GASOLINE


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: Some days ago the leader of the opposition (Mr. Gray don) asked me to make a statement on gasoline rationing. I will do so now.
Since the early days of the war, the problem of obtaining a sufficient supply of petroleum products to maintain our transportation and other requirements has been perhaps the most serious -with which we have been confronted. Production within Canada accounts for only about 17 per cent of our normal requirements. The balance must be transported long distances from sources of supply in other countries. A large proportion must be transported by ocean tankers.
Before the wTar our consumption of petroleum products was rising rapidly year by year, this being the result of increased use of gasoline for transportation, both commercial and by private automobile and for commercial and domestic heating. To this rapidly rising civilian consumption, the outbreak of war added the requirements of the army, navy and air force. I need not remind you of the vast fleet of motor transport required by the modem army or of the needs of our rapidly expanding navy and air force. You will fully understand that these have added enormously to our already high peace-time consumption.
Our pre-war imports of petroleum came in by a pipeline from the mid-continent fields to Sarnia and by a fleet of some twenty ocean tankers, all Canadian-owned or under Canadian charter. At the outbreak of war, we had large stocks of petroleum in Canada. Since then we have been doing everything possible to maintain these stocks, but I regret to say that they have been steadily depleted, until we are now at the point where we are forced to operate on a "hand to mouth" basis.
Early in 1941, the United States and Canada were called upon to furnish tankers to supplement supplies for the United Kingdom, where stocks had been reduced below the danger point. At that time it became obvious that Canada must curtail unnecessary use of gasoline and fuel oil. A public appeal was made for voluntary curtailment, which resulted in a very substantial saving, particularly in the use of gasoline for motor cars, and plans were laid for a system of coupon rationing.
72537-21}
Early in 1942, it became obvious that rationing by coupon was necessary, and on April 1, the present system of rationing was instituted. We were pioneers in rationing by coupon on this continent, and while the system introduced at that time has proven to have inequalities and has not been free from abuses, it has been successful to the extent that consumption of motor gasoline for 1942 has been brought below the consumption figures for the year 1939.
At the same time a rigid policy of curtailment of the use of petroleum products for heating has been conducted. Before the autumn of 1942 steps had been taken to eliminate the use of oil for heating except for bona fide dwellings containing not more than two family apartments. The use of fuel oil for heating of all commercial and industrial buildings, apartment houses, schools, churches, hospitals and institutions, and production of steam and for certain other process work was prohibited. It is fortunate indeed that these prohibitions were strictly enforced at that time for, as a result of strict enforcements, we have since been able to take care of the requirements of our navy and essential requirements of war industry, and in addition supply home owners with fuel oil without recourse to rationing. It is hoped and expected that we will continue to do so during the balance of this heating season.
I regret to say that we must ration the use of petroleum products more drastically in the future. Submarine sinkings of ocean tankers has taken a terrible toll and the submarine menace has not been brought under control. Ocean tankers are still the favourite target of the enemy. Allied armies in Africa and in the Pacific theatres of war must be supplied with oil and gasoline and long lines of supply require larger numbers of tankers to perform the service.
In planning our rationing for the period beginning April 1, 1943, we must take these factors into account. The needs of the army, navy and air force must be met in full. The barely essential needs of industries and agriculture must be met. The supply situation makes it necessary to cut the allowance of many thousands of automobiles and to tighten the restrictions on commercial vehicles.
I will now state the gasoline rationing plan that will become effective on April 1, 1943. I may say that after the close of business at seven p.m. on March 31, no vendor of gasoline will be permitted to accept a coupon out of a 1942-43 book for a gasoline sale. The new plan has been devised out of the experience of rationing to date and is believed to be sufficiently elastic to meet any con-
Gasoline Rationing

tingency that may arise. Under the plan, there will be only two types of coupon books for the non-commercial automobile

the basic "AA book, which will contain 40 coupons, and a "special" book, which will contain 60 coupons or such smaller number as may be authorized in a particular case. The new system will abolish the classification of passenger cars according to weight, thus ending the provision under which a higher- allowance was granted for heavier and more costly automobiles.
Every holder of an automobile licence will be entitled to receive an "AA" ration book, which at the present value of a coupon-three gallons per unit-will provide 120 gallons for the year ending March 31, 1944.
The "special" allowance will be granted on the basis of proven vocational needs. Only those engaged in essential services and necessary cars for companies engaged in war industry will be eligible for a "special" coupon book. The number of coupons in the "special" book will correspond with the proven vocational need during the year ending March 31, 1944. Only one "speical" book or portion, of a book will be issued at one time, thus enabling the case history of each owner of a "special" book to be kept under constant review. Each applicant for a "special" book will be dealt with according to his own vocational needs and the use of a common category for a particular profession or trade will be abolished.
Each owner of a licensed automobile will be entitled to an "AA" coupon book. Those granted one "special" book or part thereof will be in "A" category; those granted two "special" books will be in "B" category; those granted three "special" books will be in "C" category. After April 1, every.truck and every car, whether commercial or otherwise, must carry on its windshield a sticker which is supplied with each ration book and which will indicate the category of the vehicle. Thus a man granted one "AA" book and two "special" books will carry an "AA" sticker and a "B" sticker on his windshield.
For commercial vehicles the new system, unlike that of last year, will provide for strict rationing of all vehicles including farm trucks. These will be divided into two classes -the first, "transit class" will cover ambulances, buses, taxis and "drive-yourself" cars; the second, "service class" -will be subdivided into four categories: "general commercial", "limited commercial", "commercial motorcycle", and "other commercial". Under this rationing of commercial vehicles,. the owner will have his allowance pared down to bare essential needs and will find it necessary to
eliminate unnecessary trips, to drive slowly and to conserve gasoline for his legitimate purposes. Every commercial vehicle must also bear a windshield sticker indicating its category. Cars belonging to A.R.P. workers and employee drivers under the wartime industry transit plan will bear, respectively, either an "A.R.P." or a "W.I.T." sticker. Service station operators will be required to check the category of the ration book presented by the customer against the category of the car as indicated by the windshield sticker. The windshield sticker will also make it easier for enforcement officers to determine whether the car is being used for the purpose for which extra gasoline is issued.
The categoiy for all non-commercial motorcycles will be known simply as "motorcycle", and will allow the owner a fixed ration of 16 units from April 1, 1943, to March 31, 1944. The "commercial motorcycle" category will allow perhaps less than, but no more than, 85 units for the year. Motorcycles will not bear windshield stickers, and the same ruling will apply to cars owned by tourists from outside Canada.
Under the new system, the foreign tourist ration will not be changed. Such a tourist is permitted four coupons for his car per year, or one coupon and a third for his motorcycle. At the present unit value, these allowances represent 12 gallons for a car, four for a motorcycle.
If he applies to a Canadian oil control office, the United States or foreign business man is permitted a gasoline allowance sufficient to cover any trips he finds it necessary to make in this country in connection with the war effort.
Advertisements will shortly be published setting out in detail the basis for rationing commercial vehicles. This form of rationing is too involved for presentation here, but I believe that the allowance for all types of commercial vehicles will be reasonably adequate for the legitimate purposes for which the vehicle is intended.
Regarding the issuance of an "AA" book to every licensed owner of an automobile, a question may be raised as to whether this is justified under present conditions. I believe that provision must be made for the emergent needs of car owners, and after much consideration it has been decided to enable every car owner to have an emergency supply of gasoline, and for this purpose the "AA" category has been established. Those granted an "AA" book only must understand that when the coupons are used, no further gasoline can be obtained until April 1, 1944, if

Gasoline Rationing
then. The owner of an "AA" book may use his gasoline as he wishes with that understanding.
In making this statement I am quite aware that owners of motor vehicles must look forward to much more restricted use of their vehicles than in the past. I can assure all hon. members that the new system of rationing represents a realistic view of the supply situation as we see it. We have made and will continue to make every effort to obtain additional supplies of petroleum products. To date we have been able to meet our objectives without undue hardship on any class of our population. I sincerely hope that we will be able to provide in the year 1943-44 sufficient petroleum products to enable us to carry out the rationing system that I have announced to-day. If we can do so, we in Canada should consider ourselves fortunate.


Mr. GRAYDON:: May I ask the minister just one question? What happens when a farmer who has an ordinary motor car, which I presume would come within the class for which two ration books would be provided, an "AA" book and a special book, uses his car with the customary trailer? Large numbers of our farmers use trailers with their cars. Would the minister enlarge upon that? I think they ought to come within the commercial class which would be provided with a little more gasoline.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The interpretation of the regulations is of course a matter for study by the oil controller, and I cannot answer that question. The farmer with a car will obtain an AA ration book; every car owner will have that, and if he can show a vocational necessity he will obtain an additional special book, one or more as the case may be. Of course he must convince the oil controller that he has a vocational necessity.


Mr. REID:: How will this affect fishermen owning motor boats? I am not pleading for any special class, but nothing was said about them, and it is very necessaiy that they have gasoline in order to carry on their work.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Without being fully advised, I believe no change is contemplated in the position of the fishermen.


Gordon Graydon: In respect to the noncommercial classification I assume consideration has been given to the necessity of war workers having sufficient gasoline to get to and from their places of employment.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The war workers will be provided with sufficient gasoline.


Mr. COLD WELL:: Is any special effort being made to obtain oil from the northern tar sands? I believe the statement was made in New York on Saturday that these undeveloped areas contained over two billion barrels of oil, and they could not understand why we were not developing them.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The tar sands have been under extensive exploration and study during the past year, and at a favourable opportunity in the near future I should like to take some time in order to make a statement of the position there.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: What steps are being taken to produce fuel alcohol in Canada, in view of the fact that we can produce potatoes abundantly, and also that such alcohol can be made from wheat?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Very large quantities of
alcohol are being manufactured and used, though I doubt if any is being used as fuel. I believe that alcohol as a fuel has rather limited applications. However we are making large quantities of alcohol for commercial purposes in connection with the war.


John Horne Blackmore: Is it not a fact that in some countries alcohol is used for fuel? If that is so why cannot some of it be so used in Canada?


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: Will there be a uniform value for the coupons throughout Canada, in order to avoid discrimination against certain sections of the country? Is there any expectation that the number of gallons per coupon may be increased to the original number of five.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am afraid my hon. friend has not been watching the situation along the Atlantic seaboard from the state of Florida to the northern tip of Cape Breton Island; otherwise he would hardly suggest that there is discrimination against the eastern seaboard. As he knows, we now have a uniform value per coupon across Canada, but I cannot say what the future will bring.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: In the
light of the information the minister has with regard to the submarine menace and its effect upon the tanker situation, would he give consideration to telling the house and the country exactly what the position is, in order to help the country understand the necessity for this restriction? I am not complaining at all. I have reason to believe that the situation is indeed very grave, but it would relieve the public mind if the minister would tell the country just what is the true position. I believe the country would be shocked if it coul l be made known.
Gasoline Rationing


Clarence Decatur Howe: I cannot do that, of course, for military reasons. Whether the country would be pleased or shocked, I think the effect in the enemy countries would be exactly the opposite, so that I think it is better for all concerned that I should not do that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not believe the truth will hurt anybody.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Mr. Churchill made a statement this morning in the British house in reference to the submarine menace and matters relating thereto. I imagine that statement will go as far in giving information to the public as any statement that could be made in this house.


Mr. SENN:: Has any consideration been
given to a change in the hours during which gasoline may be purchased? A great many farmers work until seven'o'clock at night and then go to town to get their supplies. Sometimes they are under a hardship because the gasoline stations are closed at seven o'clock and on Sunday, and they have no opportunity of purchasing what they require.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not think any change in that regard is contemplated, but the farmer is granted a special privilege in that he may have gasoline on his farm.


Mark Cecil Senn: Only if he has a truck.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Last year I think some provision was also made for keeping open one gasoline station in a community, where there was any necessity for it. I know it is the intention of the controller to administer the regulations without causing undue hardship, and I am sure if a hardship develops he will be prepared to deal with it.


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: Is any provision being made by the government to reimburse garage owners for the financial loss they are suffering as a result of these regulations?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I know some garage men have had to go out of business already, and because of their age they have been unable to find work in munitions plants.


Mr. HAZEN:: When the minister makes a statement on the tar sands will he also make a statement on the New Brunswick shales? I understood him to say last session that some investigations were being made into the shale situation there. Will he give us the results of those investigations?
LMr. R. B. Hanson.]


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall be glad to include that, and the results of any other explorations we have been making.


Mr. ROY:: Will the different controllers of the scheme have the power to grant more gasoline in special cases? There are certain sections of the country, like that part of my constituency between Matane and Gaspe, where there is no railroad transportation available. I should like to know if additional gasoline will be granted in special cases.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Each owner of an automobile is entitled to present his case to the controller for requirements of gasoline for necessary or vocational purposes. It will all depend upon what the purpose is regarding travel between those two points. If a man is travelling for a purpose having to do with the earning of his livelihood, his need will be assessed and a proper ration will be given him, but once the ration is given it will not be changed.



