with that of the members who spoke, but for directly opposite reasons. I believe that this strike and its termination has tended to shake the whole confidence of the public in the efficacy of our machinery for the peaceful settlement of disputes. I believe that it has tended to upset the very basis of our system of civilization, namely, respect for law. I believe that it has given the green light to those who want to show that they have the strength to strike and unwillingness to obey the law or comply with the machinery provided for peaceful settlement. It has tended, as Mr. Justice McTague said, to discourage the unions which have tried to comply with the law.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South was very fair in saying what the purpose
War Labour Board

of this strike was. He said that the strike was to protest against the holding of a ballot. I submit, Mr. Speaker, to you, to this house and to the people of Canada that that is not sufficient justification for holding a strike in war time. There was machinery available to be used; the brotherhood was already using it, and it should in fairness, in decency, as well as from the point of view of legality, have allowed that machinery to work.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South brought up the question of the provocative ballot and the action of the company in allowing that to be held. I would admit for the purpose of argument that there was room for criticism in that action while the matter was under advisement. But even admitting that, even if that' is well founded, then I say that it is no reason to hold a strike and tie up the traffic and transportation of the metropolis of Canada in war time.
We should look at this with all seriousness; we should recognize that a considerable number of unions have' already begun to move along the lines indicated by this settlement. We should recognize that, and I think we should appeal to them, appeal to employers and to labour alike, to recognize exactly where this kind of warfare is going to get us. There are just as patriotic men and women in the ranks of organized labour as there are in the ranks of employers, and there are just as patriotic employers as there are patriotic men and women in the ranks of labour. We all have to recognize that we are fighting this war for our very lives.
I would divide labour disputes into those which directly or indirectly affect the war effort, and those which do not, and any union which takes upon itself the responsibility of interrupting the war effort must have a very sound justification for it, if any justification is permissible. But that does not mean that we should allow industries to disregard grievances. It does not mean that there should not be the best possible machinery to dispose of labour disputes. Of course there should be that, and my proposals are these.
This development does create in a sense a new situation, and we should1 see the consequences and see that the people see the consequences of it, that employers and employees see the consequences of it, and try to rebuild the foundation of confidence and trust and respect for law. It is in very large measure a matter of morale and of information.

Last night I was with a number of people engaged in the production of munitions, and I asked them what percentage of the men working with them really understood the basis, the justification, and the necessity, for the wage ceiling and the price ceiling. They told me that it would be hard to guess-perhaps one per cent, perhaps two per cent. I do not know if that is the number or not, but I do know there is room for great improvement in the information that is given to all classes in Canada on some of these rather difficult questions-why, for instance, it is necessary to have the wage ceiling; why it is necessary to have the price ceiling; how labour codes work, and so on. I believe that there is need for a continuing process of informing the public by and of discussions so everyone knows, so that nobody can plead ignorance, and so that there is no possible excuse for irresponsibility of any kind.
The second suggestion I would make is this. Mr. Justice McTague yesterday in his speech implied that even he had some difficulty in construing the labour orders as a whole. I have not a full list of them, but I must confess that they are becoming hard to understand and to work together. I will mention, if I may, a few of them, some of which may now have been repealed, but that just shows how difficult it is to follow them.
P.C. 3495, November, 1939, which extended the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act to industries engaged in war work;
P.C. 2685, of June 9, 1940, providing for collective bargaining;
P.C. 7440, of December, 1940, which provided1 for a voluntary cost-of-living bonus and extended the application of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act;
P.C. 8253, November 15, 1941, which introduced the compulsory cost-of-living bonus and provided for the national and regional war labour boards; replaced by P.C. 5963;
P.C. 2442, of June, 1942, which appointed the industrial disputes inquiry commission which was amended by P.C. 4844, and 496;
P.C. 7307, of September 16, 1941, requiring a strike vote;
P.C. 629, of January 26, 1942, with regard to shipyards.
Then there is P.C. 689, and a number of others which I have not mentioned.
The time has come when it is desirable that all these laws should be worked together into a code and that that code should be passed on the floor of this house. These matters affect the people of Canada to such- a degree that

War Labour Board
they cannot be best dealt with by a series of orders in council. They should be the subject of legislation introduced and passed after discussion on the floor of this house.
The dispute arising in connection with the Montreal Tramways indicates that there is a positive gap in our labour legislation. I think the minister himself was conscious of that. On the Sunday he sent three telegrams putting forward constructive proposals, sensible proposals, proposals 'which he should have been able to make stick for a day or two at least. In order to implement the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, which is probably the only federal legislation which gave jurisdiction to the dominion government in this matter, there should be a provision for stand-still orders while a matter is under consideration before a board.
Finally, there is a further matter, in which I see eye to eye with my hon. friends in the far corner of the house. I do not see how we can expect labour to have a true sense of partnership in the war unless they are given a full measure of participation in all the agencies and instruments that we appoint for the conduct of the war. I support, on this, the remarks which have been made at various times from all parts of the house. We must recognize that this must be a partnership. And we must reestablish the one basis of dealing between partners, which is faith in each other's honesty of purpose and willingness to abide by the rules as they are made from time to time.
My hon. friend in concluding hi3 speech said he thought in the tramways strike the right side had won. I do not judge the tramways strike by that measure. What concerned me about the strike was that it tended to prevent the right side in the war from winning, and for that reason I thought it should be deplored.
If that decision-that strike and its settlement-is used as the starting point of a whole series of labour disputes, pushing here, pushing there, then they will go right through the price and wage ceiling and we shall see a situation which we have never seen before in Canada. If, on the other hand, we sit down now, look at the matter calmly, and take counsel with each other and think what is best in the interests of Canada, how best we can improve the machinery to secure the prompt administration of the rules we adopt to secure fair treatment for all, then this strike may be a warning to us. We have time to profit by that warning, and I have taken up the time of the house this afternoon to bring the seriousness of the challenge to the attention of the Canadian people.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have been asked to
say a few words in this debate, and I am very glad to do so.
The debate opened with criticism of Mr. Justice McTague, chairman of the war labour board, for having spoken recently on a labour matter in Montreal. I believe that on the same day, or on the preceding day, Mr. Cohen, another member of the war labour board, also spoke in Montreal. I have heard no criticism on the latter's speech, and I assume that Mr. Justice McTague and Mr. Cohen have equally the right to place their views before the public. Since they are entering upon a new service, it seems to me very proper that they should do so.
Of course the government had no knowledge of what either of these men would say in his speech; but I have read very carefully the report of Mr. Justice McTague's address, and I agree entirely with the statements he made on that occasion. Mr. Justice McTague has been appointed by the government to the chairmanship of a board of three who will be the supreme arbiters in labour disputes under the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell), and it is the intention of the government to give wholehearted support to Mr. Justice McTague in carrying on the work of his office.
One thing he said, with which I entirely agree, is that the government had been all too patient. I think there has been a tendency on the part of one section of organized labour to place too much reliance on the action of the government in the steel strike as it may apply to future disputes. The government took action in the steel strike for a number of reasons. One was that it was reluctant to lose the production of the steel. That was one basic reason, and it arose particularly out of our being called upon at that time for a greatly increased output of escort vessels. Another reason was that the government realized that the steel dispute had been unsettled for a very long period, and it felt that the men had some cause for impatience in that regard. In any event the government did take action even though the men were out on an illegal strike. What is done is done, but I think there is no justification for a circular which came to my desk, as it happened, just before I came into the house. It is signed by R. J. Lamoureux, provincial director, U.S.A., C.I.O. I will read two paragraphs
All Sherbrooke steel workers are cordially invited to attend this organizing meeting of the United Steel Workers of America, C.I.O.
Come and hear how the union forced the Ottawa government to pay fifty-five cents per hour to labourers in basic steel plants in Canada.
War Labour Board

I hardly think that if the government had thought they were being forced to that .settlement, the settlement would have been made. The government intervened to straighten out a situation which seemed to require immediate attention. They did not do this because they were forced to do it; they did it because, even though it was an irregular procedure under the labour procedure of this country, they believed that special circumstances justified that action. Therefore I ask labour leaders throughout the country to use the existing machinery of government in settling disputes. We have never had such a complete system for the adjudication of labour disputes as we have to-day. In fact we have a labour court which will interpret the government regulations, not in a narrow spirit but, as Mr. Justice McTague said, in a spirit of equity and justice. There is no dispute in the field of labour that cannot be adjudicated by his board and the boards that operate in the several provinces. If labour attempts to short-cut local boards or the central board and tries to force the issue by an illegal strike, the weight of the government will be definitely in support of law and order, and the labour organizations will find that an illegal strike in an attempt to short-cut legal procedure will not help the situation.


Clarence Gillis: Will it work the other way, too?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, quite. It has been suggested that a strike vote is necessary to bring an application before a regional war labour board. That is not the case, as my hon. friend knows. An employer can bring a dispute before a regional war labour board, or an organization of employees can do the same.


Clarence Gillis: I said a conciliation board.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, but conciliation boards are hardly required in days when we have a judicial body capable of dealing with any sort of labour dispute.


Clarence Gillis: The steel workers had to go through that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: As the machinery is to-day, I am sure that a strike vote is not required.
Reference has been made to shops laying off men. All hon. members will realize that we have been in the war now for three and a half years, during which period we have made a huge volume of munitions. We still require a huge output, and each day that output is growing, just as the number of men and women employed in the munitions industry is growing. Nevertheless we have reached the point where 
the requirements for certain types of munitions have been filled. That will be more and more frequently the case as the months go by and our output continues to expand. My hon. friend mentioned the National Steel Car plant employees who were formerly engaged in making 4-5 shells. The situation there is that we have in this country more than seven months' output of 4-5 ammunition, and that ammunition is not moving forward. We are told that the total requirement has been met and is at present in store in Canada. Obviously, with that knowledge we cannot continue to make 4-5 ammunition. My hon. friend may ask why we do not take these machines out and put in other machines to make other types of ammunition. The reason is that future developments of the war may make the manufacture of more 4-5 ammunition necessary, and it has been considered wise to keep that machinery in place so that we can resume that type of production when required.
An hon. member asked about the situation at the Angus shops and why we do not continue to make Valentine tanks. I think that matter has been explained to hon. members. The Valentine is a very useful tank, but it has become outmoded in all countries except Russia. It is no longer a first-line weapon as far as other allied countries are concerned. There was a considerable production of the same type of tank in Britain, and in a survey of the situation it was found that, by continuing her normal production, Britain could supply more Valentine tanks than could be shipped to Russia under existing circumstances. The question of continuing Canadian production was gone into fully with the authorities in Great Britain. We were reluctant to give up the production, because it was well organized and had been proceeding smoothly for a long period. However, it was the combined judgment that Valentine tanks in the required number could be supplied to better advantage from Britain than from Canada. We also had to keep in mind that our expanded escort vessel programme required new capacity for the production of components. All factors having been taken into consideration, it was decided to turn over the Angus shops to the production of ship components.
In the matter of the transfer of employees by selective service, an unfortunate situation occurred. We inquired of the management how many men would be displaced by the change in production, and I think the first answer was that only 100 men would be displaced. Some two or three weeks later we were advised that this number had been very

War Labour Board
greatly increased. Therefore there may have been some delay, arising out of that situation, in placing the men through selective service.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would the minister explain to the house why fewer men are required in the manufacture of these ship components? Would they not be using the full capacity of the plant, or is the work of a kind that does not require the full capacity?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is a combination of both. We cannot start in immediately making all the ship components that we will make eventually. There must be gradual expansion of tooling, facilities, and employment. We are going to make all the ship components we can in that shop. However, it may take time to gather strength, and I could not answer the question as to whether, when we are up to full capacity, we shall need all the men who were employed on the tanks. Different types of work require different numbers of men.


Major James William Coldwell: The thing that puzzles me is that last October we were told that the production of tanks would be discontinued in March and that then this shop would go into production of marine engines. Now we are told that it may be months before these men are completely reemployed. It seems to me there has been delay in planning this transfer from one type of work to the other, and I think that is the main criticism.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I hardly think that is true. As a matter of fact we could not do very much until the tanks went out of the shop, and they went out only a few week ago. When the tanks went out, patterns for the new work, which had been prepared in other shops in the meantime in order to avoid delay, were moved in. In starting new production in a new shop you cannot start at full tempo; as the product comes nearer to completion, more men are required. However, we do need these men elsewhere and they will be transferred to other work.
My hon. friend spoke of shipyards. Perhaps he overlooked the fact that this is the most difficult time in shipyards, when the winter work is nearing completion and when no ship can be "launched from, the ways until the river frees itself from ice. It is probably the most difficult period of the year in which to expand employment in the shipyards along the St. Lawrence, but additional men are required in shipyards, particularly along the great lakes where there is a considerable shortage of experienced men. There is also a shortage of men for many types of work similar to that carried on in the Angus shops.
My hon. friend spoke of men making the statement that they could build six tanks a day
in the Angus shops but that they were held down to three a day. I would remind hon. members that the Angus shops are only an assembly shop for tanks. I suppose less than five per cent of the components that go into the tank are manufactured in that plant.