PRESS REPORT AS TO APPOINTMENT OP PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders.of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I should like to direct an inquiry to the Prime Minister based upon a news item appearing in the Ottawa Citizen of this morning, as follows:
Lionel Chevrier, Liberal M.P. for Stormont, was on the job yesterday as parliamentary secretary to Hon. C. D. Howe, Minister of Munitions and Supply, according to authoritative government sources. D. C. Abbott, Liberal M.P. for St. Antoine-Westmount, has also been appointed to a similar post with Hon. J. L. Ilsley, Minister oi Finance. Both men have been familiarizing themselves with the various aspects of the work of these two departments.
It is understood that Hon. Cyrus Macmillan, Liberal M.P. for Queens, P.E.I., is being appointed parliamentary secretary to Hon. C. G. Power, Minister of National Defence for Air. It is said that Mr. Macmillan's services were sought by Hon. Mr. Power.
On that point I congratulate the hon. member. Will the Prime Minister explain why these appointments were not announced to parliament before the new parliamentary secretaries entered upon their duties?-and of course the bill providing for the appointment of these secretaries has not yet been introduced into the house. I should like the Prime Minister to clarify the situation, so that we may understand how it happened that this news item appeared.

Procedure in Questions on Orders of the Day


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I could not begin to give my hon. friend the reasons for the news item having appeared as it did; on that I must say I have no information. With respect to why appointments have not been announced in the house, I would say that no appointments have been made, and therefore there was no announcement to make. May I add that as soon as appointments are made I shall see that they are immediately announced in the house. I believe it is true that one or two hon. members have been kind enough to assist certain of the ministers in some pressing matters in which they are at present engaged. At a later time I may have reason to express appreciation of that assistance. But I hope it will not be held that any hon. member of the house is performing a function he should not perform if during this war time he lends his services-


Mr. HOMUTH:: Oh, now, now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is my hon. friend worrying about? I say I hope it will not in any way prejudice any hon. member or be held against him if he lends whatever assistance he is asked by a minister to lend to him at any time in connection with the discharge of his duties.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to the leader of the opposition that there is a rule under which it is sought to confine questions on the orders of the day as largely as possible to urgent matters. Questions which can be answered by notice on the order paper should be placed there. My hon. friend will not mind my saying that he himself sets an example to the rest of the house. Several times I have asked myself whether he has considered the effect of his asking me questions almost every day. I do not object to my hon. friend asking questions, but I do think a number of the questions which have been asked have not been so much for the purpose of having me give my hon. friend information as for some other purpose.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not know why that should pain my hon. friends; it is a fact.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: It does not pain us, because we have to do it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sure my hon. friend will not mind my mentioning that it has been the custom as long as I have been in the house for the leader of the opposition, when he intends to ask an important question on the orders of the day, to give notice if possible to the Prime Minister in advance. I have not thus far had from my hon. friend any notice of any question he has asked. I shall be happy to answer immediately any question I can, but I hope I shall not be expected to encounter a sort of catechism at the opening of the house each day.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, we might as well clarify this position once and for all. First of all, this is the first time I have heard the Prime Minister say that he wanted notice of any question he might be asked. That condition may have arisen partly because the facility with which he answers most questions completely disarmed me, and it did not seem to be necessary to send notice. I shall, however, be glad to give him due notice from now on, and that he has not received it previously is only an oversight. If it will help him in his onerous position in trying to make clearer the answers he gives, I am sure that it will be in the interests of the house and country to give such notice.
May I add, however, that as leader of the opposition I do not make any apology for being curious about some of the policies and actions of the government. The Prime Minister himself will understand that there are certain questions which we as members of the opposition demand to be made clear to the house and country. If we have transgressed from time to time, I am sure the Prime Minister will excuse me on the grounds of inexperience and, perhaps, youth. In any event I want to say at once to him and to the house that I am not putting questions for any ulterior design, but rather I am conscientiously trying, so far as it is within my power, to carry out what I believe to be my duty as leader of the opposition in the house.
More than that may I say that I do not think the Prime Minister has been overburdened with questions from any private member or from the leader of the opposition since the beginning of the session. I have been particularly careful on that point in the questions which I have asked. They have always been questions which I thought were in the national interest. So long as there are questions in the national interest, Mr. Speaker, which I as leader of the opposition believe should be put, then I am going to ask your indulgence and the indulgence of the house in directing
328	COMMONS
Procedure in Questions on Orders oj the Day
to the Prime Minister or to any member of the government any question which I think may fall within that category.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say a word further to my hon. friend, replying to the subject he has mentioned? My reason for asking to be furnished with a copy of a question in advance is not that I am in the least concerned about not being able to say something in reply, but that I would hope that the question asked would be really important enough to bring forth in reply information that is also important or of a pressing nature. I should like in replying to be in the position to give the house as full information as I may be able to on the question asked. That is why I desire to have notice where the matter is one of importance. I hope my hon. friend will not feel that he is restricted to giving notice at all times. Where there is an important question notice in advance will help me to give the house full information.
Some exception was taken to my saying that there might be some other motive than that of merely seeking information. If my hon. friend had wished to know whether any assistance had been furnished to ministers, that one question in itself would have sufficed without the newspaper article. The reading of the article was what caused me to think that there might be some other reason for the question in my hon. friend's mind than that merely of ascertaining if any appointments had been made.
My hon. friend has the privilege of asking me a great many questions. May I have the privilege of asking him one? I shall put it in the form of a notice, so that he will have plenty of time to answer it. I should like to ask on behalf of all hon. members of this house if he can inform this house how soon, if at all, the leader of the new Progressive Conservative party intends to seek a seat in this house. Does he intend to endeavour to get in before parliament is dissolved, or at what date is he likely to be here?


Gordon Graydon: Is that an invitation to the new leader of the Progressive Conservative party to run against my right hon. friend the Prime Minister in Prince Albert, and is that seat to be opened now?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Prince Albert has the best possible representation in this parliament.


Mr. COLDWELL:: The Prime Minister asked a question of the leader of the opposition, and I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of the one he

asked. Are we to understand from his statement that when this house rises it will be dissolved? I notice the word "dissolved" was used rather than "prorogued".


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I used the word "dissolved" intentionally, but I was not saying whether this session would end with prorogation or with dissolution. My hon. friend will find that out in due time.



RATIONING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: Following the discussion we
have had, and since the Prime Minister and I have become much more intimate on the subject of asking questions, at the pain and the risk of receiving another little scolding I should like to ask another question. I shall not however, ask any more questions of the Prime Minister until I have given him due notice. Perhaps the Minister of Finance will be in a position to answer the question I have in mind. It arises from a Canadian press dispatch dated at Chicago, February 9, in these terms:	.
Donald Gordon, chairman of the wartime prices and trade board, forecast indirectly in a speech here to-night the extension of coupon rationing to commodities not yet under control, and the introduction of a "point system" of rationing for some lines of goods.
Will the minister explain to the house why, when parliament is in session, such an important announcement, affecting every citizen in Canada, should be made by the chairman of a board, rather than by the appropriate minister in the house? I raise this point not as a matter of carping criticism, but as a matter of principle. I would caution the government that when parliament is in session we shall expect all announcements of the kind to be made in this house by the minister in charge of the department. Perhaps the minister would also say whether this statement of policy made by Mr. Gordon was at the minister's direction and with his consent and approval.


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, first of all one must determine whether Mr. Gordon made the statement. I gathered from the newspaper report to which reference was made by the leader of the opposition that Mr. Gordon had indirectly forecast something in a speech he had made.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Obliquely.

Rationing


James Lorimer Ilsley: I believe "indirectly" was the word used. If it is a matter of a newspaper reporter making some deduction or drawing some inference from something Mr. Gordon said, then it would be entirely premature for us to discuss the matter on the basis of his having said it. I will see what was said on that occasion.
With regard to the announcement of policies by gentlemen in the position of Mr. Gordon, may I say that the practice is very clear and I believe has been maintained consistently by the government. I do not know of one occasion on which Mr. Gordon has made an announcement of government policy which had not already been made by a member of the government. I do not know of a single one. He is extremely careful in that regard. He knows very' well the functions of a minister and the delimitations of those of a governmental official.
With regard to the question of speeches by administrative officials generally, may I point out. that it is necessary for them to make some speeches. The public demand that they make some speeches in explanation of their regulations and orders. Those speeches are made to assist the public in understanding and carrying out such regulations and orders. But matters of government policy are announced by ministers themselves. I do not wish to dis-guss this matter at length. It would be easy to make a long speech on the subject, and this probably is not the proper time to do it. I could not make my point any clearer, however, than by making reference to two speeches made in the month of December last. At the beginning of that month the government embarked upon a new policy of stabilization of the cost of living index by subsidizing consumers in the purchase of certain commodities. It would have been improper for Mr. Gordon to make an announcement of that policy, because it was a distinct departure from earlier policy and could be made appropriately to the public only by a minister. On the other hand, when a little later in the month it became necessary to ration butter, it would have been, I suggest, equally improper or at least less appropriate for the minister to announce such rationing, because the wartime prices and trade board had already been vested expressly by order in council with the responsibility of deciding when it became necessary to ration certain commodities. They were given the power of rationing commodities, of seeing that there was fair distribution. That was the position with respect to sugar, tea and coffee, and it was true also of butter.
72537-22	.
This does not mean that the wartime prices and trade board does not keep in touch with the government. I keep closely in touch with what they do, and I take responsibility for their actions. Announcements of new policy, or departures from policy, are for the minister, but announcements having to do with the cariying out of policies already decided upon by the minister and the government are for the heads of the various boards concerned.



PRODUCTION AND RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Munitions and Supply based upon a press dispatch from Washington which appeared in an Ottawa paper this morning. The dispatch states that there has been set up in Washington a combined copper committee upon which apparently the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada are to have representation. Could the minister give the house the composition of this committee and the purposes for which it has been set up?


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend sent across a note to say that he had given notice of this question, but I have not received the notice.


Howard Charles Green: I telephoned the minister's office about a quarter past two, and the question should have reached him before now.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will simply say that if the word "combined" before the words "copper committee" indicates that it will be a subcommittee of the combined production and resources board, then Canada will certainly be represented. At the moment I must say that I know nothing about this committee.


Howard Charles Green: May we have an answer to-morrow?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall be glad to look into it.


Mr. SPEAKER:: A good deal of latitude was given this afternoon in connection with the statement made by the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) on gasoline rationing. It was a most important statement, and I allowed a number of questions to be asked which should properly have been placed on the order paper. But I wish hon. members wTould place upon the order paper any further questions on this matter.

The Address[DOT]-Mr. Mitchell



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence for Air. I have not given the minister a notice of this question because I am well aware of the fact that he is so familiar with every detail of his department that notice would be quite unnecessary. Is it a fact that Canada is to meet the total pay and allowances of its own air crew personnel overseas? If so, will the minister correct the present anomalous situation and have all members of these air crews receive their commissions upon graduation?


Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of National Defence for Air):: That is a matter of policy, and I shall give my answer in due course.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, February 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. W. E. Harris (Grey-Bruce) for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of 1he session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Graydon, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to pay tribute to the mover (Mr. Harris) and the seconder (Mr. Halle) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. It is well in this day and age that that task should have been undertaken by two members of the armed forces. While we may talk of sacrifices on the home front, while we may talk of hard work within the confines of this dominion, let us ever remember that when a man voluntarily puts on a uniform to defend freedom as we understand it, it is an indication that he is prepared to give his life if necessary so that freedom may live.
Since the house last met there has been a tremendous expansion in the duties and functions of the Department of Labour. This expansion has developed to an enormous degree during the past year. Many added responsibilities have been placed upon the administration of this department, functions of a kind and character which in the days of peace were far removed from the activities of the Department of Labour. We have had the Japanese question, we have had training in its various aspects, and we have had the regu-

lations governing technical personnel. We have made arrangements with the universities to train students in specialized occupations in furtherance of our war effort. Activities having to do with social questions have received great impetus in the last twelve months, but in the time at my disposal, Mr. Speaker, I shall deal with only one or two major questions-wage stabilization and man-power.
Might I first make this observation. In the very nature of things when you get such a great expansion as we have had, the machinery is bound to creak occasionally. But I have always said to my own people that a problem with which you are faced can never be solved by making speeches. It has to be solved by administration, and it is far better to speak' after accomplishment of the task than before the task is attempted; otherwise the achievements may not measure up to the speeches that have been made.
In the changed status of the labour department I welcome constructive criticism. Criticism is the very essence of democracy, but I hope that criticism by hon. members of this house and by the people of this country will be of a constructive nature, because the policies which we are carrying out affect the everyday life of men and women in all classes of society. As we move into what I might call this regimentation-and by regimentation I mean, of course, that which is necessary in time of war-it is only natural that there will be criticism by those who have been used to the utmost amount of freedom of certain consequences when things do not appear to be moving as smoothly as they should be. From many quarters directly and indirectly the government's war-time labour policy has been under attack. This attack, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) so well said recently, stems from opposition to the government's wage control and price stabilization policy even by those who profess to agree that inflation must be avoided. These attacks and criticisms are nothing more than one of the incidental prices we have to pay for a policy which is fundamentally sound and which has commended itself to the people of Canada, and which in the short period of a little more than one year has, I say without equivocation, clearly justified itself.
May I say in reply to the hon. member- I forget his constituency just at the moment -who implied that because I was a trade unionist I was not a labour man, that I have spent all my life in the labour movement. I was fighting for social legislation when some people hardly knew that such a movement existed, and I have played some part