Mr. MacNICOL:: What per cent of the component parts are manufactured in Canada?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I could not say offhand; perhaps about eighty per cent. If my memory is correct, the only imported component is the engine. There were a number of shops engaged in producing other components. We were asked to organize for a production of three tanks daily. We did that, starting back with every component shop, even the shop in the United States that manufactured the diesel engines. We organized completely for an output of three tanks a day. The fact that the Angus shops could have assembled six tanks a day, had they had the components, is not material, because we were organized for only three tanks a day. From the commencement of the production to the finish of the programme the average of three tanks a day, or eighteen a week, was held accurately. There were one or two delays due to components getting out of step, but the delays were always caught up and production maintained. An end-product shop cannot of itself step up production unless the whole line of shops behind it is stepped up in the same ratio. Usually the end shop, the assembly shop, has considerably more capacity than the component shops behind it.
My hon. friend spoke of the six-pounder gun made by Dominion Engineering. He said the shop could turn out one thousand guns a month, whereas it is turning out only four hundred. The reason is exactly the same as in the case of 4-5 shells. We were asked to cut down to four hundred guns a month, because we had caught up with the initial requirements for that type of gun. My hon. friend will realize that, when armies are being mobilized, there is great urgency to provide the initial equipment. After a time that is provided, every unit has the required number of guns, and then the production requirement depends upon the wastage, or in other words, upon how many guns are lost or destroyed in action. As action goes on, six-pounder guns will be required in certain numbers, but unless the action is very severe we shall not require a thousand guns a month from that plant, although in the initial stages it was tremendously important, in getting our armies armed, to-have that large capacity.
I do not know that I need say anything further on the subject, but I would ask all hon.
War Labour Board

members to do all they can to prevent labour disputes at this critical time. There are indications of the possibility of jurisdictional disputes in certain areas; that is a dispute between two rival labour unions. That is the most baffling type of dispute for employers or conciliation boards to deal with. The Montreal Tramways dispute is a sample; no demands had been made; the government was simply informed that in a few hours the men were going on strike. I hope that labour leaders will be particularly careful to avoid that type of dispute. If there is a question as to who is the bargaining organization for an industry, machinery is provided to obtain a just decision without a strike. That machinery should be and must be used.
I believe many of us think that because certain kinds of production are being interrupted, there is no longer urgency about war production as a whole. I should like to dispel that illusion. The requirement for ships was never so urgent as to-day; the requirements for aeroplanes were never more urgent; the requirement for radio devices and for a great number of types of equipment is just as urgent or more so to-day than it ever has been. The demand for raw materials of all kinds is as urgent or more urgent now than it ever has been. This is no time to relax, on the part of either management or labour.


John Horne Blackmore: Has anything been done by the minister's department or any other agency in Canada to enlist the men who are being laid off in a gun plant, say, and take care of them, keep them under supervision until they are reemployed? The reports I get are that these men are simply turned off, left to their own resources, not knowing where they are to be used. Is that impression correct?
- Mr. HOWE: That is not a correct statement. Before men are laid off, a report is made to the selective service organization, giving the names of the men and all particulars about their present employment. Selective service has the men in hand. Unless it is an isolated community I think it is only a day or two before the men are assigned to other work. I assure hon. members that the last thing that any of us want is to lose track of those men. We want to make sure they are employed, and employed in essential work.


John Horne Blackmore: Is any provision made for giving the men an income while they are out of employment?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The men of course have unemployment insurance. Every man is entitled to that.


John Horne Blackmore: It is very inadequate.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Mr. Speaker, apparently the recent tramways strike in Montreal is the motive power behind this debate. While I spent a day in Montreal during the strike, I do not intend to talk about -it other than to say, without entering into any of the causes of the dispute, either for or against the company or for or against those who called the strike, that I hope that as a result of that strike some clauses may be inserted in the industrial disputes provisions, if such clauses do not already exist, which would have the effect of preventing a recurrence of the situation which developed in Montreal. I should hope that if such provisions do not already exist, they might be introduced so that a thorough investigation and survey of all causes of a dispute might be made before any definite strike action is taken.
I am convinced that every man and woman in the house are as anxious as men and women everywhere that nothing should interfere with our war effort in any part of the country. It must certainly be recognized that a strike cannot do other than interfere with that war effort. When I was in Montreal during the strike I heard many people remark, " Is it not too bad that quantities of wrar munitions are not being made to-day, and were not made yesterday, owing to the inability of men and women to get to their plants?" Then, there were those who did go who had to walk so far that perhaps they were not able to do as good a job as they otherwise would have done. So that without entering into any of the causes of the strike may I express the hope that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) or the government will be able to find some way to ensure that such a situation does not recur.
I was amused when the Minister of Labour characterized as very bitter the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis). I do not believe the minister was in the house between 1930 and 1935.


Humphrey Mitchell: Certainly I was.
Mr. AlacNICOL: Well, then he will remember that between 1930 and 1935 the hon. member for Vancouver East was much more bitter than he was to-day. Indeed I thought he was mild to-day, when compared with his former attitude. And I attribute his present state of mind to the fact that for the last eight years he has been sitting to the left of a sane opposition, one which at all times supports sound industrial and labour policies.

War Labour Board
I do not yield to any man in this house or out of it in my strong feelings of warm sympathy for labour. I have been one of them all my life, or at least until I retired from active work, and I am proud of it. That respect began in my childhood, because I remember well around 1887 or 1888, when I was a very young lad, my father was one of the organizers in the town in which he lived of that organization then known as the knights of labour, the organization which I believe was the forerunner of labour organizations in Canada to-day. I am happy that my father had a part in organizing one of the first labour unions in this country.
My observation in big industry through the years has been that labour unions have done a great deal to improve conditions in factories, and in fact in all aspects of labour. I will not now recite, as I have before, the many improvements in the life of the working man in industry, which have been brought about by labour unions. I have always admired the sound, sane labour leader. He has been a constructor; he has never been a destructor. He has been a builder; he has never been one who pulled down. Much good has come from labour leaders, men like John Noble in Toronto, associated with the American Federation of Labor, and like John Kelly of Montreal. Then there is a man in the Department of Labour who has been a stout advocate for many years of labour rights. I refer to Bernard Rose, K.C., of Montreal, one who has spent many hours in trying to adjust labour disputes.


Mr. McIVOR:: And Tom Moore?


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes, and Tom Moore. There is a long list of labour men. I had not intended to give names, because years have passed since I was in association with labour unions, and in that time many wonderful names have faded from my memory. I take my hat off to all sound labour leaders who have helped to build up labour in Canada.
On the other hand I cannot agree-well, I will not say that I cannot agree with the hon. member for Vancouver East, because as I said a few moments ago I have noticed a great improvement in him. I hope we shall not sit in opposition long enough for the hon. member to become 100 per cent right. Some day I expect we shall be on the other side of the house, and I hope when hon, friends who now sit opposite come over here they will also have a good influence on hon. members to my left.
My only criticism of him-perhaps I should say mild criticism-is that in his remarks he seems to class all employers in one and the same group. I have not heard him say much good for any manufacturers-although he may have said it without my hearing it. However,
I know hundreds of worthy manufacturers. There may be some in the group who deserve the criticism my hon. friend would heap upon them. For those who deserve such criticism I have nothing to say. There are employees and employers who might well be criticized. But the great rank and file of employers and employees are sound, Christian and otherwise, are God-fearing and good men.
This afternoon in conversation with the hon. member for Huron-Perth (Mr. Golding), who has been a labouring man all his life, working first in a junior position in the factory in which he was employed for so many years, and serving later as foreman, had only the finest words to say for the company which employed him up and down those years. That is the kind of company with which in my lifetime I was associated-and I have known many such companies. They need no defence from me. Their good works are legion. On the other hand I have not known the type of employer about which the hon. member for Vancouver East has spoken. I hope when he rises again to speak, even if he criticizes some he will have a good word to say for at least four or five, or possibly a hundred or so others.


Angus MacInnis: May I say to the hon. member for Davenport that I did not include all.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am very glad to hear that. That is a great improvement, due I am sure to the efforts of His Majesty's loyal opposition. I suppose most hon. members receive copies of the pamphlet published by the Dominion Foundries and Steel Company of Hamilton. I know this company very well because it has been my pleasure to visit it on many occasions. It is a huge organization, and I believe it now employs around three thousand or more hands. It takes a lot of money to pay that many men and women every two weeks. In the issues of this publication they never cease lauding their employees. They show that they are trying to do all they can to make the lives of their employees happy and comfortable and contented. I wish every company did this. The company with which I was associated a few years ago did this in a measure, but it did not get as far as the particular company to which I refer. However, it was on its way. Dominion Foundries

War Labour Board
and Steel Company of Hamilton i3 only one of many that I know of that are looking after their men.
The issue of this publication which I received this morning interested me very much. It contains a story about the fund for the employees of this company. It appears that the company makes a substantial contribution to this fund in addition to the contribution made by the employees. This fund was started five years ago when there were only 1,300 men and women employed. It might be noted that many of the operators in this company are women. The employees are of all races, and dt is interesting to read their names. Within five years this fund has grown to well up to $2,000,000. I got a great kick, I might say, out of reading what some of the men say about this fund. I wish I could repeat the Yorkshire dialect that is given, but I cannot. I will send this publication to the Hansard reporter so that it can be copied as it appears here. I am sure this will be most interesting to workers throughout the country. There is a picture of two workers who are discussing the fund which,' as I say, has now reached a total of about $2,000,000. This fund is administered by a committee made up of two men chosen by the employees, two chosen by the company, and a trustee. The benefits given to the employees by means of this fund are considerable. When I read of what is done for the men and women in this plant, I cannot help but hope that the same thing is going on all over the country. One man is named Sam Southern and the other is named William Greenwood. The first picture shows Sam Southern apparently looking at his book in which are recorded the amounts to bis credit in the fund. The caption under this picture reads:
"It's a bit a'reet, lad," says Sam Southern, looking over his fund book, "Wont Missus be pleased when she sees me creedit in fund!"
That is in real Yorkshire dialect. The next picture shows the two of them looking at the fund book, and the caption reads:
"Eh, lad. What does think abaht this, Bill?" he remarks to William Greenwood, "Looks as 'ow fund's summat talk abaht."
Hon. members will have to translate that to get the real meaning. The third picture shows Sam enjoying a smoke, and he says:
"Yeh, lads, a working man gets square deal 'ere a'reet. Got a job I likes, and me and Missus doan't need worry abaht future."
By means of this fund the workers are guaranteed sustenance when they are unemployed. That is as it should be. No man who has worked for a company for any length of time should have the least fear of want. Conditions 
to-day are different from what they used to be, and perhaps that is what the hon. member for Vancouver East had in mind. I can remember a company-I shall not give its name- which I would be ready to denounce if I were the kind of person who denounces things. I do not generally do that because I like to look at things in a broad way. In this case one man had worked for this company for thirty-seven years, and he was told to go. Another one had been with it for thirty-two years, and he was let out because he was too old. I believe the third man had been with the company for twenty-nine years.
I take the stand that no man or woman who has worked for a company for any such length of time, or even for a shorter period of time, should be let out -without the company being made to contribute to his care for the rest of his days. Legislation should be enacted to ensure that that is done. I met this one man who had been with the company for thirty odd years nine days after he had been let out. At that time he was talking incoherently ; his heart was broken, and he died three weeks after. It was a terrible thing to treat a human being like that. I do not think the same thing could happen to-day.
There is another angle about which I should like to say a word, something that should not be allowed in this country. I know a man by the name of R. Stuart. This man was an excellent salesman; he knew his business, and he was well known. One company after another bid for his services. They then agreed among themselves that they would divide up any contracts obtained. As new contracts came along, I am informed that an officer of one company would meet with officers of the other companies and they would decide that contract A would go to company B, and contract C to company D, and so on. This star salesman refused to be a party to any such agreement. The result was that he was discharged, and all the companies agreed not to employ him. That was nothing short of boycotting, and such a thing should not be allowed in this country. No man should be prevented from earr;ng a living if the opportunity is there. When things like that occur I agree to a certain extent with what is said by the hon. member for Vancouver East. However, such things do not happen very often. The standard of our business fabric has been raised up beyond what it was in times past.
There is something else about the Dofasco company fund which I think ought to be placed on Hansard. This circular states:
This Dofasco fund of ours is no longer in the experimental stage. Quoting Mr. C. W. Sherman, the fund trustee, in his annual letter to fund members-