The Address-Mr. Mitchell
in the last thirty years in the establishment of what I consider some of the fundamental necessities in connection with social legislation for the working classes. I believe that the wage and price stabilization policy of the government is the greatest contribution that has been made since confederation to the benefit of the working classes of this country.
It is not my intention to burden the house with any repetition of explanations of the effects of inflation or of the influence of the price and wage stabilization policy in preventing inflation. No matter how thoroughly the government's policy may be grounded in economic theory, it rests also upon the bedrock of what seems to me to be plain everyday common sense. A series of increases in money wages would stimulate a series of further increases in prices and eventually lead to all the evil consequences of a runaway inflation. It is perhaps -worth while to remind the house that the government did not rush into this policy of stabilization at a moment's notice. It was foreshadowed in June, 1940. A further step was taken in December, 1940, when P.C. 7440 became applicable to war industry. Again, in June, 1941 and in October. 1941, the plan was developed in more detail and took final form. The plan was carefully -worked out and its adoption was an instance of courageous and sound government action. Criticism, however, is to be expected when you are dealing with such an exceedingly complex control affecting the lives of almost everybody in this dominion. After careful consideration the government decided that wages must not be allowed to decline, but on the other hand, steps must be taken to ensure that wages do not soar, because an unstable wage structure would render untenable a stabilized price level and would lead to inflation. Let us listen to what the Prime Minister of New Zealand had to say recently on the question of price control and wage stabilization. I quote:
It is my plain duty to tell you to-night that social security in this wider sense of the term is in danger. It is not in danger because it is opposed by any large part of the community, for I think I can now say that social security has become a national policy. It is in danger because the impact of war has let loose forces which, if they are not firmly checked, will throw our economic system into disorder.
It should be unnecessary for me to tell you that if social security is not built on a stable currency it is built on sand. If the wage-earner is not sure that his wages will buy approximately the same amount of goods a month or a year hence as they buy to-day, there is no real social security.
72537-22}
The Social Security Act and the minimum wage are only oue side of social security in this country. The other side is the measures we have taken, particularly since the outbreak of war, to control the cost of living.
Let me remind you of some of those measures. In September, 1939, all prices were brought under control through the price tribunal. In September, 1941, 38 of the more important commodities entering into the cost of living were stabilized. Meat, bread, and butter, for instance, have not increased in price since the beginning of the war. But perhaps the most important factor in controlling our cost of living has been control of farm prices.
The government soon saw that these measures ought to be crystallized into a plan and in September, 1940, referred the whole matter to the most representative conference of economic interests ever held in this country. This economic stabilized conference unanimously urged the government:
"To stabilize prices, wages and costs so that the cost of the war is not thrown unfairly on one group to the benefit of another."
The government made this proposal its policy and appointed a committee to carry on the work thus begun. The present stabilization plan has emerged from this committee's day-to-day grappling with the practical problems involved.
So far, the result of this work is one of which we can be proud. In no country now at war has there been less economic dislocation through changes in the value of money. But the government has for some months been anxiously aware that its control measures are no longer adequate. Pressure by economic interests for increases in the prices of their products is becoming more and more insistent. Hitherto manufacturers and traders have been absorbing much of the increase in their costs but their profit margins are narrowing and the process cannot go on much longer. Effective price control is becoming difficult;
One would almost fancy that this speech had been made in this House of Commons.
and already the phenomenon of a black market with all its demoralizing consequences has begun to appear.
That is in New Zealand. Further, Mr. Fraser said:	-
You may be thinking, why should wages be stabilized? Isn't everybody in this?
Those who listened to Mr. Fraser's speech can imagine his making that observation.
Yes, everybody is in this. Stabilization applies to all rates of remuneration including time and piece wages and overtime, allowances, fees, commissions, travelling expenses and directors' fees.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is the date of that speech?


Humphrey Mitchell: December 15, 1942, a little, over eight weeks ago. I thought I might bring that to the attention of the house because it indicates that it is not only on the north American continent that difficulties are arising in connection with these policies, and it also shows that all the democratic nations
The Address-Mr. Mitchell

engaged in this fight, in the English-speaking world, with the exception of Great Britain, think alike on this question. Some members of the house, I believe, will agree with me that that point of view expressed in the far-off dominion of New Zealand amply indicates some of the difficulties with which this government is confronted at the present time. I say sincerely that unless every class in the community rallies behind this stabilization of prices and wage control, I am fearful whether we shall be able to hold it.
After all, you cannot build a nation, a civilization or a political organization on unrest, and when the government of the country is striving in the manner in which it is striving to protect the wage standards that exist to-day, the wage standards of the working people of Canada, and I might add also to protect those in the income groups, that great defenceless body of Canadians who have no organization on one side or the other to protect them, these people are entitled to the support of all responsible men and women in the public life of the country.
In Canada we have provided machinery for the adjustment of existing wage inequities. The war labour boards have power, when wages are proven to be low in comparison with the wage rates generally prevailing for occupational classifications in a comparable locality, to have such wages raised t'o the prevailing level. Realizing that, in spite of price control, some continued increase in the cost of living might be unavoidable, provision was also made for the payment of a cost-of-living bonus if or when the cost-of-living index, prepared by the dominion bureau of statistics, showed an increase.
We are apt to quote what is called the basic rate of wages with no thought of the cost-of-living bonus. Let us take the railways for example. I take a rate of fifty cents by way of illustration. That is the basic rate, but in addition there is a nine cents an hour cost-of-living bonus. I suggest that when these things are placed before the public and it is pointed out that what is received by the individual is the basic rate of wages plus the cost-of-living bonus, a fairer picture is given than by simply implying that the basic rate is the only amount received' and that no allowance has been made through this policy for the increase in the cost of living since the outbreak of the present war. It is being said on many sides that wages are frozen. Let me say without equivocation that wages are not frozen, because there is that bonus provision where the cost of living increases.
fMr. Mitchell.]
In this complex situation the government, despite criticism of the administration, has accomplished a great deal in the correction of wage rate inequities, and to a much greater extent than is generally realized. Since the establishment of war labour boards a total of more than 18,000 cases have been dealt with. Of this number something over 14,000 have been authorized in full, approximately 2,600 in part, and approximately 1,550 have been denied. Of the cases authorized in full or in part, approximately 3,900 have been applications for the payment of cost-of-living bonus based on a rise in the adjusted cost-of-living index from a month prior to October, 1941.	.
These applications have involved an estimate of 190,000 employees and represent increased compensation to the amount of approximately 81,765,000 a month. Similarly, of the cases granted in full or in part, 8,500 have been applications for increased wages involving 385,000 employees and an estimated increase of $3,250,000 a month in the wages bill. These approved adjustments in wage rates and cost-of-living bonus represent increased compensation to the workers in industry of $00,000,000 a year and show that the government's wage control policy is not, as so many have claimed1, a wage freezing policy.
I do not think that the path of the chairman of the national war labour board or the regional board or the members of the board is a bed of roses. When I indicate that 18,000 cases have been handled by these boards, and the number of cases that have been satisfactorily disposed of, this house and the country owe a debt of gratitude to the courage of the members of these boards, composed of representatives of employers and employee organizations. It does reflect the fact that when you get men of good will representing employers and employees, who can sit down together and adjudicate on the most difficult cases', dealing with the most difficult policies, a solution is possible provided there is the will to do it and an endeavour is made to assist the state in the grave emergency through which we are passing.
In this regard I would pay tribute to the provincial governments. As we all know, constitutionally wages and hours of labour come within the orbit, in peace time, of the provincial governments. In connection, with the application of the w'age stabilization policy, a minister of the crow-n in every case is the chairman of the regional w'ar labour board and the assistance rendered by them

The Address-Mr. Mitchell
in my judgment reflects the best in public life. It shows also that in the deeper things of life there can be real cooperation between the provincial administrations and the federal government in the furtherance of the war effort.
Let us now get the results of this policy in dollars and cents to the people involved. In the six months before October, 1941, the cost of living, when the pressure of short supplies of labour and commodities was very much less than it has been recently, rose only about 7 per cent. In the fifteen months since October, 1941, it has risen only 1-6 per cent. To state the comparison in another form, at a comparable stage in the last war, when our resources were much less strained, the cost of living had risen 43-3 per cent as against 16-2 per cent up to date in this war. This represents an increase in the real purchasing power of money compared with the last war of a fraction over 27 per cent. I have often given this definition of money: Money is not money unless it is hard to get. The value of money depends on what you can buy with it. That this policy has resulted in benefit to the working people and to all classes of society is clearly indicated and can be proved by the fact that the purchasing power of money is 27 per cent greater than it was during the same period of the last [DOT]war. It can hardly be questioned that the unrest and criticism which the policy is believed to have occasioned is much less than the unrest and criticism that would have resulted in the absence of any such policy, had the government stood idly by and permitted a further increase of 65 or 85 per cent in the cost of living with all the attendant injustices, and the certainty that these injustices would intensify with the passage of time. Such a rise in the cost of living would certainly not only injure the welfare of the wage-earning population of this dominion but would hamper our production programme by causing industrial unrest.
The wage policy, and the administration thereof, are easy to criticize, but let the critics beware that by their criticism they do not undermine the policy, and that in seeking to flee from the ills we know we do not find ourselves in the midst of much more serious trouble. Perhaps I might quote another opinion on this policy from our friends to the south. Hon. members may have read a news dispatch in the Montreal Gazette a day or two ago carrying a statement by Senator James Byrnes, the new economic stabilization director in the United States. I quote:
The economic director announced official opposition to all basic wage increases, and at the same time pledged all his efforts to retain price levels at their present mark.
I should like in that connection to read another statement from New Zealand, made by D. G. Sullivan, a member of the government there. He said:
We are now at the point when in bringing in an all-round policy of stabilization which. I repeat, is absolutely vital to-day, the stabilization of income cannot be balked by demands for concessions from any classes of the community. To peg everybody's income where it is might crystallize certain inequalities for the time being, but I would point out that if inflation were left to develop and run riot, the inequalities which would be created would be far more serious and far more unjust in their incidence upon the community. Thus, if stabilization brings about the fixing of wages or farm prices at their present levels, some sections of the community may feel that they are being made to contribute more towards stabilization than others. It may be only rough justice, but it will be far preferable to the complete injustice which inflation run amuck would bring about.
I thought I would dwell briefly on industrial relations. I need not comment further on the fact that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) took the opportunity to place on record in Hansard the recently adopted platform of his party. But I do welcome the chance to declare again that in substance the government welcomes the declaration of policy as to industrial relations. We are glad that they subscribe to the principles of collective bargaining, though there may be some question as to the method by which in the long run it can be made most effective. The position of the government is that the proper function of government is to clear the way for organized employers and employees to get together to engage in collective bargaining. A survey of the record will show that in the great majority of cases which have been taken to boards of conciliation in recent months about the right to bargain collectively through the trade unions the employers have accepted the recommendations of the boards. The figures show that trade union membership has increased more in the last two years than, in any other period since the last war. The number increased from 365,000 in 1940 to nearly 462,000 in 1941. The increase in 1942 for the three major organizations was over 55,000, despite the wage policy which is alleged to have made trade union organization or collective bargaining almost impossible.
The conciliation service of the Department of Labour has been strengthened in the last
The Address-Mr. Mitchell

eighteen months almost out of recognition. For the manning of that conciliation service we have called some of the outstanding trade unionists of this country into the government service. In addition we have under order in council 4020 the power to appoint commissioners. I feel that notwithstanding that industrial unrest does present itself at some times in this country, the machinery developed in the last eighteen months has been of tremendous assistance in the ironing out of difficulties arising between employers and employees. In this regard also we have actively cooperated with the provinces. In Ontario the conciliation officers of the provincial and federal governments operate as one unit. We also have close cooperation and a working understanding with the conciliation service in the labour department of the province of Quebec. And from all the provinces we have received that same cooperation.
There is a great deal of talk about the number of strikes that have taken place. I think anyone who has had experience in industrial relations will agree that where you have a tremendous expansion of labour organization it is sometimes slowly and with difficulty that the kind of leadership is thrown up that is required in order to have a stable labour organization. The price we are paying at the moment in some respects represents growing pains of the labour organizations. But I would say this in all sincerity; At this period in the last war I was not in Canada; I was at the war. As a young man I would not like to have thought that when I and others were risking our lives that freedom might live, strikes were taking place in Canada that might endanger the lives of those with whom I was associated. I know that patience is strained at times, but I have always had it in the back of my mind since the outbreak of this war that we on the home front should show a degree of patience beyond that expected from the men in the front line trenches. I leave that thought with hon. members. The statement of the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) indicates the necessity, I might say the supreme necessity, for continuous production in this country. Particularly is that so in connection with the production of ships. Nations have risen and fallen because of their power or lack of power to transport commodities across the ocean. It is the old tramp steamer, with its auxiliaries the aeroplane, the battleship, the cruiser and the destroyer, that make possible the fighting of 
a successful war; and I hope that in the weeks to come nothing will happen in this dominion that might or could hamper the production of ships, particularly the tankers which are so necessary at the present time.
In the nine months of last year, from April 1 to December 31, the conciliation service participated in over three hundred disputes and succeeded in the great majority of cases in either preventing threatened strikes or bringing about satisfactory settlements in strikes already called. In that regard, while we do not see a great deal of the work undertaken by the conciliation branch of the department, which goes on twenty-four hours a day, three hundred and sixty-five days a year, when disputes are successfully settled, I suppose it is only natural that we should see it blazoned across the newspapers when occasionally a dispute gets off the track and a strike is called.
I should like to bring to the attention of the house the number of man-days lost last year in connection with industrial disputes. During the calendar year 1942 the time lost by strikes and lockouts was 455,964 man-days. Serious as that is, however, its importance should not be over-exaggerated. In the comparable year of the last war, 1917, the time lost amounts to 1,123,515 man-days, or about two and a half times as much as in 1942. If allowance is made for the increase in the number of wage earners as compared with 1917, the time lost in that year can be conservatively estimated as being proportionately five times greater than that lost in 1942. The time lost in 1942 was about twenty per cent more than the annual average for the last ten-year period. In 1942, however, the number of industrial employees exceeded the annual average during that ten-year average by 47 per cent. In perspective, therefore, especially having reference to the total number employed in industry, the loss through strikes last year proved to be very much less than in any comparable period during the last war, and not substantially more than in any recent year. The figures further are considerably increased by the fact that two strikes caused about one-third of the total time lost in 1942. So that the total loss of 455,964 man-days which took place in 1942 represented 159 days per thousand of the wage-earning population, and we have this very interesting comparison, that in 1917, the corresponding year of the first great war, the time loss of 1,123,515 working days represented 638 days per thousand