War Labour Board
The report concludes what it has to say about the fund by quoting Mr. C. W. Sherman, the fund trustee, as follows:
Starting without assets five years ago, about thirteen hundred members have accumulated $1,633,438.49!
That fund has since grown to close to $2,000,000. Then he goes on to put questions about the fund:
What is the fund? What does it do? How does it operate? These and many other questions come to us frequently. The spirit of the fund is contained in the preamble to the fund agreement, and we think should be read again and again by every fund member.
Here is the preamble:
Whereas the "employees' are desirous of contributing to a fund that will enable them to save and help provide for their future.
I quote further:
"What does our fund do?" you ask. It is an incentive for the worker to save, and we are confident that we will find the majority agreeing with us when we claim that Dofasco men have been taught to save who previous to joining the fund never saved a dollar in their lives, for the purpose of providing security for the future.
They go further than that. They give their men an opportunity to advance. To stand working at a machine, either a boring machine, a drill, a lathe, a shaper or some other machine, eight to ten or twelve hours a day and doing it day in and day out is pretty hard work. I have seen it times without number. This particular company, and I know many others which do the same thing, runs a night class in connection with its plant where bright young men and the older men who want to advance have an opportunity to learn many other branches of the work in the plant. They can learn to operate other machines and in that way advance themselves. There is plenty to eat in connection with the night school, and they occasionally put on some little amusements. So that altogether they are a very happy family.
Not far from the Dofasco plant there is another great plant, that of the Bertram company. Most men and women in this building know about the Bertram company. Its plant is of tremendous size. I believe it is the largest machine manufacturing shop in Canada and perhaps one of the largest in the British empire. The head of the firm is a wonderful man. I have met him many times. He worked his way up from the bottom to the top. I refer to Mr. Henry Bertram, who I believe is now president. He is well advanced in years, being over eighty years old. I have often been with him through that plant, and
nothing delights that dear old man, if I may affectionately call him so, more than to go through the plant greeting the employees he knows so well. He will say, "Good morning, Bob-Good morning, Tom," and so on as he recognizes his old employees as he walks through the plant. His greatest pleasure is to tell you how long they have been with the company, and he will tell you that this one or that one has worked for so many years with the Bertram company. Many and many of them have worked for the company for fifty years or more. I remember one old employee, the late Geordie Turnbull, who had been with the company for sixty years. He worked there for some years after that. Geordie Turnbull just praised that company from morning till night. He was a great booster and lover of the company, and well he might be after having worked there for sixty years during which he rendered excellent service. He had a right to think well of the company, and the company had an equal right to and did think well of him.
In my own riding, not far from where I reside, there is a much smaller company, and it is only one of a. number such. I believe there are more factories in the riding I represent than in any other riding in Canada. I know many of them well and go through them at every opportunity I get. This one plant I have in mind at the moment is a branch of a United States company, the C. A. Dunham company. It would delight anybody to go through that plant. In the forenoon all the employees knock off work for fifteen minutes to rest and have tea, and the same thing occurs in the afternoon. Those employees all get holidays with pay and are all insured, and I doubt very much whether you could dynamite a man or a woman away from that plant. That is only one of many. That is the way it should be. In this enlightened age men and women working in industrial plants should be treated in the most human way, because it is tiring and monotonous to stand up and work at a machine all day long. I have worked on a machine myself for nine and twelve hours a day and I know what it is like. When you have to work at a machine for ten or twelve hours a day, a fifteen minutes' rest together with a cup of tea and something to eat, in the forenoon and in the afternoon is most welcome. It helps to take away the monotony of the work, and the day seems shorter, too, if you have a chance to advance. I had a chance to advance, and I improved it and did advance. There are many other plants I could speak of in the same way.
War Labour Board

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me say that we are in the greatest war in the world's history, and this empire stands in greater jeopardy than ever before. At such a time every effort should be made by every one of us to prevent a possibility of strikes or lay-offs. Every effort should be made by every one of us to keep the wheels of industry operating to the limit. I might address a word to the Minister of Labour. If there are some obstinate employers who refuse to listen to sound advice, to an appeal to keep their employees working, it is up to the department to step in just as the department steps in when a strike is called by the working men.. The stand I take is this. We are all together. We all sink or swim together. We cannot swim if some of us are interfering with the rest of us working,. We cannot swim if those who are working are not receiving fair play. That is simply the golden rule, and I believe the golden rule is the one to be followed by labour leaders, by industrialists and by our working people, more than ever at this time when the empire's life is in jeopardy. If we all do unto others as we would have others do unto us, I believe strikes would be a thing of the past at least until after this war, and after the war some legislation should be brought in by the department that would ensure that before any strike is called, every avenue for preventing the strike shall be first explored with the object that men and women who want to work, and who should have work, Shall be given the opportunity to earn the most they can under the fairest conditions, so that they can take care as best they can of their wives and families and lay something by for their old age.


Thomas Langton Church: I have had as long an association with labour as any other member of this house. I have been a consistent supporter of labour all my life. I believe in certain principles which we should follow in this, the greatest war the world has ever seen. The first principle is that the country should come first. The second is that the safety of the state and the promotion of peace in industry should come second. The war should be our primary interest, not secondary.
During the last war in the city of Toronto we had a number of large strikes. There was one in the police department and the street department, one in the post office department, several in industry, and there were several street railway strikes. I have always found the average labour man to be, on the whole, a sane and sensible citizen. We in the
[Mr. MacNieol.l
House of Commons are supposed to be together for the war, and not to use the war to promote our own political theories or policies.
On this, the forty-ninth day of the session, the war seeems to be in the background altogether, although the situation is most grave. Mr. Churchill has referred to it; Mr. Eden spoke of it in this chamber the other day; and to-day Mr. Knox, secretary of the United States navy, referred at Washington to the gravity of the submarine menace in the Atlantic. Up to the present our allies have never been able to get inside the German . defences on the continent. Mr. Churchill has aptly described the situation up to now as "the end of the beginning" of the war; and nobody knows what will be the outcome.
Yet, unless w'e win the war, there can be no collective security. To-day there are no labour unions in Germany, Italy or Japan.
We are seriously handicapped through lack of shipping. When you travel by railway today, along any right of way, what do you see? Big, heavy packing cases, and crates and boxes of munitions and supplies. Many of them have been on the ground all winter and are damaged through exposure, but we have neither, the rolling stock to advance them to the seaboard nor the ships to move them overseas to help our allies.
As I said, there are no labour unions in the axis countries. In considering our labour difficulties it may be useful to recall the position of labour in Great Britain before the war started. At that time the Labour party in the old countiy was divided into five or six groups. First, there was the Lansbury group, which would not fight for anything. Then there was the group led by Sir Stafford Cripps, who announced that they would fight for socialism and nothing else. Speaking at Bristol, he said:
I think we ought to warn the government that in no circumstances will we go to war. There is only one way we can make that threat effective, and that is to call a general strike.
Mr. Attlee, another labour leader, was attached to the League of Nation's group, who were ready to fight for collective security, but not for Britain and the empire.
The coming of the war united the labour party in the old country, and they voted by a majority of three and a half million votes at the Norwich conference in favour of a total war effort, without strikes. I wish we could pattern ourselves on that example. These people are right beside the war and they know what is happening. Mr. Eden reminded us the other day that the British House of Commons are not meeting in their old chamber; they are assembled in another place because of the bombing of Westminster.

War Labour Board
I believe we should model our labour-capital relations in time of war on the old country. Remember that there are demagogues on both sides; they do not all belong to one group. In the old country the safety of the state comes first, and they are comparatively free from strikes.
In Ontario, before the advent of public ownership, there were many strikes in the light, power and1 transportation industries, including the street-car systems, but under public ownership labour has had a better deal, shorter hours, improved conditions and higher pay, and in every way the system has been an immense success. Since the war began we have embarked upon what may be called public ownership of certain industrial plants, making them into crown plants. While it is true that in some places there has been a good deal of absenteeism, and in some instances improper labour conditions, yet the work done by labour in general industry, and particularly in munitions and supply, is one of the most glorious records of which Canada can boast. I hope that by no act of this house shall we cause unrest or work up a case for a general strike; and remember that these things have been said, not only in Montreal during the past month, but in other oities, suggesting a threat to summon a general strike. Well, are we in the war, or are we not? We shall have to decide that question. If strikes in Canada are not legal, why are we dealing with people who have been guilty of non-legal proceedings? Mr. Justice McTague, chairman of the national war labour board, to whom reference has been made to-day, has as much right to talk as Mr. Donaild Gordon had in Toronto yesterday about certain beef and other controls, and what should be done over the head of parliament while in session, and announce policies. I might say the same with reference to Mr. Grierson and a number of other gentlemen who are in charge of controls and sub-controls. They do not hesitate to announce, while parliament is sitting, important policies for the country; they are declared over our heads, whether we like it or not, by government boards of all kinds.
In the old country there was a debate a few months ago about the effect of strikes, absenteeism and certain other factors on the war effort of Great Britain. Some of the remarks which were then made are, I believe, quite relevant to the situation which developed in the island of Montreal the other day and to a situation which, unless regulated, may on May day, only three weeks ahead, assume national importance from coast to coast. I propose to read a few paragraphs from the speech of a very able friend of labour, who
himself rose from the ranks to become the head of a large business. I refer to Mr. Austin Hopkinson, the member for Mossley. He touches on the views of the fighting services. I may say that I have received many letters from our soldiers who are now in England and north Africa: they wonder what is the matter with us over here, and whether they are going to get adequate supplies and help; they refer to what their parents have told them about the packages of freight along the right of way of the railways, and about strikes and contemplated strikes. Mr. Hopkinson, speaking on November 19, 1942, said, with reference to the future of Britain's young men now in the services, what they will face when they come home:
From the purely economic point of view, what is being prepared for them after the war? I venture to say that one of the things which arouses more disquiet in their minds than anything is that there is a strong movement in this country towards having the life of every man and woman planned out by some superior authority, and there is no doubt they regard that with the utmost distaste. Again, there is a section of the community which we call "big business." Big business has nothing to do with legitimate commerce and industry, nothing whatever; it is a purely parasitic growth, living upon the lifeblood of industry and of the workers. It is obvious that big business, in collusion with the labour boss of the syndicalist type, is preparing a brave new world for these young men when they come home. Many hon. members will have seen a manifesto by big business recently. What did it mean? It meant that great monopolistic bodies will be set up in each industry, vested with statutory powers whereby they may crush every form of independent industry by making one great monopoly. By collusion with the labour boss they would always have a majority on the council for each industry and, by their statutory powers they could enforce their will upon everybody else. If I may misquote a familiar Latin quotation: "Solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant." That means, that these people would make a monopoly and call it peace.
That is not the first time we have had to fight against this sort of thing. Many hon. members will remember the "peace in industry" stunt of the late Lord Melchett some years ago, which was exactly the same thing as is being prepared in this country to-day. The idea was to set up large councils for each industry on w'hich the big monopolistic firms would always have a majority and, if they could work with the labour boss, as they intended to, would be able to crash out any chance for any of these young men who are now fighting for us abroad to make their own way in life and to contribute in due course their enterprise, energy and brains to the production of the common wealth of the nation. When I started in business forty years ago it was comparatively easy for a young man who had guts and enterprise to set up for himself, even without money, as I set up for myself, and make a success of an industrial concern. To do that is now becoming more and more difficult. If we allow big business and
War Labour Board