The Address-Mr. Rowe
of the wage-earning population, or more than four times the number per thousand of wage earners.
Recently I was in Great Britain, Mr. Speaker, and at this time I should like to pay a tribute to the people of those tight islands. I think any of us who have visited Great Britain recently have come away amazed at the spirit and fortitude of the British people. Of course it is often said that they are urged forward under the compelling force of the blitz and Dunkirk, but I think it goes further than that. It reflects in the deepest and truest sense the character of the British people, the character of the people who have given the world the greatest system of government, as we understand it, in the history of mankind. Those people are conscious of the fundamental issues involved in this great conflict. While I was in Manchester I thought I would take a walk early one morning and see the Free Trade hall, where so many historic political debates have taken place, debates which in some instances have changed the course of the history of mankind. But there was no Free Trade hall; it had disappeared. In spite of that, the spirit of the people of what we called in the old days the Manchester school is just as resolute and forceful as it was in the days of peace. And what impressed me perhaps most of all was the degree of cooperation between all classes of society. Of course they have that fringe which exists in every country, a fringe on the right and the left, whom no one can satisfy and who I guess never will be satisfied. But one saw the cooperation in industry; one saw the hours of work, the application of the industrial workers of Great Britain and particularly, may I say the part played by the women of Great Britain in this titanic conflict. When the story of this war is told the contribution made by the women of Great Britain in my judgment will stand out in bold relief and will ring down through the pages of history. They have undertaken work which I thought women would never undertake. They have entered into industries and avocations in which many of us had never dreamed of seeing women, and we must not forget that in many instances transportation is difficult, with great distances between the work and the home. Many of them work under artificial light, and except for their day off at the end of the week many never see the sun.
Then there is the food, which, while the supplies appear to be ample, I must say is
pretty plain. I think the success of the rationing system in Great Britain has been due to the fact that everyone is treated alike. Strangely enough the Minister of Food, Lord Woolton. is one of the most popular members of the government., and I believe that popularity largely rests upon the fact that in the rationing of foodstuffs and other things necessary to the lives of the people of those islands there has been absolute equality of treatment, which is just as it should be. That was the view I took recently when there was a shortage of butter in Canada. I said, "Well, if there is no butter, let us all go without it, but everyone in this dominion should share fairly in what there is." As long as a policy of this kind is pursued we do not need to worry about the people of Canada on- the food front. As long as, in the view of the government, regulation is necessary, if everyone is treated equally I am sure the Canadian people will measure up to their responsibilities and cooperate wholeheartedly in any policy we may think it necessary to launch.


Hon. W. E. ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, must join those who have congratulated the mover (Mr. Harris) and the seconder (Mr. Halle) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, and agree, without too much repetition, with what previous speakers have said as to its being most fitting that men who are serving in our armed forces should be selected for that honourable task.
I have listened with interest to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell), realizing that he is struggling with a great problem. I could not help thinking, however, that while we may have little doubt as to his personal standing as a labour man in Canada, he seemed to be struggling on account of a lack of any national man-power plan or government policy. I listened as did other hon. members to his references respecting the value of the labourer's dollar. That is an important problem. He told us the number of man-hours lost by strikes in the past year. Again, however, he did not reveal any over-all, sound national man-power policy and, I regret to say, I saw in his remarks no hope of solution of that problem. I compliment him, however, upon his efforts, despite his handicap brought about by the confusion which has developed through a lack of policy on the part of the government.
The Address-Mr. Rowe


Humphrey Mitchell: I meant to speak about man-power, but my time had expired.


William Earl Rowe: I am sorry the minister did not touch upon that problem. It would seem that other ministers can get overtime, and I should think that if the Minister of Labour were prepared to discuss a problem of such importance he would have given more enlight-ment upon it, had he been permitted somewhat longer time, than did the minister who was permitted overtime.
This is the fourth year of a world conflict, with all its bitter effects on the lives and hopes of our people. I am satisfied that the Minister of Labour has a common and honest purpose, along with every other hon. member. To those who have lost members of their families in the terrible struggle overseas I extend my deepest sympathy. For those families, members of which are still engaged in dangerous areas, we have the deepest respect.
Sometimes we hear it said that nothing matters now but victory. However, I think we might better use the expression, "nothing else matters as much as victory." After all, even in the speech from the throne now under debate we see other objectives placed before our people who are sorely wounded and tried, as the war grows in intensity. The effect of the speech from the throne is rather soothing. In glowing generalities the government expresses keen satisfaction in itself, promises to collect taxes more rapidly, to banish fear and want at an early date, and to pave our future way of life with a new form of social security. However, I am glad to observe a ray of greater hope for the victory which, of course, must be won before any such era of comfort, joy and social security can be expected or realized.
This afternoon I should like to confine my remarks to what I believe are three of the fundamental problems facing the country, and particularly the parliament now in session. First is man-power; second, production, and third, parliamentary control. I believe we are in agreement that a wise allocation of our human resources between our armed forces and our productive forces is vital to the success of our war effort, and to the defeat of the axis powers. Unfortunately no definite plan seems to have been followed vigorously.
On December 1, when it was announced that national selective service was to take over the full responsibility of allocating Canada's manpower and woman-power it was hoped that the problem would be met courageously with some sound action and some expression of a general over-all policy. Three months have passed, and yet w'e find no aggressive, centralized control. 
As evidenced this afternoon, such control is now even more conspicuously absent. Many surveys have been and are still being made. We are asked to fill out forms and give further information as to what'we are doing; yet no one is told what he should do. Indeed, it is possible that if we continue to postpone much longer, the swift action of Britain, the United States and Russia may make it possible for us to begin demobilizing before we are fully mobilized. We have not been told how many should go to the fighting zones, nor have we been told how many should stay at home, how many are needed for reinforcements of the active forces in the fighting zones, or how many are needed to reinforce the soldiers at home.
Next in importance is the question of how many are needed in our essential industries. The failure to determine a plan has already meant a great reduction in our productive efficiency. It is estimated that 9,000 labourers left Canada to work in the north-eastern states during the bush season of 1941-42. I believe the Minister of Labour stated yesterday that not quite that many had received permits. But I venture to say that that many, or more, have gone. It amazes me to note that while Canadian companies could not broadcast an appeal for men in Canada, and could not meet the competitive wages of companies in the United States, United States companies were allowed to appeal for men by radio, and that only recently 500 more men received their permits from the department headed by the minister who has just taken his seat.
We are still short to-day in man-power. Many companies have closed down, and others have reduced their operations for lack of those very men who have gone to the United States. Many farms are not being cultivated, not only by reason of the number of boys who have volunteered to fight, but because under the haphazard man-power policy of the government it has, under its selective service operations, called men for home defences who were needed on the farms.
As has been said, nothing was done to prevent skilled men from volunteering. We see there again tragic evidence of the failure to offer an over-all sound policy. No doubt some men are needed at home; but it does appear to me that we must let our men who are in the fighting fronts know what they may expect by way of reinforcements. If action comes they should know whether they have men standing behind them. I sometimes wonder if that is why they have not seen action. Is it on account of this uncertainty in government policy, an uncertainty

The Address-Mr. Rowe
which has seeped not only through our line of production but-yes, even to the front line itself?
Therefore I believe it is more important at the present time properly to allocate our armed forces than to add to them. I say this because I feel that we must consider the condition we may create by a policy of drift, and by establishing a larger army than we can maintain with the equipment produced behind the line. In this connection we must not be unmindful of what has been said about the collapse of France. We have heard it stated that one of the chief faults in her war strategy was that of sending, excitedly and spectacularly, to the Maginot line all her skilled men who might properly have been behind the lines carrying out processes of organization.
I realize that other countries have profited by observing mistakes that have been made. Mr. Hedley Williams, director of labour in the United Kingdom, when speaking in Washington not long ago, said that we must beware of calling too many skilled men, and he urged the United States not to make the same mistake which had been made in Great Britain at the first, namely, that of sending skilled labour to the front. He said:
Britain did this at first, then had to send them back. There is no use of having a big army in the field, if there are not enough at home to keep it properly equipped.
I believe the war economy of Germany and Italy is feeling the effect of a similar mistake which was made there. As evidence of that, we observe that the other day an order was issued in Germany mobilizing immediately all men between the ages of seventeen and sixty-five years for industrial and agricultural purposes. In Italy, almost coincident with this- I do not suppose this left-handed warrior does much outside of what he is told to do-there was issued a similar order, but they cut off two years and provided that those between the ages of fifteen and sixty-five years would be mobilized immediately for either industrial or agricultural purposes.
If we are going to warrant the claim that we have a selective service policy then we must, without any further delay, declare what these priorities in man-power are. Unless this is more vigorously proceeded with, the present serious condition will not get better, and I am convinced that it will grow steadily worse, more confusing and prove more detrimental to an all-out war effort. We have made postponements and exemptions which were not warranted, and we have not made some that were warranted. I urge the Minister of
Labour to give further consideration and direction to national selective service, so that the men who are exempted for necessary and essential purposes, whether it is on the farm or in the factory, may be given more permanency instead of having their exemptions granted from month to month and being called up in busy seasons or not knowing what to do in the following year, in the case of agriculture and other pursuits, until they receive another call. When this is repeated it makes additional work in the departments and creates confusion and uncertainty which retards production from reaching that efficient point which it should reach at this time.
I hope the government will more efficiently coordinate our war effort by a scientific and fearless allocation of man-power. That is what I had hoped the minister would have announced, but he has told us nothing about the order which we understood was to stand, namely, that selective service would have to do with the allocation of all man-power. The extent to which our superior man-power and our superior resources shall establish our future place and decide the extent of our national dignity and freedom is measured not only by the dauntless courage of our men on the front line but by our fearless direction behind the line. It seems to me that in this one great problem of man-power we have failed and failed dismally.
I realize that our production is great. We are no longer an infant nation; we have grown. I have been surprised at the comparisons which have been made between our production during the last great war and our production at the present time. But Canada today has fifty per cent more people than she had in the last great war. She has had the greatest industrial growth ever known since that time. She developed more in the ten years following the last great war than she had developed in any thirty years before; that is, as far as industrial expansion is concerned. It is fortunate that she had the diversified industries which she had because they have provided a fair foundation for the progress she has made since.
As far as production is concerned, I do not propose to deal with the generalities of production in the factory and in other lines that are essential. However I do wish to speak for a few moments about one vital requirement. I shall refer more specifically to our food requirements. For some years I have urged the government to establish a sound national policy for agriculture. As far back as the session of 1940-41 I endeavoured to have the government establish a national food board, and I suggested different ways in which it
33S
The Address-Mr. Rowe

might function. Now in 1943 I am alarmed, as I observe others in this house are alarmed and as it is noted in the press, when I hear that the food requirements for this year will be the greatest with which agriculture has been faced since confederation. I am glad that the government at long last seem to recognize the problem, but I regret that their most conspicuous plans for its solution seem to be only ceiling prices for the producer and ration cards for the consumer. With little evidence of any real policy in connection with agricultural production we have nothing more or less than the glib response of a rationing system. This may help to meet the crisis which has developed, to no small extent as a result of the absence of a sound agricultural policy.
Since the government have failed to appoint a food board; since they have failed to set out the functions of such a board, I suggest that at this late date they solve the problem by establishing a food ministry. This should be done in order to solve the problems which the government's lack of policy has placed before this country. Since I do not like to be critical without offering suggestions, I wish to offer some at this time. I have no apology to make for the criticism which I have levelled; I am only sorry that I have not more time in which to level more criticism. I should like to repeat briefly some of the functions which might be performed by this ministry, at least for the duration. I am not so sure that the bureaucratic control which we have set up is necessary even in time of war; I am not so sure that we need the restraints and limitations which have been placed upon many producers, but I do believe that for the duration such a ministry could carry out the following functions.
1.	The division of this dominion into productive zones to encourage the production of those products for which each zone is best adapted.
2.	Allocate to each zone annual production goals.
3.	Assure to each zone adequate supplies of labour and machinery.
4.	An immediate survey of requirements of men and machinery, including a study of conditions created during the past year that have closed many farm operations.
5.	A study of prices, a research of farm costs and a revision of ceiling prices so that sufficient increase may be allowed to bring to the farm producer prices on a parity with other prices.