the labour boss between them to close up all the openings for enterprise and brains and energy, we shall betray all these young men in the lowest possible fashion.
That was his view of what would happen in the old land after the war as a result of surrendering somewhat to some of these socialist agencies. Let us get together and settle labour disputes until the war is won.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while labour has accomplished many good things, I believe we should have some new future national policy for labour. We should not have two unions in war time fighting for mastery in Canada. They cannot both succeed. Sensible labour organizations and trade unions have been a blessing to every country,, but we in this House of Commons should beware that by any action of ours we make it more difficult for the average business man, municipalities and others to transact their affairs. Hon. members to the left claim to be the only labour party in Canada, but of course that is not so. The record of the Conservative party in Ontario and in the dominion shows a great many things done for labour. Hon. gentlemen of the party opposite sometimes have done a great deal for labour in the past, and during the last thirty or forty years Canada has given leadership and has been a pioneer in many labour matters. We have had splendid labour leaders, and I hope nothing will happen to spoil the magnificent record of labour up to the present time, through the fomenting of strife rather than "peace in industry" until the war is won. In these days the war effort should be paramount, because we do not know where we are to-day or where we shall be next summer, so that it behooves us as members of this house to do our best to encourage and promote peace in industry throughout the land.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Mr. Speaker I have addressed this house seldom during this session; but the subject which cropped up unexpectedly, as far as I was concerned, early this afternoon, is one to which I think I can make some modest contribution in order that the record may be kept straight, especially in regard to Mr. Justice McTague. In the past my district of Parry Sound has been famous for its fishing and hunting, as a sportsman's paradise. Some eight years ago it became famous in the matter of production, unequalled in Canada, in the Dionne quintuplets. It may not be generally known by hon. members that in my great district is one of the most efficient and most necessary war industries in Canada, the plant of D.I.L., situated at Nobel, which manufactures cordite and
TNT for Britain and Canada, and which employs more than 4,000 workmen. Before I put straight the record by giving this house some of the things Mr. Justice McTague said which, either wittingly or unwittingly, were concealed by the two hon. gentlemen across the way who attacked him, I wish to say that at that great Nobel plant the most splendid conditions prevail as between management and labour. They have gone hand in hand to the regional war labour board for adjustment of the wage scale. Some ten days ago the management and labour went hand in hand before the board again, in order to secure approval, as is now necessary, of the desire of the industry to permit workmen to have holidays with pay. The most splendid conditions have prevailed there.
I should now like to say a word about Mr. Justice McTague whose voice is of necessity silent when he is attacked in this house. As hon. members perhaps will recall, he was appointed to the bench in my province by a former administration, not a Liberal administration. He received advancement from the trial bench to our court of appeal at the hands of the present administration, and there he rapidly established a reputation as a great and distinguished jurist. For the last two years he has served this country while still giving part of his time to his judicial duties as a member of the court of appeal, working early and late, night and day. He has rendered magnificent service as chairman of a board under the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe), dealing with difficult problems of depreciation and taxation, and in that connection also he has won a splendid reputation for fairness and integrity. Just recently he was selected as chairman of the very important national war labour board.
My hon. friends who attacked him in the early part of this debate selected one or two hand-picked sentences on which they endeavoured to condemn this great jurist in the minds of the members of this house and the people of this country. I thought the day had long gone by when that type of guerilla warfare was regarded either as parliamentary or as the right thing to do, even in peace time. I wish also to recall the fact that when Mr. Justice McTague was appointed to this new post a few weeks ago, the better element in organized labour from coast to coast in Canada, and I say that advisedly, were loud in their expressions of satisfaction, indeed their praise of Mr. Justice McTague as a man and as the new chairman of that board, and incidentally they praised the government for having made this appointment. I know of no

War Labour Board
responsible labour organization or man in Canada who voiced a single word of protest in regard to this appointment.


Mr. MARTIN:: The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) approved also.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: I was not aware of that. But now, after Mr. Justice McTague has given up in part his judicial position; after he has come to this new and difficult task, without reward of any kind except the reward that men get when they serve their country faithfully, we find that an attempt is made to sow the seeds of suspicion and to bring that noted jurist into disrepute, I suppose to serve some sort of purpose in the time to come. I deplore that. I wish to read a few extracts from the address delivered by this great jurist before a non-political club, the Canadian club of Montreal, composed, as was indicated, probably much more of those who would be employers of labour rather than employees. I point out to my hon. friends that this address could well be taken as a sane charter of tolerance, cooperation and give-and-take as between industry and labour, which might be blazoned across Canada, placed in the hands of every right-thinking union in this country and in the offices of every industry, because it is a magnificent charter. Let me trouble you, Mr. Speaker, with only a very few extracts from it which my hon. friends were careful not to give the house. That gentleman said in opening his address:
Your president when he invited me to speak here suggested I speak on the functions of the board which I now head, the national war labour board.
He then expounded the functions of that board. Surely, when a new board is about to deal with such vital matters, it is a splendid thing that before a non-partisan non-political club such as the Montreal Canadian club he should give an exposition of his conception of his duty as chairman of that board for the better understanding of people of all types in this country.
Mr. Justice McTague among other things- my friend the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Claxton) quoted one of them [DOT]-said:
Generally speaking, the policy of the national war labour board is to construe liberally the order in council where the wage-earner in the low brackets is affected. As to the wage-earner in the higher brackets, generaly speaking we feel he must share in the sacrifice imposed upon us all by war and the government's economic policy.
Do hon. gentlemen quarrel with that as an enunciation of the privileges and duties of labour in this country during this war? Surely not.
Then in another place he said'-I cannot quote the entire address:
I believe in the principle of collective bargaining. As labour knows, I have never wavered from that position for years. Furthermore I believe that labour is entitled to have as bargaining agent the union of its own choice.
Do hon. gentlemen quarrel with that? Of course they do not.
Then he said:
It is my view that industry's day of being paternalistic and deciding by direct or indirect means just what type of union it will deal with h'as long gone by. . . .
Is that the language of a man who is there to serve industry only, or is it the language of a man who wants to see both industry and labour in this country united in the great effort in which we are engaged?
He said further:
Industry must do its share to see that the worker gets a fair deal under the law.
And again-and this is the point that seemed to get under the skin of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) and the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), who undertook to chastise this jurist and picked out, if you please, this particular language-


Clarence Gillis: Will the hon. member allow me to put him right? During the course of my remarks I did not quote Mr. Justice McTague in any way, shape or form. The only mention I made of him was that I thought he picked an inopportune time for that statement.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Well, my hon. friend is
now trying to crawl under the bam, if that is a parliamentary expression. But I do not think he will succeed.


Clarence Gillis: I am just trying to correct
the hon. member.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: I accept my hon. friend's
statement of what he said. But could anyone who listened to his speech think for a moment that he was not trying to sow discord in the minds of the labour men of this country with regard to the chairman of the national war labour board? My hon. friend undertook to criticize the statement and the fact that the chairman should speak at all.


Clarence Gillis: No.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Well, I leave that to the judgment of the house. I could point out some
War Labour Board

statements of the hon. member from a public platform in Hamilton, but they have already been put on Hansard, so that I shall not repeat them. I leave it to the judgment of the house whether the chairman of the board in that statement was not doing a greater service to Canada than the hon. member who went to Hamilton and in a forum there used the words which the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) put on Hansard a short time ago.


Clarence Gillis: The Minister of Labour did not put it on record.


Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson).


Arthur Graeme Slaght: I would have thought that there was very little greater burden in denying his language-if he had dared deny it-as put on Hansard, whether it came from one hon. member or another. And as far as I read the record it has not been denied.


Clarence Gillis: I have no intention of denying it, and under the proper item I shall reiterate and explain it to the satisfaction of the hon. member for York-Sunbury.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: The hon. member who has just interrupted me undertook to tell us that his loyalty and patriotism were as high as those of any member of this house. I accept that statement unreservedly, no one would suggest the contrary. But he has different methods of evincing his patriotism and loyalty to the empire. I was almost minded to read the sentences he uttered the other day, but if he wants to explain it himself later it is certainly fresh in the memory of hon. members. I do not wish to stir up any antagonism.


An hon. MEMBER:: Let it go into the record.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Well, it is in the record. The hon. member for Cape Breton South berated the press. He said that the press are always garbling things, getting things wrong. He was not complaining in regard to his own speech but about the report of some strike, I think. The chairman of the board is all wrong as far as lie is concerned; the press of Canada, or a portion of it, is also all wrong. Only because I am asked to do so I will put on record .what is reported in the Hamilton Spectator as the language said to have been used by the hon. member at a meeting in the auditorium labour temple on Sunday afternoon:
Churchill, said the speaker, hated Hitler and will fight him to the last ditch. "That's the most I'll say for him," he continued. "The people will have to get rid of the Churchills to attain their ideals."

That is the language of the hon. gentleman who wants to castigate the chairman of the national war labour board for his splendid speech in Montreal yesterday.
Now a few words more from that address, although Mr. Justice McTague needs no justification from me. I have read the sentence:
Demagogues, whether union organizers or politicians, must consider with care and caution the forces of mob rule which they may be letting loose in this country-letting loose not only on the country, but on themselves as well.
In concluding his speech, Mr. Justice McTague apparently had a foresight that was almost uncanny, because he said:
In closing, Mr. President, may I emphasize that I speak from a completely non-partisan viewpoint ... I speak in open criticism of no one. However, if anyone feels that the cap fits, he is welcome to wear it.
He should have said, If any two feel that the cap fits they are both welcome to put it on. And they put it on this afternoon in this house.
Mr. Justice McTague also said on that occasion:
I have always believed in the solid qualities of the average workingman. In this time of war as an individual I think it generally correct to say he meets his obligations as he sees them. When he goes off the track, it is almost always the result of agitational and opportunistic ambitions of leaders who place immediate personal and organizational ends ahead of the one big job which we must keep engaged in, if we are to maintain a way of life a deadly and ruthless enemy fights to obliterate.
Is that language of which any jurist should be ashamed?
It is important that labour should not be recklessly or needlessly disturbed in this very hour. The Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) sounded a warning to the house, one which I make bold in my modest way to emphasize. He said in effect that the present hour is one of grave peril. And those of us who have followed the history of U-boat sinkings in March, the complete records for which have not yet been given, are shocked and alarmed at the enormous quantity and tonnage of shipping the enemy has been able to destroy, chiefly in the Atlantic, in the month just closed. The aeroplanes we are producing- some of them I believe in Montreal-and the ships we are producing in Canadian shipyards are essential to combat that menace.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South is an advocate of ship production, and for that he deserves great credit. I do not wish him to think that I rise in the house to make any sort of attack upon him. On the contrary I believe he and the hon. member for Vancouver East have made some excellent contributions

War Labour Board
to our discussions in the house. I am not at all intolerant of them. But I do ask them- 1 do not warn them-to try to join with the saner labour leaders in the country, so as to put down dissension and the entertaining of suspicious ideas about men in places where they are serving without reward. Let us all cooperate, no matter to which party we may give adherence. Let us cooperate to build up, rather than to tear down, and to make our Canadian effort which, as Mr. Churchill has said, is already so magnificent, and one which is surpassed by none of the allied nations, even bigger and greater and better by endeavouring to have industry and labour unite, instead of trying to tear them asunder.


Mr. C. E. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened attentively to the remarks of the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght) and have been particularly interested in his review of the situation in his own constituency. I was particularly interested in his statement regarding the productivity of that constituency, and especially his reference to the quintuplets. I noted particularly that when he referred to them he was pointing to his left, and I gained the impression that he might be referring either to the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) or to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), in an endeavour to give them some advice. I thought his reference was a happy one.
The hon. member for Parry Sound at the outset of his remarks said that no one in the house had sponsored the cause of Mr. Justice McTague, and that he thought he was in duty bound to offer a defence, in view of the fact that the judge was not here to speak for himself. I believe Mr. Justice McTague was ably defended this evening by the hon. member for Parry Sound. It is an astonishing fact that when anyone does say anything against a member of the bar there are always a great number of supporters in the house, men with high capabilities, who can and do meet such criticism. I do not know of a more clannish organization than that composed of men connected with the law.
I was interested in the remarks this afternoon of the Minister of Munitions and Suppy (Mr. Howe) with regard to labour conditions. I believe it is the desire of every hon. member, as indeed it should be, that there should be no strikes. Certainly that is my utmost hope. It is very disturbing to myself and, I believe, to hon. members generally when we see disruption in our production programme. But there is no use in hon. members laying the blame on the war labour board particularly, or on industry, or on labour. It is my opinion
that nearly all strikes are caused by government policy. Wherever one goes he finds that the root of the trouble is labour conditions, partly due to government policy, or to wage conditions which are definitely due to government policy. I suggest that if the government would go a little further and look into some of these conditions they might avoid a lot of trouble in the future, because certainly some of the conditions under which labour is forced to work, especially the rates of pay received by some of the lower paid workers, give cause for complaint. It seems to me the only way in which they can get relief from these distressing circumstances is either through advocating or possibly going on a strike. I believe the government would be well advised to look into these matters beforehand, to see if solutions cannot be found before strikes actually take place.
When the Minister of Munitions and1 Supply was speaking this afternoon with reference to the great number of men laid off at the Angus shops he referred to the construction of the Valentine tank, and stated-and I believe I interpret his remarks correctly-that the tank was outmoded, and that it was now going out of production. Away back last summer, when the committee was discussing this matter I pointed out that at that time the Valentine tank was considered outmoded, but hon. members on that occasion took great exception to my statement, and praised the tank. My information at that time has proved to be well founded.
The minister referred to the building of ships. The hon. member for Parry Sound has just indicated how urgently ships are needed, in view of the high rate of sinkings. I agree with him 100 per cent. But one of the things which alarms labour as well as industry is the fact that we are not producing as many ships as we could produce-and I say that advisedly. Hon. members who have spoken this afternoon have been very much concerned about shipbuilding. It will be recalled that not long ago' the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid), when speaking in the house, pointed out that the Star shipyards in Vancouver had only two out of eight berths occupied. He predicted that before long even those two would be closed, through lack of work. Those are conditions which greatly concern hon. members.
I remember reading not long ago, I believe in the Vancouver Sun, that around two or three hundred men were being laid off from Vancouver shipyards, and the newspaper pointed out that they were being laid off because they had become so proficient in their
War Labour Board

jobs, and were working so expertly that they could now turn out ships with less labour in the same time. Anyone who is at all conversant with the situation there knows that statement was not true. That is not the reason why men were being laid off. I shall not discuss in detail what the reason was. It is sufficient for hon. members to know that not only in the Angus shops at Montreal or in the shipyards at Vancouver are men being laid off, but they are being laid off throughout the country. The result is that our war effort is not being carried on to the extent it ought to be. Let me refer again to some of the places that are having to face this problem. I have spoken a number of times in regard to the lay-off of men in Calgary. I have visited these plants personally and I know the concern of labour there. I also know the concern of the management. I may say that I have never visited a plant in Canada where industry was not as much concerned with increased production as anyone else and where labour was not just as much concerned as industry. In almost every instance both parties were concerned because they were not putting out as much as they thought they could put out.
When I brought up the question of the layoffs in Calgary the minister told us that one reason was the necessity of retooling, and he pointed out that the Calgary -Ogden shops had the largest order in their history. I should like to quote from a letter which I received since the minister made that statement. It is from a man in a rather important position in the Ogden shops, and he has this to say with regard to the tooding-up of that plant:
Now we know the reasons given for tooling up by Mr. Howe don't dovetail with practical experience and the majority of the men are fed up, anxious and probably very scared because we have had further lay-offs after the one you spoke of.
He then goes on to explain that the men are much concerned over the tremendous number that are being laid off in production plants throughout the country. The minister told us that these men would all be put back to work. I do not for a moment doubt his sincerity. On -many occasions I have said that I think he is doing a good1 job, but I think he is trying to do more than he should have to do. Another man who holds an extremely important position in the Ogden shops wrote to me after the discussion in the house, and in part he said:
I do feel that unless strong representations are made for a continuation of contracts we will be faced with the problem of further staff reduction.
That is an alarming state of affairs at a time when we are supposed to be in the midst of a war. The hon. member for Parry

Sound pointed out the great need for ships as a result of the number of sinkings that have occurred; yet we find that in Vancouver and all over the country men are being laid off. This curtails production. I am alarmed at this condition of affairs. I do not think we shall settle our strike problems or our production problems until this problem is overcome. These men are greatly concerned over the fact that in Calgary, Montreal, Vancouver and other places there are hundreds of men being laid off. This affects the morale of the -particular locality as well as the morale of the whole country. This, along with the low wages paid, especially to those in the lower categories, is bound to create disturbance, is bound to cause strikes. Until we overcome this condition our position will not improve. It is all very well to blame the war labour -board- or someone else, but that is not the real, fundamental cause. The real, fundamental cause is government administration and government policy. I appeal to the minister to look into these matters and correct them before further trouble comes upon us.	*


Joseph William Noseworthy: Mr. Speaker, I shall not speak at length, but some statements which have been made in this debate cannot go unchallenged. I should like to refer to the remarks of the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght). When any member of this house sets himself up on a pedestal and implies that other members are demagogues, little attention need be paid to what he says. I did not hear him, but I understand that the hon. member made reference to his own riding. I visited the industries in his riding last summer, and I saw the shacks in which the men working in those industries are living. I wish to say that those shacks add no credit either to the hon. member for Parry Sound or to the government to which he belongs.
The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Claxton) had some things to say. I gathered from his remarks that he considered the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) did not look upon- the American Federation of Labor as a constituted or regular union. I wonder whether he knows that the hon. member for Cape Breton South has paid dues into that union for over twenty years. I think he can appreciate that union as well as the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George.


Humphrey Mitchell: Not recently.


Joseph William Noseworthy: A criticism has been heard in the press and in this house of the

War Labour Board
settlement that was made of the strike in Montreal. I wish to congratulate the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) and the man whom he sent to Montreal to settle that strike. I think they did a good job. I am confident that the people of Montreal were as anxious as anyone to have that strike settled in as short a time as possible. In dealing with the strike he recognized that the majority should rule, the principle by which we represent our constituents in this house.
One thing I am a little worried about is the fact that every time a labour dispute is discussed in the country, in the press or in the house, the blame is always laid at the door of labour. I have yet to see the press of this country by and large support labour in any single dispute that has come up between labour and employers. I regret to say that there have been few occasions when a labour dispute has been brought to the attention of this house when the Minister of Labour has taken the side of labour openly on the floor of this house.


Humphrey Mitchell: Will my hon. friend wait just a minute? I do not want an inquest to be held without the corpse being present. I should like my hon. friend to enumerate the occasions when I have not stood up for labour in this house. Let us have them on the record.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I am not charging the minister with not supporting labour in the negotiations, but I will say this, that I can recall a number of occasions on which the minister has intimated here that labour was at fault.


Humphrey Mitchell: You are just wriggling. Let us have the cases. .


Joseph William Noseworthy: I cannot recall instances where he has stood up and said that the employer was at fault.


Humphrey Mitchell: You are just playing both ends against the middle.


Joseph William Noseworthy: The minister has
every opportunity to show when he has said that the employer was at fault in a labour dispute. I am confident that no one recognizes better than the minister does the importance of labour's cooperation in our war effort. The greatest single factor in our war effort in this country is the cooperation of labour in our industries. Yet we find labour constantly criticized whenever trouble arises. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George referred to the fact that there was legal machinery set up and that in that instance labour should have taken advantage of that machinery. I
can recall instances, Mr. Speaker, where labour has appeared before government boards, where government boards have given a decision in favour of labour and where the employers have refused to follow the decision of the board, and the government has taken no action against them. I recall the case of Kirkland Lake. That is the one classic example of that:
I received in my mail a few days ago a letter from a working man who was fired without seven days' notice. The department's own selective service officer or employment officer gave judgment against the employer, and informed the employer that the man was entitled by law to seven days' notice or seven days' pay. That man has not yet been able to collect the seven days' pay from the employer; yet neither the government, nor any agency of the government, comes to the assistance of that- man. He is told that he must sue the employer.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend is discussing a particular case. I do not know the facts of the case, but if that employer is not complying with the law and my hon. friend will give me the facts we will see to it that he does.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I have corresponded with the ministers' department about this case and have taken it up with the Toronto officer, and I have been informed that he has no jurisdiction over the employer and that if the . employee wants to collect the seven days' pay he must sue the employer through the courts for the amount. There are many instances where the employer has not been willing to abide by the decision of a government board. Let us in all fairness to labour recognize that that is a fact.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I remind my hon. friend that we have taken much more drastic action against employers who have violated government regulations than we have against employees.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Those facts should be made more generally known to the public.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Tell the people about them. You know them as well as I know them.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I doubt if many labour organizations to-day know of many instances where that has happened.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: Why do you not tell them?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is right down in your part of the country.


Joseph William Noseworthy: What we are suffering from to-day is the result of many, many years of opposition on the part of employers
War Labour Board

to labour organizations. It is unfortunate that when we went into this war, labour, which is so important, was found so completely unorganized as it was at the beginning of the war. That state of affairs must be laid at the door of the opposition which labour organizers have met with on the part of employers during the past year, and I have no doubt that the Minister of Labour has had his share of experience in that particular line. Consequently, labour to-day feels that unless it can organize itself while the war is on, it will find itself, when the war is over, in exactly the same position in which it found itself in 1918; and because labour was not organized at the beginning of this war, because labour feels that it must organize now, or it will have no chance when the war is over, you have all these efforts being -made across this country to organize labour.
Reference has been made to the large numbers of men that are being laid off. We accept the minister's statement that when it is necessary for an industry to change over from one production line to another there comes a period when it is impossible to keep all the men employed. Notwithstanding the minister's statement, labour all across this country is convinced that more could be done by way of careful planning and organization to see to it that when one job was finished another job was ready for the men to step into. That is the feeling of labour everywhere in Canada, that someone has fallen down on the job of planning and organizing the productive enterprise of this country when it becomes necessary every once in a while for a factory to lay off anywhere from 100 to 1,000 or 1,500 men.
There is another general complaint against production in this country. Wherever I meet industrial workers; whenever I speak at a meeting, I still find that a group of workers in our war factories will come to me at the end and make this complaint; I never visit a factory but I get this complaint, and I am confident that every member of this house is receiving letters day by day complaining of the fact that in many of our factories workers are kept idle because there is nothing for them to do. I am going to read a letter that I received this week from an employee in Massey-Harnis at Weston. I read this letter because it is typical of scores of complaints that I find wherever I go among industrial workers in this country. This writer says:
I have been working as a skilled mechanic in this plant for over a year and getting more disgusted every week. I have seen skilled mechanics wait for days for materials, and if we complain we are told, "You are getting paid -why worry?" There seems to be no cooperation between the management and the engineers, or they certainly lack the ability to push production as they should.

Then he goes on to say:
We seem to be held back at every turn. No matter where you go in the plant you will find men utterly fed up. We have worked for weeks on jigs, to find that the jigs themselves were wrong and all our work in vain. This is a very common occurrence. There seems to be no system whatsoever.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Joseph William Noseworthy: Yes.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am curious about this. As I understood the hon. member, one of the workers said he was told, "You are getting paid-why worry?" Who asked him that? The employer, or one of the union?


Joseph William Noseworthy: The writer of the
letter does not state, but I have heard-


George Alexander Cruickshank: Never mind what
the hon. member heard. Who said it?


Joseph William Noseworthy: My correspondent
does not tell me, but apparently it was somebody in authority in the factory.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Well, Mr. Speaker, if you will again permit a question, will the hon. member ask him who said it?


Joseph William Noseworthy: Yes; and I will go
this far. Any number of workers have told me that the same thing has happened again and again.


Mr. GOLDING:: Mr. Speaker, on a point
of order, I think the rules of this house compel the hon. member to lay that letter on the table.


Angus MacInnis: Oh, no, they do not.


Clarence Gillis: The hon. member is wrong
this time.


William Henry Golding: No; I am not wrong.


Joseph William Noseworthy: This letter-


William Henry Golding: Mr. Speaker, I rose to
a point of order. I should like to have your ruling.


Joseph William Noseworthy: If the minister wants the name of the correspondent he is welcome to it.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member who
raised the point of order said that the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy), having quoted the letter, must place the letter on the table for the records of the house. Has the hon. gentleman any objection to doing that?


Joseph William Noseworthy: In the interests of
the working man who wrote the letter, I doubt if I should take that responsibility.

War Labour Board


Humphrey Mitchell: Then the hon. member
had no right to quote it.


Joseph William Noseworthy: The working man's
job would not be worth anything.


Thomas Vien: If the hon. member will
identify himself with the terms of the letter, state that he has knowledge of the circumstances, and take upon himself the responsibility for what is in the letter, he need not lay it on the table.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Mr. Speaker, I will
take the responsibility for what is written in the letter.
One of the things which is worrying labour in this country is these frequent lay-offs, as well as the fact that men are forced to waste so much time in the factories.


William Henry Golding: Mr. Speaker, in regard
to your ruling, may I point out that the ruling which was given in the case of the hon. member for North Battleford (Mrs. Nielsen) was that she had1 to lay on the table the letter she read. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) raised that point.


Thomas Vien: As I recall the question which was raised during the speech of the hon. member for North Battleford, she had quoted a letter in the house, and the question was whether she would take responsibility for the contents of the letter. Ultimately the hon. member placed the letter on the table. The ruling then given was that if an hon. member quotes from a letter and does not wish to give the name of the writer, but is willing to vouch on . his own personal responsibility for the truth and accuracy of the contents, he is entitled to read it without laying it on the table.


James Layton Ralston: That must be on the principle that my hon. friend cannot read from a letter, endeavouring to get the benefit of the credibility of it or the weight or responsibility of whoever writes it, and then add to it his own undertaking with regard to it. If that is the rule, it seems to me that all my hon. friend can do is to make his own statement as to the facts, not quote from, a letter. I have always understood the rule to be that when one quoted from documents one had to lay them on the table of the house.


Thomas Vien: I think there is no doubt with regard to the rule. I have already stated it. If an hon. member is quoting a private letter he can be asked to lay it on the table of the house, and he must do so unless he is willing to accept responsibility for the contents of the letter and the accuracy of it. If he is not willing to take that responsibility it should be laid upon the table of the house.


James Layton Ralston: Then I do not think he should quote it as a letter.