6.	A study of farm labour prices so that it would be possible under selective service to move labour to this essential industry from non-essential industries.
7.	It should be the responsibility of this food department to plan necessaiy reserves of finished canned and cured foodstuffs in order to make sure of the necessary surplus supplies to finish the war and help write the peace with attractive supplies for a hungry Europe.
It is now two years since I urged much more fully what I have ventured to repeat at this time. However, this problem has at last moved up to the front line of necessary war strategy. I believe the government have some good intentions-one could not listen to the several ministers without knowing that they had good intentions; I am not going to doubt their intentions-but I warn them of the danger of delay and postponement. It is needless to remind the house that the roads of Holland, Denmark, Belgium, France, Poland and other countries were paved with good intentions, but now those roads are strewn with hunger, despair and death. Those countries are calling to us to give them some assistance, and we should benefit from the haphazard management that has been so prevalent.
We are told by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) that we are producing a greater tonnage of agricultural products. One need not challenge that statement any more than one need challenge the statement that we are producing more iron and steel than we ever did. However, it does not prove that we have any master-plan of handling our human and material resources, because we have now eleven millions of people whereas we had only seven millions in the last war. Nor does it swell our chests with much pride when we know that Great Britain, with almost three times as many per capita of her man-power in active service, has doubled her agricultural production since 1939.
May I now deal briefly with the third fundamental challenge which I mentioned at the outset, namely, the challenge to parliamentary control. What is victory? Is it only the killing of Japs and Germans and Italians on the battlefield? Is it not also the prevention of the nazi and fascist methods which they represent and seek to impose upon' us? This is no idle dreaming of those living in the quiet tranquillity of the home front; it has been declared many times to be the objective by our leaders at the battle-front. Not long ago that great British

The Address-Mr. Rowe
fighter, General Alexander, when he was promoted to his present responsible command, inspired his fighting men to greater efforts by stating:
We are fighting to preserve freedom of speech, freedom of worship and freedom of individual enterprise.
While these gallant men face death to preserve these freedoms for us overseas, are we to surrender parliamentary control as the chief bulwark of these freedoms at home?
I realize that war must be waged by a strong central control. It is, indeed, an executive function more than a legislative function. I am not questioning the necessity of having boards of control and administrators established. However, I am not unmindful of the tendency toward a bureaucratic form of government through the delegation of unnecessary powers to these boards and commissions. The fathers of confederation wisely separated the constitutional powers of the legislative, executive and judicial bodies. The huge bureaucracy that now prevails was growing slowly but steadily before the war. It has rapidly growm during the war and now threatens our democracy itself. If this trend is not soon checked, it will constitute a real and easy stepping-stone for a state socialism which will clumsily mock the very totalitarian doctrines which our enemies seek to impose upon us.
To-day little concern seems to be aroused over the delegation of our legislative or executive control. With reckless disregard of the people's representatives in parliament, policies are set by order in council, while boards of control make the laws-modernly called regulations-for the enforcement of those policies. It appears now that we have almost a secret merger between legislative and executive' control which hands on by order in council strange and undebated plans for a controller to put into swift effect.
We closed the third session of our nineteenth parliament of Canada just the day before this session opened, and on that day the government tabled 340 orders in council which were supposed to have been passed1 between, July 1, 1942, and December 1, 1942. We find that over sixty of them were passed while parliament was sitting. It seems that parliamentary control is only a complimentary phrase which is used to appease the concern of those of us who are so old-fashioned as to believe that we represent the people in a free parliamentary system.
Expert economic controllers write the policy, and- a weak and wobbly executive makes it an order in council. Following that, in the early hours of the next morning, from
a government-controlled radio or a watchful press, members of parliament and millions of taxpayers learn with alarm of the silent arrival of a new order born out of the darkness of the night before.
We have in Canada so-called controllers who are actually disciples of a new regimentation. These so-called social planners have avowed plans to make a new world order. They may to some extent satisfy the socialistic party to my left through their avowed plans to make out of this world crisis a new social order. May I urge this government, however, to beware of this tendency which threatens the liberty of the subject and its blood-brother, the freedom of enterprise which has made this country great.
If we are to preserve for our boys, who we hope may return, the freedoms for which they believe they fight, we must prevent any unnecessary extension of authority to those who have had long-nurtured objectives of untried social plans to replace the freedom of enterprise which has given our young country her growth and our people an unsurpassed standard of living.
I notice that the Prime Minister is out of the house at the moment, and therefore I will ask the Minister of Agriculture who I presume speaks for the government because he is the only minister over there, can he assure the house and the country that the war regulations which are now being abused by controllers for peace-time objectives will cease when this war is over? Silence, I assume, gives consent.


Mr. GARDINER :: It is stated in the War Measures Act. The hon. member has read it.


William Earl Rowe: The minister asks us to
assume that these regulations will disappear with the War Measures Act. But I would urge the government to beware of the development which a rather weak executive seems to be promoting by this system of controller management in this country.
In a book written by Lord Hewart I find this:
Of all methods of administration that is worst, is that whereby real powers are in the hands of one set of persons while public responsibility belongs to another set of persons. It is a method, as all experience shows, well-calculated to encourage the performance of acts which either set of persons if they had both the responsibility and the power, would be astute to avoid.
The Prime Minister surely recognizes this principle unless he has forgotten his speech at Newmarket on March 17, 1919, when he said:
The war has been a great problem and it is a question whether we are not, under a stress of mind, permitting things to be shoved through
The Address-Mr. Rowe

by a group of men who have it in their minds that so long as they are united under a particular name they can do what they please in matters of legislation.
Further in the same speech he emphasized " getting back to government for the people by the people." Again in the same speech the Prime Minister said:
Our government to-day is composed of a group of men of one type of mind that believes in administration through orders in council rather than administration through the people's representatives in parliament.
What a difference just a few years make in the life of the most expert politician in Canada's history! We have never seen the power of the executive so much abused by order in council as it has been in the last year or more by this government under the guise of war necessity. I do not want to be too critical, but I do urge this government to take cognizance of where we are heading and to realize that this sort of thing cannot go on. The government cannot continue to ignore the responsibility of parliament and maintain the proper place of the executive any more than we can expect to maintain the free and democratic way of government by having matters settled in the evening by orders in council that are never brought into daylight before parliament. I may offer n few suggestions in this regard as well. First, I would urge the government to take greater care in delegating powers to these new-born controls and commissions, and, second, I suggest that we should have from time to time a judicial review of all controllers' decisions. In conclusion, I would ask the government to remember that parliamentary control is, after all, one of the basic features of our democratic way of life.
Let us meet emergencies by necessary controls, but avoid usurping war-time regulations to usher in peace-time new orders, foreign to that for which our boys believe they fight.
Let us therefore, fearlessly face these challenges of this tragic period by coordinating the full striking force of our superior man-power and excellent resources through a freer but more vigorous parliamentary control.


Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):: I do not intend to speak at great length, but first of all I wish to reply to 'something said by a distinguished press columnist of this city a few days ago by quoting what he wrote last year. A few days ago, on February 10, the Citizen, commenting upon the marvellous speech delivered by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin), said:
For several of his chief isolationist points, only one man pounded his desk-Jean Francois Pouliot, who still sits beside him next to the cabinet benches.

Of course I was delighted to applaud the hon. gentleman when he spoke so well, but he never said anything that was of an isolationist nature. In the Citizen of May 13, 1942, I see that the same gentleman wrote as follows:
A German submarine sunk a freighter in the St. Lawrence, in the river, not way down in the gulf. Forty-four survivors were brought ashore. The submarine sank the ship, apparently without loss of life, but happily it didn't take a shot at any of the shining marks that line the shore. It was below Quebec The place is not stated but doubtless, somewhere between Temis-couata and Gaspe. The war, thus, is right opposite the front door of some of the members of parliament who are more or less conspicuous. There is nothing to show that the destructive enemy craft was put out of business. Probably it is lurking about. The circumstance is illuminating and suggestive.
The enemy was at the door.
There are no members of this house who object to the help that is being given by Canada to Great Britain or to any of the allied countries. But that is not the point. We want to have this country defended. We have no defence at the present time, and conditions are so bad that in my district the men in the reserve army have not been paid since August last. Imagine the encouragement! They receive only sixty cents a day, and they have not been paid since last August. I brought the matter to the authorities-Mr. Speaker, I would ask the former leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) to keep quiet. I will not listen to any interruptions. I had enough trouble when he was leader of the opposition without having him start again when, there is another gentleman occupying that seat.


Richard Burpee Hanson: On	a
question of privilege, I do not intend-


Jean-François Pouliot: Then let him sit down. I will be rough.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. McCann):: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have been disturbed enough by him in former days and I will not stand for it now.


Richard Burpee Hanson: On	a
question of privilege, I made no observation-


Jean-François Pouliot: He groaned.


Richard Burpee Hanson: -but I did make a remark in an undertone. If I had done a great deal worse than that it would have been appropriate, but all I was doing was making a remark in a low undertone.


Jean-François Pouliot: He is wasting my time. He has no reason to do that.

The Address-Mr. Pouliot


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbuvy):: I do not intend to have the hon. member for Temis-couata abuse me or make derogatory remarks about me and I ask that they be withdrawn. I would ask Your Honour so to rule.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, that having been said,
I will come to the great tribute that was paid by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to the former leader of the opposition. I wish the hon. member for York-Sunbury a long life. I hope he will live to be a centenarian, but when he dies I hope he will put a clause in his will that Hansard containing the remarks of the Prime Minister about him be put in his coffin. Such things must be kept even in the other world. I know that several supporters of the government were very jealous when they either heard those remarks or read them.
Now, speaking of the present, I see the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) with his smiling face. From the time Mr. Bennett was leader of the opposition I have not seen any smile on the face of any Jeader of the opposition. and it is comforting for me to see a good-natured gentleman occupying such a high office. He knows that I mean what I say, as I mean everything I say, and it is refreshing to see him there. I am fully in accord with the great tribute that has been paid to him by the Prime Minister and all members of the house.
I wish also to congratulate the mover (Mr. Harris) and the seconder (Mr. Halle) of the address. One of them, the seconder, I know very well, and I know that both are fine soldiers. They spoke very well and deserve congratulations upon their speeches.
There is a most important matter that has been talked about by the leader of the opposition

the present one, who is a very bright man-and also by some other members on this side of the house and even on the other side. The leader of the opposition spoke first of the setting up of committees at an early stage of the session. He mentioned that six standing committees did not meet at all during the last session, which is true. He referred particularly to the public accounts committee. But his predecessor never made any request for it to meet. That is the reason why we had no public accounts committee. The reason is that the hon. gentleman's predecessor never asked for it. Moreover, I was the one that had to fight to have an improvement in the public accounts. It was the duty of the hon. gentleman's predecessor to do that, but he forgot to do it. Therefore I had to do it myself, and I had the support of my good friend the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol). Hansard records it. Does the leader of the opposition know nothing about
it? Perhaps this is why he was praised so highly by the Prime Minister.
The public accounts committee did not meet during the last ten years.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Yes; the Bren gun inquiry.


Jean-François Pouliot: Was it the public accounts committee? Well, it brought in no report, and therefore all the sittings were of no use.
Then my friend the present leader of the opposition said that some early consideration should also be given to reviewing and modernizing our parliamentary procedure. How? The hon. gentleman is too familiar with the rules of the house and British parliamentary practice to make such a suggestion. Why should we modernize British parliamentary life that has existed for centuries and is in such a good state of health at Westminster, and here also when Mr. Speaker is in the chair?
The Prime Minister said:
It is the present view of the administration that this is not the best time to have a committee consider the rules of the house.
I fully agree with the Prime Minister. If my hon. friend looks at the record he will see that on May 21, 1940, the Prime Minister moved the appointment of a select committee to consider with Mr. Speaker the procedure of this house with a view to a more expeditious dispatch of public business.
The hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris) and the member for Temiscouata respectively made suggestions as to the withdrawal of that motion, and it was withdrawn. The answer given by the Prime Minister to the leader of the opposition on January 29 last is logical, and consistent with the withdrawal of his motion of three years ago.
Sir, I have given-or rather lent-to you a complete collection of the standing orders of each legislative assembly of the British empire. It was the only complete collection of the kind in Canada. In Ottawa I went for it myself to the library of parliament. They did not have it, and then I had to complete it by writing to the clerks of the different bodies. I lent it to you about three years ago, and I am sure you have been interested in it because you are still studying it in your den. I once went to Longmans, Green and Company, a firm of publishers in London, to submit to them a compilation of all those standing orders, based on those of Australia that number 410. There I met a very bright man who reminded me of the present leader of the opposition. He was so bright he could even end my phrases; I had only to say a few words and he could end my statement ; a very
The Address-Mr. Pouliot -

bright gentleman. I submitted my plan to him. I thought a composite picture of the parliamentary procedure in the British empire might be of interest. He said, "Leave it to me for a day or two and I will tell you about it." When I returned he said it would be impossible to do it, except with the support of a foundation, because nobody reads the rules.	.
In one of the halls of Westminster, at a meeting presided over by Lord Simon, then Sir John Simon, there was present a gentleman from New Zealand who said this about standing orders:
I may be wrong, but I do not think parliamentary institutions to-day depend at all upon standing orders. I could conceive of parliament being conducted without any standing orders at all. I do not say it is better to do without standing orders, but I could conceive of that. Speakers give rulings, and also fresh occasions arise when new rulings are required guided by precedent, and so there may be built up a series of rulings such as built up our common law to-day.
Some people are under the impression that parliament is the building we are in. It is not that. These are the houses of parliament, the buildings of parliament, but the building is not parliament. Parliament is the meeting together of men who act in conformity with the British practice to decide the affairs of the country when, they are duly elected for that purpose. Whether we as a legislative body met at the auditorium or in this building we would be the parliament of Canada just the same; we would be the House of Commons of Canada, and the Senate would be the same also. We are the parliament; it is not the building. But there is much confusion about it. Some people may think that we are true to the parliament at Westminster and its traditions because you, Mr. Speaker, sit in a chair that is a replica of that which adorns the House of Commons at Westminster. You know, sir, that that chair is a symbol, and if one goes behind it he sees an inscription stating that it is a replica of the Speaker's chair in the House of Commons at Westminster and was given in 1921 "as a fitting symbol of the great parliamentary tradition which binds together the free nations of the British commonwealth." It bears the signatures of no less persons than Lord Birkenhead, _ the Lord Chancellor, and Mr. Speaker Lowther of the British House of Commons.
If I look at the chair in which our distinguished clerk sits, there is a plate on the back which states that it belonged to Sir John G. Bourinot, K.C.M.G., Clerk of the House of Commons from 1880 to 1903, and was presented to the house by his son, Arthur S. Bourinot.