Clarence Decatur Howe: How does he know whether it is accurate?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes; how does the hon. member know that that is true?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Vien: I have already ruled. If the hon. member wishes to appeal from the ruling he may do so.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I gave you, Mr. Speaker, the assurance some time ago that I was personally prepared to accept responsibility for the statements in that letter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And that you have
knowledge?


Joseph William Noseworthy: The question which workers across this country are asking is as follows. Many of them are asking whether the cost-plus system by which so many of these contracts are given is not the explanation of so much idle time in the factories. They are asking that in all sincerity.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I ask my hon. friend
one question. Did he ever make a speech when he did not tell them that that was the reason? I think he is quoting himself on the public platform. If he knows some workers who are disturbed about the situation, I know of many who have listened to him in that sense and have reported accordingly.


Joseph William Noseworthy: And quite frankly, I fail to see how that type of contract can do anything but give those results.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My question to the hon. member is, is it not a fact that that is his usual line on the platform?


Joseph William Noseworthy: No, it is not.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh, absolutely.


Joseph William Noseworthy: That question is raised at every public meeting I address.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Quite-by yourself. That was what I said.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I did not have to *raise it. Workers in all our industries are asking that question everywhere. It is one that the government should face. They want to know if we have reached a point in our war production where we have completed more than we are able to ship overseas. They are disturbed by these acres of boxes which are to be seen along our railway sidings.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Is it not better to have an oversupply than to be short?

War Labour Board


Joseph William Noseworthy: Is that why there are so many lay-offs in our industries? The workers want to know if we are utilizing to the fullest capacity the shipbuilding resources of this country.


Humphrey Mitchell: Does my hon. friend not know why all these boxes are lying on the railroad tracks? If he does not, he is about the only man in this dominion who does not.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I know of only one reason why they are there.


Humphrey Mitchell: And the reason? Give us the reason. Does the hon. member know one good reason?


Joseph William Noseworthy: The only explanation I can give is that we lack the shipping facilities.


Humphrey Mitchell: Of course. Why does my hon. friend not tell the working people that when he addresses them?


Clarence Decatur Howe: He blames the government.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Our people want to know this: Why do we permit firms in this country to secure contracts for things which we cannot possibly ship overseas? Why are not more of our men employed in building ships to convey these materials overseas, rather than in our factories producing commodities which cannot be carried overseas?


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend knows as well as I do that there is a limit to the shipbuilding that can be carried on in this country. I am just giving him some information that he might give these working people when he is talking to them, instead of raising doubt in their minds. I wish to say to him that when the history of this war is written the shipbuilding programme of this country will stand out in bold relief as compared with the efforts of any other nation. Just tell them that.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I think the Minister of Labour will find it very difficult to convince any audience of shipbuilders that we are utilizing our shipbuilding facilities to the maximum at the present time. He will find it very difficult to convince any group of people who are actually working in our shipyards.


Humphrey Mitchell: Of course if you have been there first, disturbing them, I appreciate that it might be difficult.


Joseph William Noseworthy: On Saturday I
spent three or four hours visiting the Victory aircraft plant at Malton, which is now under government ownership and supervision. That plant has done a remarkably good job con- sidering the mess it was in until the government took it over. I am prepared to congratulate the Minister of Munitions and

Supply upon the step he took in that instance and upon the job that plant is doing. I find, however, that they will be delayed considerably beyond the scheduled time before their Lancasters come off the production line. I do not think the fault lies with the management; I do not think it lies with the plant. They will be delayed in the first place on account of their inability to obtain materials from subcontractors, and in the second place on account of a shortage of toolmakers in that plant. While there, I discovered that a considerable number of the employees only last week had received their call for military service. The manager had on his desk a number of these notices and was considering whether or not he should ask for postponements. The shortage of toolmakers in these plants to-day is at least in part the result of government policy in throwing the responsibility for asking for postponement back upon the individual in the first instance.


Humphrey Mitchell: Let us get this straight. I should like my hon. friend to tell me of a toolmaker who has been called up for military service. Come on, now; let us get it on the record. You are not on a soap box now; you are in the House of Commons.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Last September or October I went into a small factory in Toronto where some twelve or fifteen machinists had been working. When I was there the last two were being called up. We have seen toolmakers come here to Ottawa-


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend was talking about Victory aircraft. Let us get back on the track.


Joseph William Noseworthy: It is still true, is it not, that every man within certain age limits is called for military service, regardless of his occupation, and that the onus in the first instance rests upon him to ask for postponement? In the plant at Malton I saw where the manager was applying for postponement in connection with men who had been given three and four years training in that plant, men who could not be replaced without taking another three or four years to train men to fill their places. They are still being called, and the individual must first ask or agree with the management to ask for postponement before postponement is granted.


Humphrey Mitchell: I just wish to tell my hon. friend that if I wanted any advice on industrial practices or in connection with trades, I do not think I would go to him. I would limit my request for advice to matters

War Labour Board
connected with school teaching. I do not think that was a fair statement for my hon. friend to make.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I submit this is
partly why the production of this particular machine will be delayed about six or eight weeks beyond the scheduled time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Let us just examine that. My information is that this machine will come out on schedule. What is the schedule may I ask?


Joseph William Noseworthy: The minister does not need to ask me that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I should like to know if the hon. member knows.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I presume the minister knows when that machine was supposed to come into production.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do indeed, and my information is that it will come in two or three weeks before that.


Joseph William Noseworthy: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say just this. Let us be fair to labour; let us realize that it is not always to blame in labour disputes. Let us realize that even government machinery for handling disputes might be capable of improvement, regardless of how highly it is regarded by the Minister of Labour. Certainly that is the opinion of labour people all over this country, and I fail to see why the minister or ministers in charge should take the position that they are always right, that their machinery works to perfection, and why they should resent any criticism or any suggestions for the improvement of that machinery.


Humphrey Mitchell: Who has ever said it worked to perfection?


Joseph William Noseworthy: I would say that
every time the minister has spoken in support or defence of his machinery he has certainly given me the impression that he thought it was just about perfect.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is not saying much.


Thomas Vien: In connection with the
letter to which reference was made a short time ago, I would refer the house to Beau-chesne, third edition, paragraph 278, and also to the second edition, paragraph 316:
It has been admitted that a document which has been cited ought to be laid upon the table of the house, if it can be done without injury to the public interest. The same rule, however, cannot be held to apply to private letters or memoranda. On the 18th May, 1865, the attorney general-
This is from May, 13th edition, at page 329.
-on being asked by Mr. Ferrard if he would lay upon the table a written statement and a
letter to which he had referred on a previous day, in assuming a question relative to the Leeds bankruptcy court, replied that he had made a statement to the house upon his own responsibility, and that the documents he had referred to being private, he could not lay them upon the table. Lord Robert Cecil contended that the papers, having been cited, should be produced; but the Speaker declared that this rule applied to public documents only.
The ruling I gave was that if the hon. member would1 accept responsibility for the contents of the letter and so stated, then he was entitled to refrain from putting the letter on the table, as being a private letter. But if it was a matter of public interest the position of course would have been different.


Mr. S. H. KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: I shall not take a great deal of time, but on behalf of the people of the district from which I come I feel that I should express the uncertainty that obtains in that part of the country over the employment situation. I shall deal specifically with the situation in the one plant concerning which I have spoken here on former occasions. I refer to the cordite plant operated by Defence Industries Limited at Transcona, where, according to the answer placed on Hansard on March 29 last, as reported at page 1617, there were 4,485 employees in May, 1942, and where at the present time, ten months later, there are only 3,089, or a drop of 1,400. The last occasion of a lay-off was in the middle of March, and on March 19, on the orders of the day, I asked certain questions about this proposed lay-off. In reply the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr.. Howe) said, among other things:
This sharp curtailment is due to a sudden cutting off of export demand.
However, on January 9 of this year a notice was posted in the plant concerning a lay-off which was taking place at that time, a lay-off of 175. Another lay-off of 325 is taking place at the present time. This notice posted in January stated:
We would like to point out that our production schedules are governed by the needs of the armed forces. We have accumulated heavy stocks against their requirements and until such time as their demands increase the plant cannot be operated beyond the. proposed level of production.
There iwas another statement in the notice to the effect that it was hoped that peak production would be resumed in the spring.
At that time I sent a copy of the notice with a covering letter to the Minister of Munitions and Supply, and he replied under date of January 14, saying in part:
The facts as stated in the notice are substantially correct, except that there is no information at this time on which to give any assurance that peak operations will be resumed in the spring.
War Labour Board

I do not need to read at any greater length at this point. I think what I have in mind is fairly clear; at least it was clear to those employed in the plant in January as it was in earlier months that the possibility of further lay-offs was ever with them. So that, when the minister made the statement that the curtailment on March 19 was due to a sudden cutting off of export demand, the workers wondered how to fit that in with the minister's words of a few months earlier substantiating the lessening demand for this product.
The result of all this is that the workers in that plant, who are drawn from all over greater Winnipeg, are uneasy as to the future of employment in that -plant, uneasy as to their opportunity to make a full contribution to production for the war effort.
I have in my hand a letter from which I wish to quote; and, bearing in mind the ruling just made by Mr. Speaker, if it is desired to have this letter laid on the table I shall be glad to do so. It is addressed to me from Mr. J. Paterson, president of the employees' union in that plant. It is dated March 20 of this year. He says in part:
The facts of the case are very simple: 325 to 350 men are being laid off starting to-day. The layoff will take place over a period of a month throughout most departments of the plant. The plant management simply claims that orders for cordite have been reduced and therefore men must be laid off.
But in the next paragraphs one discovers what is of still deeper concern to these men. He says:
There is a rumour that the plant may be closed down entirely. This rumour is borne out by a few indications rvhich at least point to additional layoffs in the near future.
The workers would like to know what the policy with relation to the plant is going to be. The present uncertainty and insecurity is certainly not making for improvement in morale.
Following receipt of that letter, I placed certain additional questions on the order paper with respect to that plant, one of which questions was:
Is it intended to continue the operation of the above plant for the duration of the war?
The reply by the Minister of Munitions and Supply, as reported on page 1617 of Hansard, was as follows:
This plant will be operated as long as the need for its product continues.
** I am not making the extravagant statement that I am receiving scores or hundreds of letters concerning this matter, but an average of at least half a dozen a week have come to me from workers in the plant along the same line, whether it is going to be continued, or whether it may be closed down at any time,
(Mr. Knowles.]
and whether there is not some possibility of a definite statement being made as to future plans for this plant.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think my hon. friend is as
capable as I am of telling the workers the amount of cordite that is likely to be used on the fighting fronts in the next six months. The purpose of that plant-and there is another in Quebec and another in Ontario-is to furnish the requirements of explosives from Canada. We are doing that very nicely. If the requirements go up, the production in the plants will go up; if the requirements go down, production in the plants will go down. Everything depends upon the amount of powder expended on the fighting fronts. I suggest that my hon. friend give the workers his own interpretation of how much that will be.


Stanley Howard Knowles: to the various councils which represent trade unionists, of a desire to play their part as equal participants in the struggle upon which we were entering. I have seen this early enthusiasm, this early desire and hope that there would be an opportunity for this participation dwindle off into disillusionment as a result of the rebuffs of one kind and another that have come. It is on account of experiences of that kind that one finds labour getting to the place where they feel they must fight every inch of the way. It is not that labour wants to do that, because labour, for example, does not want to strike. The working people do not want to lose the pay that is their loss when they are on strike. It is the necessity of showing their strength that forces them to take the action which has been taken on occasion.
These conflicts do occur at times. We must be realistic and admit that the interests of labour and management diverge at times. The tragedy to me is the fact that in a place such as this parliament of Canada there is not more of an attempt made to understand what labour is trying to do, more of an attempt madte to appreciate the aims and objectives of the working people of this country, more of an attempt made to see the things that they really want and to see them in their best light. On the other hand, we have explanations given of strikes and other things that have taken place. The explanations I have heard to date have been that labour has done things that were, not justified. Maybe at times things were not fully justified, but we do not live in a world in which things are absolutely right or absolutely wrong; we live in a world where we must learn the interests of each other, where we must learn to get along with each other. One of the first things that should be done by this house so far as labour relations are concerned is to try to understand what labour is seeking in the struggle in which it is engaged at the present time.
As I see it, there are two basic things in which the working people are primarily interested just now. First, they ask that they be permitted to play a full part in the production of the commodities necessary for the war effort, that their ideas as to the ways in which improvements can be made should be considered, that their ideas as to efficiency should have more effect on plans, and that their belief that all workers should be kept at their tasks should be put into effect. When the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) was speaking a few minutes ago the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. fMr Knowles.]
Howe) suggested that the things he was saying on behalf of labour were simply his own remarks which he would make on a public platform.
I shall have to speak for myself and not for the previous speaker, but I can say to the Minister of Munitions and Supply that it was not on the public platform; it was not in the form of questions asked at the end of our public meetings; it was in my office in connection with the work in which I was engaged before I came here; it was in my home; it was on the street; it was at gatherings of trade unionists, that this concern was expressed to me. Frankly, I have hesitated to use the stories I have heard about inefficiency and waste and failure to use men to the full. I have wondered whether the stories were exaggerated, and I wondered whether it might be regarded as not in the public interest to repeat such statements. The point I wish to make is that these complaints do not originate with us on the public platform; they originate with the workers who come to us.
If this debate is reported in full in the press and the workers see how we are rebuffed by the Minister of Munitions and Supply, in their minds they are likely to say, "What is the use in talking about inefficiency; we are just wasting our time. When anything is suggested we are given the usual answer that everything is all right, and that is the end of it." So far as I recall I have never made these statements at a public meeting. They have been made to me by workers time and time again. These people want to have some say in the management of our industrial process. They want to know that their ideas and their experience are being used. They feel that if this is done, industry will produce infinitely more than it is producing at the present time. That is the first concern of the workers of this country. It is a concern that they express, by no means with their tongues in their cheeks. They are showing genuine concern over the lack of full and all-out production, and they are being disillusioned when this is not achieved.
I believe the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) expressed the other concern of labour when he opened the debate this afternoon. That concern is for some measure of security after this war is over. The letter from which I read when I started my remarks indicates that this concern is felt by the workers in the cordite plant at Transcona, and it is felt by workers up and down this country. They want to know what will happen to them the day after the war ends. Labour feels that the time has come when it should

War Labour Board
be given, a real say in the planning and the managing and the conduct of the industry and economy of this country. So far as labour is concerned they feel that this is only an extension of the basic principle of democracy. They are not asking just for the right to send representatives to the various parliaments and legislatures of this land; they are asking for the right to have a say in the control of the things that affect their daily lives.
I shall not take up time to-night to discuss another parallel matter, but the fact is that the farmers of this country feel that they, too, have a right to take part in the conduct of the things that affect them in their daily lives. And so they have. Some day soon I shall have something to say about the necessity of the getting together of industry and agriculture on the prairies from which I come, in order to take advantage of the advances that modern science has made, such as the producing of rubber and plastics from agricultural products. Some of us feel that these things must be looked into immediately before there is further exploitation and the advantages of science gathered in by the few instead of being made available to the many.
I know there is the idea that the people in overalls, the people who punch a clock and work eight or nine hours and get pretty dirty and tired, then punch the clock again and go home perhaps too worn out to read much that is in the newspapers, are not the folks to run the life of this country, but that the people to run the life of this country are the big business men, the people who can come to Ottawa and make representations to the government as to what needs to be done for the industries they represent. After all, however, this country is founded on the principle and philosophy of democracy. We are waging a war at the present time with the whole idea of preserving democracy, and, as I see it, democracy in Canada means that the eleven-and-a-half or twelve million of us who are here, all of us, should have a say in the things that affect our daily lives all the way through. That will call for every bit of political democracy that we have at the present time, and far more. It will call for an increasing influence on the part of the farmers themselves through their cooperative organizations, and it will call for an increasing influence on the part of the workers in the things that affect their daily lives in and through a strong trades union movement recognized as a basic part of the life of this country.
I was pleased to hear the concluding remarks-naturally I took exception to some of his earlier statements-of the hon. member for
St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Claxton) this afternoon, when he asserted that the time had come to overhaul our labour legislation and the various orders in council affecting labour and to bring down a definite labour code that could be easily and fully understood. In my view that is a war-time necessity. It is what we should have now while the war is on, for the sake of more efficient production, for the sake of a better morale on the part of the workers, for the sake of security and some hope in the years that lie ahead after the war. In order to achieve all that we should have right now a labour code, one that would not just pay lip-service to collective bargaining as P.C. 2685 does, but would actually make collective bargaining the law, recognized as a part of the democratic set-up of this country.
In closing, it is my earnest hope that somehow we can get away, in this house at least, from the bickering back and forth between one camp and the other so far as labour matters are concerned, that we can rather think in terms of the working people and the farmers of this country as the real Canadians, the people whom we are here to serve. It is our job to try to understand them, and, in my view, if we seek to understand the aims and objects of the working people of this country, particularly as they relate to trade unionism and collective bargaining with full participation in the war effort, we shall find that their aims and objects are to a very large extent the aims and objects of the present war, and they deserve our support.


Mr. G. E. WOOD (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, it was not my -intention to take part in this debate, but I feel impelled to do so after listening to the hon. member for York South (Mr. Nose-worthy) and the hon. member (Mr. Knowles) who followed him.
I regret that a certain school of thought in this house see fit to put themselves forward as the champions of the working man. In the first place I should like an honest-to-goodness definition of who are the working men and the labour men in this country. Is it only those who join a union and are prepared to pay an assessment to some labour leader who derives a good fat living for himself from the payrolls of the working class? I think the farmer is just as much a labour man as any man who works in a factory. I am also prepared to say that the manager of a factory, who seeks to find a market for the products perhaps of union labour, is just as much a labour man as the worker in the factory. I believe that if we are to have unity in this country it is not right to segregate one small particular element of society. We must all go forward abreast together.
War Labour Board

The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) at the conclusion of his address made a very slight reference to the farmer, and that is the only time I have heard the farmer's name mentioned in this debate. Let me tell hon. gentlemen that the code of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, if applied, would have a great effect upon agriculture because, if labour has an insatiable appetite and seeks only its own personal desires, that is bound to have an effect upon the price of the goods the farmer has to buy. In the post-war period, if labour will be reasonable, the greatest market labour can have for its products will be in the purchasing power of the farmer. Furthermore, what will happen in the post-war period will depend and is depending to a large extent upon the policies of this government to which some people strongly object, namely, the price control and labour freezing policies. It is the very same control that freezes labour and imposes price control which gives us increased purchasing power from the money we have to spend as consumers. As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) pointed out a little while ago, everybody is favourable to price control except that little part of it which affects himself. We want to receive all the benefits, but we do not want to take our share of the responsibility. That reminds me of a fifth freedom. The Atlantic charter speaks of the four freedoms. But there is another freedom which our hon. friends of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation would like to include as a fifth, namely freedom from responsibility. But you cannot have success without each and every man in his own particular station doing the thing he is best qualified to do, and I am doubtful whether the man in overalls is the best man to guide and direct the destiny of any industrial concerns.
The hon. member for York South made mention of his visit to Massey-Harris and was giving us his opinion of how it should be managed. That is the sort of thing I object to from the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group, because the fact of the matter is that if you will look over their records you will find that very few of them have had any experience in business or agriculture or many of the other things they discuss. We had in Europe a great paper-hanger, and he was excellent as a paper-hanger. It would have been a great deal better if he had stayed a paper-hanger.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Or if he had hanged himself.


George Ernest Wood: It would have been a great
deal better than for him to have become the fuehrer of Germany, and if our friends across

there in the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation have special ability in teaching school or in guiding the spiritual life of this nation, I feel they would be much better employed in that calling than in endeavour-* ing to guide the economy and industry of this country.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Just to keep the
record straight, in the first place I never said I visited Massey-Harris. In the second place I never attempted to show how it should be run. I visited Malton, and I congratulated the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) upon the way in which that plant was being run.


George Ernest Wood: I am sure the hon. member
would1 have a difficult task in trying to con-* vince the people of Canada that the management of Massey-Harris was not efficient.
The hon. member spoke a good deal about the morale of the workers. I have come to this conclusion, that if the morale in our factories is as low as he says it is, it is largely because a certain group of agitators goes around and tries to pick up all the foul things of life and display them as examples of what is going on, when in fact they represent only a very small proportion of society in this country. There are people who cannot fulfil their particular place in society, but that applies not only to working men but to farmers, and I have known of even some ministers of the gospel who did not make a very good job of their calling. Do not let us confine this to one particular class.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I hope the
hon. member is a good farmer.


George Ernest Wood: The hon. member for York
South has taken a rather high and lofty plane, Let me quote from a newspaper report of a speech made by him at Toronto on September 28:
J. W. Noseworthy, Cooperative Commonwealth Federation member of parliament for York South, told a party meeting in Eglinton riding last night that low morale in factories and in the armed forces is the "most serious defect" in Canada's war effort.
I am prepared to say that the group to which he belongs is doing everything possible to see that that morale is not elevated, by the very means to which I have referred'this evening. He has a good deal of sympathy for labour. So have I; I do not yield to anyone in a desire to serve labour. But let me tell him that ninety-five per cent of the people of the dominion come within the definition of "labour," and that he has no monopoly of the claim to serve the working people of this

War Labour Board
country. Moreover, it might be as well, if he wishes to be fair, that he should display some sympathy for those in the rest of society who are doing their best to see that labour is provided with a market for its product, which in many instances is confined to the capacity of labour. In this connection I might point out that the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MaeNicol) made this afternoon a splended contribution to this debate.
I believe also that the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Claxton) offered some suggestions which are far more worthy of this house and will do more to uphold the dignity of parliament and the nation than an effort to seize on little irregularities which have a tendency more or less to discourage people. The hon. member for Davenport spoke of the Dominion Foundries and Steel at Hamilton. I could mention several other important establishments in my own city of Brantford which are doing important work for the war effort. There are, of course difficulties; I believe labour can do a great deal to help solve those difficulties. Sometimes the executives need sympathy. I wfill quote again from a newspaper report of an address by the hon. member for York South, made at Picton on November 19. He said:
If you read the list of "dollar-a-year" men now on government boards you will discover that the list reads like a directory of directors. There is scarcely a large monopolistic enterprise in this country that has not a key man in a key position on some government board.
When this war ends big business in this country will be in the saddle and thereby have a stranglehold on our economic life such as never happened in this country before. Some of these "dollar-a-year" men at Ottawa wield far greater power than cabinet ministers or parliament itself. In fact, all the most vital regulations brought into effect since the war began have originated from the various control boards approved by the cabinet and proclaimed as orders in council without the knowledge of parliament. . . .
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if that kind of language is helpful? Hon. members in that particular corner are supposed to represent the intelligentsia of this house, but I am convinced that by their works they have not shown consistency to the principles for which they stand, as far as elevating the standard of life in this country is concerned.
I wish to draw attention to another newspaper item which appeared around the New Year and which rather amused me. I have noticed that the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation claim to be the champions of the underdog and the farmer; they put themselves on the high and lofty plane of serving humanity. But I happened to pick up a 72537-122
Toronto paper one day just prior to the elections in that city. One column contains the slate of Cooperative Commonwealth Federation candidates, and its choice for ward two for alderman is "ex-Alderman William Dennison". Mr. Dennison's card is at the top of the page. It reads as follows: (Advertisement)
In Ward Two It was Ex-Alderman Wm.
Dennison
Who stopped a milk price increase in 1941 Make him your alderman for 1943.
What chance has the farmer who follows a route with his milk cart?
It is interesting to follow in practice the code of ethics of our hon. friends from the time I have known them in this house. They are very anxious now to win the war. But I can well remember the time when they rose in their places in this chamber and lashed out against any military preparations. The member of that group and, possibly, the present leader of the Progressive Conservative party in Toronto were perhaps the two biggest factors in retarding the progress of any preparedness by this country for war.
Time is going on, and I have no opportunity of drawing attention to some other matters which were in my mind. But I could not sit still and listen without protest to this tirade of abuse of the Canadian people. If we are to have any solid respect for our country, the first requisite is a good respect for ourselves. No doubt there are many things in our country which are not good; but I take the view that, like a scandal which may happen in a family, sometimes the less said about it the better. I suggest the applicability of that policy to my hon. friends if they are sincere in the desire to make Canada the country it ought to be. It must be said that, so far, in the conduct of this war and in respect of what we have accomplished, -we do not need to accept very much advice from any hon. members on the other side of the chamber, except the group immediately opposite my end.


Joseph William Noseworthy: It might be better if you did.


George Ernest Wood: Let us feel that we all have a part to play. We want labour to have a job and a good living; but in our desire to secure these things which we think we should have, let us beware lest we cut our own throats. After all, Canada is an exporting country. We must be in a position to compete with other nations. If this war in which we are engaged is being fought for

Customs Tariff

humanity, and if the trade of this world is to be shared with others who have a lower standard of living, I am inclined to think we may have to concede to others some of the good things we have, if our object is to have permanent peace.
Motion (Mr. Ilsley) agreed to, and the house went into committee of ways and means, Mr. Bradette in the chair.




The CHAIRMAN:: Shall resolution 2
carry?