Therefore, sir, it is not the building; it is not the furniture that we see here, even if it has an historic interest, that makes parliament. It is not even the rules of the house. It is the practice that has been followed for centuries at Westminster, the practice which enables Winston Churchill and all other leaders of the British empire to say that in this war the army is defending parliamentary freedom. Therefore, sir, we shall respect that spirit; we shall abide by that, and we shall remain true to the British parliamentary practice as my friend, the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) said so aptly and pointedly the other day.
A moment ago I was repeating what I have said many times before, namely, that as a private member of parliament I feel safe and secure when you, Mr. Speaker, are in the chair. You know what your functions are in this house. You know very well that we are all equal and that in this house even the Prime Minister sits as a private member, as only the first among equals. [DOT] But I have to complain bitterly about an encroachment upon our freedom of speech which took place several times last year, not when you were in the chair, but when we were in committee of the whole. I do not have in my hand the heavy volume of Hansard reporting the dialogue, but I have a copy of it, which I shall read;
On the title:


@Deputy Speaker and Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Shall the title carry?
Mr. Pouliot: No, Mr. Chairman.


@Deputy Speaker and Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
@Deputy Speaker and Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Shall I report the bill?
Mr. Pouliot: No, sir.	-


@Deputy Speaker and Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Those in favour will kindly say "aye".
Some hon. Members: Aye.


@Deputy Speaker and Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Those opposed will kindly
say "nay".
Some hon. Members: Nay.


@Deputy Speaker and Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: In my opinion the "ayes"
have it.
Mr. Pouliot: This is a most unusual procedure.


@Deputy Speaker and Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Not at all.
Mr. Pouliot: It is worse than closure, because with closure you can at least speak for twenty minutes.


@Deputy Speaker and Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: In my opinion the "ayes"
have it.
Mr. Lacombe: On section 3, Mr Chairman-


@Deputy Speaker and Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Section 3 is carried.
Mr. Lacombe: Section 3 is not carried.


@Deputy Speaker and Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: I am sorry, but it is carried.
Mr. Lacombe: It is not carried.


@Deputy Speaker and Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: It has been carried.
Bill reported.
This is an outrage on parliament; this cannot be tolerated. I said once that the greatest reproach to parliament is the fact that the supreme and only rule here is the will of

The Address-Mr. Pouliot
the government. That is bad. I am very sorry that the gentleman who was then Chairman has been rewarded with a promotion to the other place; it means that our gain is their loss.
I now come to another matter concerning the rights of parliament. Why did not the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) protest, as against an encroachment on the privileges of the hon. members of this house, when he was informed by the press that a board composed of outsiders was to be substituted for the members of parliament in making a study of civil service matters? It is the duty of the members of the House of Commons to put their noses into that bureaucracy which has been denounced so eloquently by so many hon. members opposite, including the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe). But no one said a word about that board.
Let me show what ignorance or disregard for the rules may bring about. For a time, when the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen was leader of the opposition, he was represented in this house by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson), and I take this opportunity to tell the present leader of the opposition never to pay any attention to any advice given to him by that hon. gentleman. At any rate, during that period many suggestions were advanced from the other side for a union government. The then acting leader of the opposition was only acting, acting on behalf of his mentor; but this is something worth saying, even if I cannot say anything else, and even though my time should be up. I hold in my hands the Votes and Proceedings of February 1, containing the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition and the subamendment moved by the hon. gentleman who leads the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group. Are they two or one? They are two in one. When the vote is called it will be exceedingly amusing to discover that it will be impossible for you, Mr. Speaker, to call two divisions. You will have to call only one, because the subamendment moved by the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group does not subtract from the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition; it is in addition to it. Therefore all the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group wants is what the leader of the opposition asked for, plus a little more. This means that probably there will be a union between the official opposition and the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group. It means that in the first debate of the session, when the parties have to take their stand, they say, "We think alike, and we are a little more
cocky." It will be amusing to see the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group voting with the official Progressive Tory opposition, and will be very amusing to see my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, his antediluvian predecessor and all others, vote for the following subamendment, for it is in the light of this situation that the subamendment must be read:
And further we regret that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to take the necess'ary action to achieve a total war effort by neglecting to apply the powers contained in the National Resources Mobilization Act to war industries and financial institutions in the same manner as they are being applied to the mobilization of man-power for military service.
Therefore, all those good Tories will vote for the mobilization of wealth. Oh, that is most amusing. But I wonder if the house will permit the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party (Mr. Coldwell) to amend again the subamendment. Otherwise hon. members who will witness that solemnity will never regret it.
I have many other remarks to make, but I shall have to summarize my position with respect to the Liberal party. I am most fortunate in having as desk-mate a very dear friend-the best desk-mate in the whole house. I am fortunate, too. in being next to the former Minister of Public Works and Transport (Mr. Cardin), who, in years of service, is dean of the house. I have been a Liberal; I am a Liberal, and I will always remain a Liberal. I did not change at all. I have never changed. Therefore why should I change my seat? Perhaps I should use the words of Disraeli, when he was blamed by Sir Robert Peel for some criticism of a budget and said. "I have been elected to sit here; I sit here; that is all."
If I did not get all I asked for, at least there has been some improvement in the last report of the auditor general. It took a long time, but I gained something. We say that if the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres had not acted as he did; if Liberal members who gave a solemn warning to the government last year had not done so; if the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr- Roy)-and a very excellent member he is-and the very brilliant new member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion) did not think as they do, and as they did, it would be much worse now than it actually is.
My idea of national selective service is that each man shall serve his country during the war to the best of his ability and in that field in which he can render the best service. I am proud of my fellow citizens. I believe there is no better man in the world than a Canadian. I do not see why the Minister
The Address-Mr. Pouliot

of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) has imported Alexander Gunn, a man who knew nothing about Canadian affairs, to make reports on the transfer of what he, Mr. Gunn, thought to be a non-essential industry into what he, Mr. Gunn, thought to be an essential industry. I do not agree. Moreover, if national selective service is to be applied successfully, this can be done only by a man who has, first, enough authority; second, enough information ; andi, third, enough freedom of action to decide where the draftees shall be directed. Therefore, sir, it is absurd to think of a national selective service which would work successfully when we know that for the most part they are acting on the requisitions of the brass-hats who parade the streets in uniform, and who have never been in any theatre of war.
The national selective service should consider the case of each individual, not only from the individualistic point of view, but from the point of view of the service which each individual can best render the state. That is why I have not been impressed by the instructions sent out by Mr. MacNamara to the chairmen of the boards. Why am I not impressed? For the very good reason that it is only a palliative, that it will not improve the conditions of agriculture, because it does not touch those deserving farmers who are needed in the fields but who are kept by force in the army.
I have in my hand Hansard of July 13, 1942, in which the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) is reported as having said that it would be hard to let soldiers or draftees go to any civilian occupations. That is the way it is done. Unless the national selective sendee has authority not only over the draftees who have not had their training, but also over those draftees who did not enlist voluntarily, but were farmers or railway workers or lumbermen, the national selective service wall never work successfully. I am not a labour man, but my contact with the farmers, with railway men, lumbermen and other labour men, has proven to me that there is the sore spot. Unless it is remedied at once, as has been pointed out by the premier and minister of agriculture in Quebec, by the minister of agriculture in British Columbia and by the minister of agriculture in Ontario, and as said by Mr. Hepburn himself at Hamilton, we shall face a famine or a state of hunger in this land of plenty.
How can we be called isolationists when we are willing to help the allies throughout the world? We are doing so. The whole country is doing so, magnificently. We have tried to help the soldiers. And I will tell you more

than that. I hear some people complaining about the province of Quebec. When they complain, do they take into account the number of men and women in my province who are working in war industries and in other industries connected with the war effort? Do they consider the number of fine boys who have enlisted-over 2,000 of them from my constituency - in the three branches of the service? They deserve a tribute, and we must help them. We must look after them, and try to improve their condition of living and of health.
What has been done with regard to venereal disease in the army? In the United States many of the papers refer quite frequently to this plague. I have a copy of PM which refers to what is being done in connection with syphilis and gonorrhoea in the United States. Last year that country, under President Roosevelt, that great citizen whom we all admire, spent $8,000,000 to prevent these diseases; this year they are spending $15,000,000. What are we doing? Last year Canada spent only $50,000, and $165,000 for contraceptives to be given to the army.
I hate to say that, but it is the truth. It is a scandal. Our boys should be protected against those who have these diseases. Our boys should be looked after. When a Frenchspeaking boy is placed among English-speaking soldiers, quite often he is miserable because he cannot speak that language. Such boys should be looked after. I believe that good food is bought, but is it well prepared? Are they well looked after? That is a great concern in many homes.
In conclusion, I have only one word to say. I have spoken at some length about the rules of the house because that is an important matter. The day we do not have free speech in this house, that day we might just as well stop and close up parliament. We are not here to create trouble for the government or to show any rancour in connection with any minister. That is much beneath us. We are here to serve our country to the best of our ability and to see that this country is not disrupted when peace comes. What kind of peace shall we have after the war? The aftermath of the war will be just what the present is. If we have no order now, what order can we expect to have after the war? When a member of parliament makes a recommendation to the government in that connection he should be listened to; the government should take note of what is said.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, a few moments ago when Your Honour was momentarily absent from the chamber the hon.

The Address-Mr. Nicholson
member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) used with respect to myself certain language which, to say the least, was abusive, if not insulting. At the time I raised a question of privilege and asked that the statement be withdrawn and expunged from the record, but the hon. gentleman who was temporarily in the Chair did not see fit to deal with the incident. I am asking if Your Honour will be good enough to get the record of Hansard over the dinner recess and read for yourself what was said, and that what I requested should be done. I ask Your Honour to give a proper ruling because I have no intention of sitting in this house and being abused by the hon. member for Temiscouata.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, I deny flatly what has been said. I never abused the hon. member. He suffers from the mania of persecution.


Thomas Vien: I shall look at Hansard over the dinner recess.


Mr. A. M. NICHOLSON (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, in rising at this time to support the amendment and the amendment to the amendment, may I say that any citizen in Canada cannot fail to be proud of the part that we are playing in the present crisis. Like the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNieol) I have had the good fortune to be able to travel a good deal during the recess. I should like to pause at this stage to thank the hon. member for the valuable public service he performs each year by travelling extensively and then giving the house and the country the benefit of his observations. I appreciate particularly the reference he made yesterday to the Saskatchewan river and hope that some day a government of this country will carry into effect the constructive proposals made by the hon. member.
I visited all the provinces of Canada during the recess and was able to acquire first-hand information regarding our achievements in man}7 fields of activity. The hon. members who moved and seconded the motion told us of the achievements of the army. The comments which have been made in the house indicate that these expressions have been valued by all hon. members. I have seen the development which has taken place across the country in our air force, and I have never ceased marvelling that a country with such a small population should in such a short time have been able to build up these training centres and train so many of our young men and our young women. While I was in Charlottetown I visited the home of an instructor in the air force, and while looking through his wife's scrap book I came across a citation
which he treated in a most casual way. It read as follows:
Promotion to the rank of pilot officer came to Flight Sergeant Mullen soon after the award of the D.F.M., the citation for which said: "Since September, 1941, Flight Sergeant Mullen has completed over 30 operational flights of which 25 have been completed at night. Disregarding danger he has pressed home his attacks against enemy ships at mast head height in face of heavy anti-aircraft fire from the vessels and shore batteries. The success he has achieved has been gained by his undaunted keenness."
Here was a young lad just out of his teens when he joined the air force, who had been a clerk in a bank in a small western town but who had trained himself in a short time to perform this spectacular work, yet was still alive to have me read about it in his presence. I mention this incident because it is merely one of many that could be recorded of the heroism of our young men who have done such remarkable work.
Likewise the achievements of the navy must bring pride to the minister and to all those from coast to coast who have contributed to its success. At an eastern port I found myself in conversation with a very young master of a boat. When I remarked on his youth he replied that he was much older than he seemed to be, that he would soon be twenty-five. When we think of young men who, until a few years ago, had never seen a body of water larger than a slough and realize that they are now sailing the seven seas and keeping open our channels of communication-, surely we must take pride in the Canadian navy.
I visited a number of munition industries, and here again the accomplishments in production will provide a most interesting chapter in Canada's war history. At one large factory I saw PBY's being made. When you stop to reflect that the cost of the labour and material going into one of these machines is greater than the value of the automobiles owned by all the members of this house you get some idea of the work that is being undertaken to carry out our commitments.
AYhile our achievements have been worth while, the question we should ask is not, what have we done but rather, have we done our best? When we compare our effort with what our allies in Great Britain and Russia and China have been doing we cannot be satisfied with Canadian accomplishments to date, and therefore when the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) moved his amendment regretting that his excellency's advisers had failed to provide an adequate plan for the effective use of Canadian man-power and woman-power 1 think he was dealing with something that

The Address-Mr. Nicholson
is quite fundamental. Even though we have been at war for over three years, we still have not a comprehensive plan which will permit every person in this country to make his maximum contribution to the war effort and permit every industry to be employed in the manufacture of goods essential for our wrar needs and civilian consumption. We have large numbers of men in the army, in the air force, in the navy and in war industries. I am not saying that we have too many in any of these services, but I am saying that we have not yet had a comprehensive plan showing how many a nation of eleven millions can have in the army, the navy, the air force and munitions industries and at the same time have produced on the farms, the forests and the mines all those commodities which are equally necessary in carrying the war to a successful conclusion. Consequently I think that even at this very late date the government should announce a complete over-all plan which will make clear how many men we can afford to have in these important services.
The amendment makes reference to the failure of the government to evolve a satisfactory labour policy. I shall not deal with that because my colleagues can deal with it more adequately than I can. I merely want to say that as I have travelled and spoken to people in industry I have been unable to find that spirit of enthusiasm for the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) that I have found for the work of the Ministers of National Defence.
Paragraph (c) of the amendment deplores the failure of the government:
To provide adequate measures whereby Canadian agriculture can make its maximum war contribution and receive a fair share of the national income.
We in this group have insisted ever since the war started that the production of food is a war industry. The time will come when large supplies of food will be a very important weapon in winning friends for us among the peoples of the occupied countries. The time will also come when, if present policies are not changed, shortages of essential foods in Canada and among our allies will have a serious effect upon our own morale and upon theirs. It has been necessary to ration butter, and I am not complaining about the amount of butter that is allowed. I understand that the men of the armed forces are to have less meat in the future, and I assume that the Canadian people could consume less meat without any serious effects upon our health; but if the situation grows as much worse in the next year as it has done in the last, we

shall be confronted with serious domestic problems. It does not matter where you go in Canada, whether you speak to a farmer in Prince Edward Island or in British Columbia,
. you will hear dissatisfaction expressed with the agricultural policy carried out by this government. Recently I received a marked copy of the Prairie Messenger, of Muenster, Saskatchewan. It is a Catholic family paper published by the Fathers of St. Peter's at Muenster. This paper could not be accused of trying to embarrass the federal administration. In a leading editorial dealing with the farm labour shortage it quotes the statement made by former President Hoover of the United States on January 21 of this year:
We place agriculture in the first rank of the war effort alongside tanks and planes . . . the fate of the war may depend, upon the farmer.
. . . The place of the capable farmer is the farm if he is to contribute his maximum to the war effort.
The editorial goes on to refer to the resignation of R. H. Milliken, K.C., who was appointed special agricultural representative of the national war services board at Regina. After being in office for only two months, he threw up his hands in despair. In one week he had a thousand requests for help, indicating the wide dissatisfaction with this government's policy in Saskatchewan. The speech made by the hon. member for The Battlefords (Mr. Gregory) the other evening and speeches made by members on the government side of the house indicate that the criticisms of the government's agricultural policy are not limited to opponents of the administration.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Thomas Vien: During the dinner hour I have read over the speech of the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), and particularly those passages against which the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) protested. The hon. member for Temiscouata spoke as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the former leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) to keep quiet. I will not listen to any interruptions. I had enough trouble when he was leader of the opposition without having him start again when there is another gentleman occupying that seat.
Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury): On a question of privilege, I do not intend-
Mr. Pouliot: Then let him git down. I will be rough.
The acting Speaker (Mr. McCann): Order.

The Address-Speaker's Ruling
Mr. Pouliot: I have been disturbed enough by him in former days and I will not stand for it now.
Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury): On a question of privilege, I made no observation-
Mr. Pouliot: He groaned.
Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury): 

but I did make a remark in an undertone. If I had done a great deal worse than that it would have been appropriate, but all I was doing was making a remark in a low undertone.
Mr. Pouliot: He is wasting my time. He has no reason to do that.
Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury): I do not intend to have the hon. member for Temiseouata abuse me or make derogatory remarks about me and I ask that that be withdrawn. I would ask Your Honour so to rule.
Mr. Pouliot: Well, that having been said, I will come to the great tribute that was paid by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to the former leader of the opposition. I wish the hon. member for York-Sunbury a long life. I hope he will live to be a centenarian, but when he dies I hope he will put a clause in his will that Hansard containing the remarks of the Prime Minister about him be put in his coffin. Such things must be kept even in the other world. I know that several supporters of the government were very jealous when they either heard those remarks or read them.
In the next reference to the incident the hon. member for Temiseouata said:
Let me show what ignorance or disregard for the rules may bring about. For a time, when the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen was leader of the opposition; he was represented in this house by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson), and I take this opportunity to tell the present leader of the opposition never to pay any attention to any advice given to him by that hon. gentleman.
The hon. member for Temiseouata said further:
It will be amusing to see the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group voting with the official Progressive Tory opposition, and it will be very amusing to see my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, his antediluvian predecessor and all others, vote for the following subamendment, for it is in the light of this situation that the subamendment must be read.
I was absent from the Chair for ten minutes during which this incident occurred and therefore I cannot deal with the attitude or the demeanour of the speaker, which may have accentuated and made his remarks offensive to the hon. member for York-Sunbury. I wish to protect as jealously as I can the right of every hon. member from insult and therefore have scrupulously examined and have read every sentence uttered by the hon. member for Temiseouata, referring to the hon. member for York-Sunbury. I must say that from the printed record, apart altogether from the question of taste, of which every hon. member must be his own judge, there is nothing said by the hon. member for Temiseouata which I could consider unparliamentary.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Very early in the present war the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) outlined a policy which, for this country, was quite revolutionary, when he suggested that whatever might be physically possible would be made financially possible. That policy was repeated by the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) when he was Minister of Finance, and the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) has also indicated it as his policy. It seems to me that, as far as the Department of National Defence and the Department of Munitions and Supply are concerned, this policy has been earned out, but as far as the Department of Agriculture is concerned it would appear that we are proceeding on the assumption that what is physically possible is not to be made financially possible. Members who have spoken in the house, from all the provinces of Canada, have repeatedly expressed the opinion that our farmers are not receiving' a fair share of the national income. I was interested in hearing the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) the other day. I recall that when he spoke in 1940, after his return from the old country, he made a prophecy which would leave us at the end of 1945 with a shortage of fifty million bushels of wheat. The minister has not been using statistics extensively since then, but on Tuesday last he did give us some figures to create the impression that, after all, the farmers of the country are not in a very bad position. 1 have before me the most recent statistics with regard to prices and price indices for December, 1942, and I find that if we take 1926 as the base, at the end of December, 1942, farm commodities are still at 87 per cent of what they were in 1926, and if we assume that there were fair prices 'in that year, farm commodities are still below what a fair price should be. It is true that prices for animal products are up at 117, but let me remind the house that a year ago, at the end of December, animal products stood at 100 and field products at 59, the average being 74-6, and in December, 1940, field products stood at 52 and animal products at 91, the total being 67-1.
The farmers of Canada do not desire from this government or the people of Great Britain prices out of line with those of other commodities, but they are asking for a fair share of the national income. When the victory loan campaign was organized about a year ago the Minister of Finance asked the people of Saskatchewan to raise $8,000,000 as their part of that national effort, and at the same time he asked the residents of Toronto to raise $180,000,000; or, on a per capita basis,

The Address-Mr. Nicholson
he wanted S10 per person from the citizens of Saskatchewan, and S273 per person from the residents of Toronto. That wide divergence gives some indication of the .low standards of living that have been forced on a large section of Canada.
I can understand that the members of the cabinet have to meet in council and decide how our national income is to be used, and I know the Ministers of National Defence and the Minister of Munitions and Supply are able to go to council and tell of pressing needs. It would seem to me that when the Minister of Munitions and Supply wants 820,000,000 to build a new factory, there is no question about a price ceiling or what will happen as a result of giving more wages to more people. When the Minister of National Defence, or the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services, or the Minister of National Defence for Air wants any large amount of money, it seems that these sums are available. Although the Minister of Agriculture does not represent such a spectacular group, he does represent over 700,000 families across the dominion. I wish that the Minister of Agriculture would enter the council and put up as good a fight for those he should represent as the other members apparently do.
Grant Dexter, writing in the Winnipeg Free Press on February S, gave an outline showing why there is a good deal of dissatisfaction with the government's man-power policy. He records the fate of ever}' hundred calls sent out by the national selective service board. Apparently eleven of those to whom notices were sent never received them. Twenty-eight of those who did receive them paid no attention to the calls. Fifty-nine turned up for medical inspection, and of those fifty-nine, twenty-five were placed in category "A"; sixteen received postponements, nine for agriculture and seven for industry; fourteen reported to military camps, of whom three were latei sent home, leaving eleven available for home defence. The complaints that have been coming from all parts of Saskatchewan indicate that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction with the gqvernment's handling of the manpower situation, particularly as it affects agriculture.
I must press on to the amendment moved by the leader of this group (Mr. Coldwell):
. . . we regret that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to take the necessary action to achieve a total war effort by neglecting to apply the powers contained in the National Resources Mobilization Act to war industries and financial institutions in the same manner as they are being applied to the mobilization of man-power for military service.
I am sorry I have not time to develop this very important clause fully. I shall have to

confine my remarks to a single industry which I think should be mobilized at the earliest possible date. I am very glad that the hon. member for Wellington North (Mr. Blair) has achieved a good deal of publicity in Ontario by advocating what the members of our group advocate, namely, that the government should immediately take over the brewing industry as a war industry. Possibly hon members will be surprised to hear this industry mentioned as an essential war industry. I have received a marked copy of the Evening-Times-Globe, of Saint John, New Brunswick, dated February 8, containing a report of a speech made in that city by the Rev. Doctor J. R. Mutchmor of the board of evangelism and social service of the United church of Canada, in which speech he stated that he was not opposed to the shipment of beer to the British forces in Africa. I should like to state again that I am not opposed to the men of his majesty's army having available to them beer and other liquors when and where they want them. But I do think that the policy of shipping this material and of deciding how much should be made available should be decided by the responsible members of this government. The press report reads in part as follows:
... I am unalterably opposed to the wasteful use of shipping space for the transportation of upper Canadian beer.
Doctor Mutchmor stated that, "the federal Minister of Trade and Commerce says the British war department has ordered the beer. I claim that it is a manipulation and duplicity; that by having it ordered by Whitehall it is chargeable to Britain's credit fund in Canada; it classifies beer as a tool of war, making possible a ninety-nine per cent rebate in customs and excise taxes to brewers on all supplies, such as bottles, brought in from the United States, and enables brewers to charge depreciation and partly escape excess profits taxes."
Dr. Mutchmor declared that "it is a brewers' racket."
*
He said that "as far as can be determined the monthly shipments from November 1941 onward have been at the rate of from 600,000 to 800,000 dozen bottles per month."
"From a conservative estimate it appears that the total quantity of Canadian beer exported to British forces in the Middle East and Egypt has been an amount sufficient to fill a train of box cars 250 to 300 miles long."
I ask hon. members to picture a railway train with an engine in the city of Quebec and its caboose in Ottawa and the entire train, extending from this city to the ancient capital, filled with cases of beer en route to the middle east; or to think of a train coming from the west with its engine in Ontario and its caboose in Saskatchewan, and every mile of the mainline of the Canadian Pacific railway filled with box cars loaded to capacity

The Address-Mr. Nicholson
with beer en route to the middle east. We heard the Minister of Munitions and Supply state this afternoon that submarine losses have been alarming. Apparently, however, we have been able to find space for these very large shipments.
Doctor Mutchmor went on to state that his information is that there is plenty of beer in South Africa, and that beer for the troops could have been supplied from South Africa with a saving of fourteen thousand miles of carriage. He also said that the beer would have been available in Great Britain.