John Ritchie MacNicol: When the committee
rose, we had been asked to consider some amendment, and I believe I said at the time that I could not support the passing of any amendment which I had not the chance to read. I have not seen it yet.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I put it on Hansard last night.


Gordon Graydon: Would the minister tell
us if any considerable quantity of the goods and articles mentioned in the amendment comes from the United States or other countries into Canada?


Mr. GIBSON:: This amendment has been put in at my request. From time to time estates have been wound up in the United States under which legacies have been left to Canadians. Recently, owing to the high taxation, in some cases people in the United States have been breaking up their homes and making gifts of furniture and other articles, which normally would have been left by will, to their relatives in this country. There have been a considerable number of these cases in the past year, and rather than that duty should be charged in such cases, where the goods would not be taxable if they had been left by will, this amendment has been brought in.


Gordon Graydon: As far, as the mechanics of the matter are concerned, how does the minister distinguish whether a gift is made in anticipation of death, to use the phraseology of the amendment?


Colin William George Gibson: It is more or less a case of whether the goods are going to relatives of an elderly person in the United States or some other country. It is hard to say that it is in anticipation of death; usually it is family furniture or silverware, and articles of that type.
[Mr. Wood.)


Gordon Graydon: The minister has also inserted the matter of personal effects. Does that go very far, or is that a limited matter? It might cover a wide field.


Colin William George Gibson: Perhaps it might be an old automobile that a parent in the United States is giving to a child in Canada. It is chiefly furniture, in cases where families have broken up their homes in the United States. Perhaps a parent has decided to close up his house and move into a flat. The furniture is disposed of by dividing it among the various relatives who live in this country; it is sent up here instead of being sold in the United States.


Mr. STIRLING:: Does the minister take any sort of affidavit from people who bring in these goods?


Colin William George Gibson: They have to be declared. Each case is dealt with on its own merits. There have not been a great many cases, but those which have come up have been difficult to deal with. We have had no way of letting them in up to the present time, whereas we would have been able to let them in if they had been left by a will. That is why this amendment has been brought in. Care is always taken to see that the government is not defrauded in entries of that sort.


Mr. JACKMAN:: Are we originating this provision, or is it a reciprocal arrangement?


Colin William George Gibson: No; we are originating it here.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I think it is entirely
commendable.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I am sorry, but last night at the time of adjournment I had not put the amendment to the committee. I will have to do that now:
That schedule A to the customs tariff, as amended by resolution No. 1 of March 2, 1943, be further amended by striking thereout tariff item 704 and by inserting in lieu thereof the following item, enumerations and rates of duty:
704. Apparel, wearing and other personal and household effects, not merchandise, of British subjects dying abroad, but domiciled in Canada; books, pictures, family plate or furniture, personal effects and heirlooms left by bequest to any resident of Canada, or acquired by any resident of Canada as a result of the death of any person resident abroad, or as a gift in anticipation of the death of any such person; all such goods or articles when given as a free gift by anyone resident abroad to a resident of Canada; the minister to he the sole judge as to whether any goods or any article imported is to be classified as entitled to the benefit of this item or not: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Resolution as amended agreed to.

Income War Tax
2.	Resolved, that schedule A to the customs tariff, as amended, be further amended by deleting from the Customs Tariff Amendment Act, 1939, as amended by chapter twenty-nine of the statutes of 1940, chapter thirteen of the statutes of 1941 and chapter twenty-three of the statutes of 1942, the following enumerations of goods and rates of additional duties of customs:
Whisky, brandy, rum, gin and all other goods specified in customs tariff items 156, 156a, and 156b, $5 per gallon of the strength of proof
and by substituting therefor the following enumerations of goods and rates of additional duties of customs:
Whisky, brandy, rum, gin and all other goods specified in customs tariff items 156 and 156b, $7 per gallon of the strength of proof.
Resolution agreed to.
3.	Resolved, that any enactment founded upon the foregoing resolutions shall be deemed to have come into force on the third day of March, one thousand nine hundred and forty-three, and to have applied to all goods mentioned in the foregoing resolutions imported or taken out of warehouse for consumption on and after that date, and to have applied to goods previously imported for which no entry for consumption was made before that date.
Resolution agreed to.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Bradette in the chair.
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Income War Tax Act and to provide:
1.	That in respect of the taxation year 1942 the income tax liability, of taxpayers other than corporations, under subsection 1 of section 9 of the Income War Tax Act, in respect of earned income and in respect of investment income up to $3,000 shall be one-half of the amount calculated according to the schedules therein specified;
John Ritchie MacNicol: There seems to be a good deal of uncertainty as to the exact meaning of this paragraph; I am not sure that I understand it myself, but I am sure the minister will be able to give a clear answer.
It now reads:
That in respect of the taxation year 1942 the income tax liability, of taxpayers other than corporations, under subsection 1 of section 9 of the Income War Tax Act-
Here is the part on which I am mixed up.
-in respect of earned income and in respect of investment income up to $3,000. . . .
Does the S3,000 mean the combination of the two, or does it mean the earned income by itself plus $3,000 of unearned income or investment income?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The latter is the correct meaning.


Gordon Graydon: May I suggest to you with great deference, Mr. Chairman, that in connection with these resolutions which are to be dealt with by the committee, you read them in full. Otherwise members of the committee have not a very good opportunity to deal with them before someone asks that they be carried. They are not very long, and I think it would help the committee if that were done.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Can we carry this?


Gordon Graydon: Well, I should think not.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I was afraid not. This is very important. This resolution provides for relief from overhanging income tax debt through forgoing one-half of the tax liability for 1942 on all earned income, and investment income up to $3,000. It enables the individual to get on a current basis and to pay the tax as it accrues.
Prior to the budget those advocating the adoption of the pay-as-you-earn system had emphasized the tax difficulties facing the person who, for example, joined the armed forces, lost his job or retired from active life to live on a pension. These difficulties will be wiped out by the provisions of this resolution. I feel that I should call attention to this point because, since the budget, while there has been a certain amount of criticism of the income tax provisions both in this house and in the press, there seems to have been little if any recognition of the very far-reaching benefits which flow from this tax-forgiveness provision.


John Ritchie MacNicol: No one could believe it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It has been said that the adoption of the pay-as-you-earn system in the form proposed has been used as a method of putting additional burdens on the taxpayers of Canada without raising tax rates, and it has been argued that there should have been a forgiveness of two-thirds rather than one-half of the tax liability. The fact of the matter is that there was no one percentage which would fit all cases. It is true there were only four months of deductions in 1942 of the liability under normal and scheduled tax. But what most people overlook is the fact that the national defence tax was deducted for the full eight months prior to last September, and that national defence tax collected at the source also was in satisfaction of 1942 tax liability. The result of these two sets of deductions is that some taxpayers by December 31, 1942, would have had more than half their 1942 tax already paid in the form of deductions. To forgive a higher percentage than 50 per cent would have meant credits or refunds to this group comprising hundreds of thousands of persons, and the effect would have been in
Income War Tax

many cases to lower their tax for 1943 as compared with 1942. It is true that above certain levels of income, and depending upon other factors, the 50 per cent forgiveness will mean that there will be a remaining tax liability for 1942 to be paid during the current year along with the current tax for 1943. In these cases an additional burden will have been imposed as a result of the change over to the pay-as-you-earn system. However, in recognizing this additional burden, one should at the same time point out the advantage to all taxpayers of being on a current basis.
It might be well if I give some examples of the amount of 1942 taxes still to be paid after the 50 per cent forgiveness. For example, a single person earning $2,000 will have $27 to make up in respect of 1942, if he had full savings offsets; he would have $59 to make up if he had no offsets. A married man with no dependents who earns $2,000 in 1942 will have only $2 to make up if he had complete offsets; he will have $43 to make up if he had no offsets. A married man with two dependents who earned $2,000 in 1942 will have overpaid his tax by $5 if he had complete offsets, while if he had no offsets he would still have $17 to pay after the 50 per cent forgiveness.


Gordon Graydon: If he has paid $5 more than his 1942 tax, does he get a credit on 1943?


James Lorimer Ilsley: He is, I think, entitled to a refund. The committee will readily see that if, for example, two-thirds of the tax for 1942 had been forgiven there would have been substantial refunds in all the cases I have mentioned where there were full savings offsets.
As a general rule, the lower income groups were more nearly paid up on 1942 tax by December 31 than were the higher income groups. But I should like to dispel the idea that even so the cash required to be put up in 1943 will be much greater than the cash that had to be put up in 1942 by the salaried class.
For purposes of illustration I shall take a married person with two dependents and shall dssume that on the level of income of which I am speaking there will be complete offsets against savings requirements. In the case of such persons receiving a salary of $5,000 the additional cash to be found in 1943 amounts to $143, or about $12 a month. The $10,000 man would only have to put up $67 more in 1943 than he did in 1942. In the case of the $20,000 man the additional tax to be found in 1943 is only $316. I suggest that those who feel that they are being penalized under the requirements for 1943 should carefully examine
(Mr. Hsley.]
these comparisons I have made and reexamine their nosition as compared with what it was in 1942.
That I think will be sufficient to open the discussion on the matter. I do not know that it is altogether creditable for the government to be arguing that they have not imposed greater burdens or very much greater burdens. We need to get as much money as we can, and I think the fact that we shall this year collect from the people of Canada, if our estimates are accurate, $443,000,060 more than we did in the fiscal year just closed is about right, I think it is about in keeping with what we should expect the people to do. We are raising our total expenditures very considerably; the total expenditures for government purposes will be $5,500,000,000 according to our estimates, and we ought, it seems to me, to raise about fifty per cent of that by taxation. And that we aim to do this year, including the refundable tax. I would feel better if we could raise fifty per cent outside of the refundable tax, but I am doubtful whether we should raise our taxes much higher than they are.


Gordon Graydon: I think one mistake the minister made in connection with this from a public relations point of view is that when the budget was brought down it should have been made clearer that some sections of our taxpayers would be obliged to pay in 1943 a higher tax than they had to pay in 1942. _My personal exxperience in talking to various people from time to time, not large taxpayers but the average run of the mill taxpayer, was that he took from the general spirit of the budget speech that he would have something less to pay, or at least no more to pay in 1943 than he did in 1942. It may be that in the technical analysis of the whole situation it may be clarified in the minds of a good many. Nevertheless there were a great many people who felt that there was some forgiveness of an immediate cash character, and finally when the matter was more fully explained they found that they had to reorient their thought in that respect. I am not for a moment arguing in favour of lower taxation with the situation of such an urgent character; but on the other hand if you lead the thought of the public into channels where they think there has been some revision downward, it becomes more difficult for them, to reorient their position when they find out the whole situation. I know the minister was pressed for time, and I know that on a budget speech every point cannot be covered exactly and every reaction of the public cannot be anticipated. But if the minister had to do it again I feel sure he would make clearer to the public exactly what

Elections Act
the situation was with respect to the 1943 impost. That is one of the criticisms I have heard, and I am passing it on to the minister. It is perhaps too late to do anything about it now, but I think he ought to know the reaction that occurred in some classes.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The reaction to the budget of a year ago was that it was very hard. That was the immediate reaction. Then the impression was changed somewhat with the passing of the months; that is, people found it was not as hard as they thought.


Gordon Graydon: Is the minister sure about that?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am perfectly sure about that.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Hard, but they got used to it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No. I follow these things closely, and I know the public reaction very well. This year the reverse was the case; the immediate reaction was that quite a lot had been handed to the public, and then on examination it wras found that not so much was handed to the public after all.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: It was not an election budget after all.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Of course it was not.


Gordon Graydon: Does the minister mean what he says on that?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I certainly do.


Gordon Graydon: The minister is much more frank about it than the Prime Minister is.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know any reason why I should not say it. But what I wish to say is that the budget speech of last year was strictly accurate in every way, and so was the budget speech of this year. If anyone will read last year's budget speech or this year's budget speech he will find no misplaced emphasis. He will find nothing misleading and nothing inaccurate, either in general or in particular, in either of the speeches.
But the manner in which they strike the public is something one cannot gauge in advance. It depends largely upon how they are reported, and depends upon the conception those who write them up may have. It depends also upon intangible factors which cannot be gauged. I am not to blame for any misapprehensions about either last year's or this year's budget.


Gordon Graydon: I thought my criticism was pretty mild.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes; it was mild, and I was going to acknowledge that it was mild.


Gordon Graydon: I meant that it should be, and hoped it would not occur again.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I just wished to make a little speech on the most interesting of all subjects, namely public reaction.
Resolution stands.
Progress reported.


CUSTOMS TARIFF
[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 60, to amend the customs tariff.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
On motion of Mr. Ralston the house adjourned at 11.05 p.m.
Wednesday, April 7, 1943