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: Pardon me; I think the hon. member just made the statement that Canada found space for this beer. That is not correct.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Well, my information is that the beer went from Canada, and I have in my hand a statement of Doctor Mutchmor's to the effect that he had two long interviews with the minister who has just interrupted me, and that the minister did not deny that to date sufficient Canadian beer has been sent to the British forces in the middle east to fill a freight train over three hundred miles long, and Doctor Mutchmor asked three questions to which so far there has been no reply:
1.	If beer must be had from North America, why not ship it from New Orleans, 3,000 miles closer than Toronto to Egypt and the near east?
2.	Why not ship it from Britain, where there is ample beer as reported in the London Economist August 22, 1942, issue?
3.	Better still, why not ship it from South Africa, 14,000 miles closer to Egypt and the middle east than Canadian shipping points mentioned? The London Times of September 25, page nine, reports one South African brewery with a net annual surplus for dividends of more than $1,500,000. This brewery has doubled its bottle-making plant at Talana. There are ample supplies of beer and bottles in South Africa.
I think the minister should take time during the present debate to make some reply to these questions which Doctor Mutchmor has asked.
When I discussed this important question on June 1 last, I made mention of the fact that E. P. Taylor, president of Canadian Breweries, Limited, had been for a considerable time a member of the British supply council. The paper published by Mr. E. P. Taylor, the New World, carried a picture of Sir Arthur Salter, Morris Wilson, E. P. Taylor and Mr. Jean Monnet, and in a statement, he said:
Whether it is an apple or a flying fortress, the British supply organizations endeavour to get these goods to the places most in need of assistance.
My information is that at a time when the beer made by Mr. Taylor's own company was on its way to the middle east, Mr. Taylor was a dollar-a-year man, or at the time this picture was taken he was in the United States as a member of the British supply council. I submit that for the sake of the morale of this country, if the limited space that is available is to be used for the shipment of beer to the middle east, the decision as to how much, if any, should not be made by anyone who is interested in the brewing business. Hon. members who have travelled in this province of Ontario will have been struck by the miles and miles of box cars of what I assume are essential war materials held up all along the way.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I must press on to another very important subject that I think has not received sufficient consideration up to the present. I refer to our post-war plans. There are too many people who say we have not the time or the energy now to give any thought' to the sort of world we shall have after this war. Our failure to clarify in our own minds the sort of society we want is having a detrimental effect on our war effort. Hon. members who heard the New Zealand minister to Washington, Hon. Walter Nash, who was the first minister of finance in the New Zealand labour government, were greatly taken with his story of what they have done in New Zealand. Mr. Nash directly tied up their social security legislation and their conduct of the war. He told us that they have been able to give more to the old people, more to the little children and better medical services to their citizens. He went on to say that no country in the world enjoys a standard of living as high as that of New Zealand, and that his people were fighting to preserve and maintain that standard, that they were determined that when this war was over, no one who had put on a uniform for his country would be worse off, that no one who remained at home would be better off, and that no corporation or individual would be permitted to profiteer. I believe that if this government would declare a policy of that sort, and really carry it out, we would be able to develop a great deal more enthusiasm among our people. Now is the time to make clear to those who are risking their very lives that, when the war is over, we shall do in peace time what we have done in war time, namely, carry out the policy that whatever is physically possible will be made financially possible.
During the course of this debate the leader of this group suggested that we should declare now our intention to spend at least $2,500,000,000 during each of the first two years following the war. Well, we have been
The Address-Mr. Nicholson

voting billions for so long that we probably have not taken time to visualize what we could do with those billions in peace time. I have prepared a little table showing what might be done. This is not an outline of what the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation will do; it is a calculation I have made, using
figures taken from the Canada Year Book, to demonstrate what we * could do with just half the annual amount suggested by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). I have selected what I think all members of this house will agree are socially desirable objectives. The table is as follows:
Estimated Costs of Some Social Services in Canada for One Year
Old age pensions	
Pensions for the blind	
Pensions to ex-servicemen	
Mothers' allowances
Children	
Every baby	
Education
Pupils enrolled in ordinary and technical day schools	
University students	
Hospitals
Bed capacity-public and private	
Medical care
Total population	
Dental care
Total population	
Farmers	
Houses	
No. affected		Estimated
(see Canada	Amount	annualYear Book	per unit	expenditure1942)	per year	in millions186,834	$ 900 00	168-16.208	900 00	5-597,145	900 00	87-466,952	300 00	20244,316	100 00	24-42,110.055	100 00	21149,356	500 00	24-762,964	1,000 00	62-911,505,898	10 00	11511,505.898	5 00	57-5734,000	300 00	220100,000	2,500 00	250 1,246-5
All the items I have outlined could be undertaken in any year at a cost of $1,246,500,000, or $3,500,000 less than half the amount the leader of this group suggested should be spent in a year's time. Some day the government of this country will have to decide whether we wish to balance our production and our consumption with a large army of unemployed, with slums, poverty and malnutrition, or with full employment, with our people working, with our industries producing at capacity and with the raw materials of the dominion being used in the interest of the people.
But some may say that will mean socialism. Well, people are not as badly frightened these days at the mention of socialism as they were some years ago. Before this session opened I was in the city of Montreal when the Prime Minister of this country and Mrs. Roosevelt took part in a very impressive meeting to raise money for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Many of us were at the Capitol theatre here in Ottawa on Sunday, and were impressed by those pictures which portrayed the remarkable heroism of the people of Russia who are fighting to preserve our freedom. His Excellency the Governor General stood while the national anthem

of Russia was being played. People now are coming to understand that those who are socialists do not want to divide everything once and for all. The wealth of the world is something that cannot be divided now and left that way. The wealth of the world is being produced and created every second, every minute. The socialist wants every individual to have the right to work, and everyone who does work to have a fair share of the wealth which is created as a result of their cooperative work.
We realize now that we are living in a cooperative world. Those of us who have been travelling during this severe winter have come to realize how dependent we are upon those section men on the railways who go out when it is twenty, thirty and forty below zero and keep the tracks in order. We have sympathized with the members of the train crews who have been compelled to go out in bitter cold weather to attend to hot-boxes. We consider that, when victory has been achieved, we must continue what we are doing now; that is, we must proceed on the assumption that the resources of this country should be used for an all-out war effort and must be used in the post-war period to give our people a total democracy. One of the best

The Address-Mrs. Casselman
books I have read in. the last year is "Last Train From Berlin", by Howard Smith, who was one of the reporters remaining in Berlin until a year ago last December. Smith gives an encouraging picture of recent developments in Germany. In one of his concluding chapters he suggests that if we want to win friends in the occupied countries; if we want to undermine Hitler, the democratic nations should immediately make some declaration of the sort of world they plan. Too many have said, "Wait until the war is over before considering the pattern of our future society". We of this group have felt that now is the time to declare our plan for the post-war period, in order that we may get the best out of the armed forces, those on our farms and in our industries.
Mrs. CORA T. CASSELMAN (Edmonton East): Mr. Speaker, may I, too, congratulate the mover (Mr. Harris) and the seconder (Mr. Halle) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne upon the excellence of their speeches? I should like also to express my deep appreciation of the men and women in our armed forces who are fighting for us at the present time. These members in uniform keep the armed forces vividly in our minds.	.
Many of the speeches following those of the mover and the seconder were of a very high order, reflecting much constructive thinking. It was a great privilege to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) setting out the policy of the Canadian government and people at this time. It was a privilege too, to hear the other leaders in the house, who are in the front rank of our legislators. Many hon. members from the west have set out our industrial and agricultural problems. I would mention particularly the hon. members for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gershaw), Swift Current (Mr. Graham) and Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) who have put before the house some of the things for which the people in the west are asking.
Of course the main business this year is the waging of the war, the raising and maintaining of our men and women in uniform, and supplying them with suitable armaments and foodstuffs. This is the problem which must come before anything else. We must bend our energies individually and collectively toward victory. Some hon. members have mentioned that a land army of women might be formed to help produce more foodstuffs. That may be a good idea. I am wondering if the present employment services could recruit women for work on the land. They know the local needs. Moreover, seasons vary from time to time, and the length of time the women would be needed
on the farms would also vary. I believe these employment services should work in close cooperation with provincial departments of agriculture, just as in the past few years the federal government has worked along that line in its effort to supply extra labour on farms. If women are asked to do the work, I know they will do it 100 per cent; because everything they have been asked to do, whether volunteer or paid service, they have attempted to do to the best of their ability. There can be no doubt about that.
I was glad to note that there is hope for some comprehensive scheme of social security and health insurance this session. There are many gaps in our present social insurance I should like to see filled in. I believe it was wise to refer the matter to a committee of the house rather than to bring down legislation at the beginning of the session, because the subject bristles with problems which will have to be met and solved before any system covering all of Canada can be accepted.
The question as to whether this is the time to proceed with such measures is one of importance. However, if we are to have measures ready for the post-war period we shall have to think of them now. At any rate, if we can arrange for some comprehensive system of social security, it shows how we mean to use victory.
We need organization for this task, and I believe the Rowell-Sirois commission of a few years ago showed how a scheme might be evolved. The dominion-provincial conference of January, 1941, failed to make use of that material. However, it is still there for study. I believe we all remember how guilty we felt during those dreadful years of the depression, when methods for the solution of the problem of massed unemployment proved unsuccessful Every humanitarian instinct now calls for some preparation for social security in the post-war period. Every national instinct calls for it, for Canada, like the other nations, needs men and women well nourished in body, mind and spirit. Those depression years cost us a great deal not only in human suffering but also in hard cash. I say that because attempts were made by every public body and by individuals, through taxation, to meet the difficulties.
For instance, at page 15 of book 2 the Rowell-Sirois report states:
In 1937 the total expenditures of all governments in Canada on social welfare, exclusive of education and war pensions and after-care exceeded $250,000,000. This was more than one-quarter of the total expenditures of all governments, dominion, provincial and municipal, on current account.

The Address-Mrs. Casselman
Two hundred and fifty million dollars-and was it enough? Did it do any lasting good either to the recipients of the relief, to the tax-payers or to the country? It seems to me that this is where our forethought might be used at this time, namely, in working out a comprehensive system of social security to try to prevent mass unemployment and a repetition of those dreadful years in the thirties.
The Beveridge report has given a new impetus to the consideration of these matters. It provides benefits for men, women and children, in practically all the untoward circumstances of life, at a flat rate of assistance, with a flat contribution. The United States social security act of 1935, which was amended a few years later, provides assistance on a percentage basis. Canada will have to consider which system it wishes to accept, and which one would be more suitable. It may be a matter of compromise, because conditions in Canada differ considerably from east to west.
These two reports, then-the Rowell-Sirois report, chapter 2 of book 2, and the Beveridge report, part 6-set out the background of social services, the why and the wherefore. They are well worth studying.
Let me read to the house briefly from the Beveridge report at page 163:
Income security, which is all that can be given by social insurance, is so inadequate a provision for human happiness, that to put it forward by itself as a sole or principal measure of reconstruction hardly seems worth doing. It should be accompanied by an announced determination to use the powers of the state to whatever extent may prove necessary to insure for all, not indeed absolute continuity of work, but a reasonable chance of productive employment.
That is a broad principle, and it seems to me that this government has been trying to do that, through some of the committees it has set up. In the early months of the war the cabinet committee on reconstruction and rehabilitation was formed, then the committee headed by Doctor James, and the excellent subcommittees were headed by most able men. Last year's parliamentary committee on reconstruction and rehabilitation will, I believe, be reconstituted this year. It has considered the broad principles of productive employment, and has gone into plans which will aid in preventing mass unemployment of the kind we had during the depression years. They are urging every government, municipal and provincial, and every industry to do what can be done to prepare to change from war production to peace-time production.
What the people want is a chance to work. What- shall we do when our present customer

who takes all our output, who is insatiable in his demands, who destroys everything he gets-what shall we do when war no longer buys our products? That is a question which will have to be answered. As was pointed out this afternoon in the excellent address of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell), that is something which has been in the minds of the cabinet. In carrying out their policy of wage and price ceilings they have had in mind to keep the value of money on a level keel. That is one of the broad principles which will have to be considered in order to prevent unemployment and to secure a livelihood for all. These committees will have an answer, and I hope they give the right answer, as to what our post-war production will go into, what projects and what development of our natural resources will be carried out.
Then again the Beveridge report in pages 154 to 158, has something interesting to say about children's allowances. Here the report discusses the background of the allowances given to children,. This is something that I have felt and urged should be incorporated in our unemployment insurance and in the benefits given to returned men. The size of the family should be taken into consideration when allowances are given. There are many who find that the everyday expenses of the larger family run into a great deal more money than those of the smaller family. Every mother who has planned for the table knows that.
To a large extent the state has taken over the primary education of children, and it seems to me that we ought to go a step further and do more for the physical wellbeing of the children of our land. We should look after their health. This might be done through health insurance, and also through housing conditions so that there will be the type of environment from which good citizenship comes. The dependents' allowance board is working along these lines. It will be remembered that in the beginning provision was made for only two children. I believe it was the intention not to enlist men with larger families, but this principle has been gradually broadened and now the size of the allowance is according to the need of the family.
Last fall dependents' boards of trustees were set up to look into special cases that needed assistance. This was an excellent arrangement. These local advisory boards know the needs of the district. If this legislation is administered with sympathy and forethought, the extra expenses of the soldiers' families will be met. But as in other boards,

The Address-Mrs. Casselman
if the personnel is not sufficiently intelligent and interested, the work will be unsatisfactory. Any legislation is ineffective if those who administer it are not intelligently anxious to make it work. This is something we might consider in connection with some of our present-day boards. If those who hear the appeals are not unduly biased, either in favour of the one who makes the appeal oi in favour of the taxpayer who foots the bill, then these dependents' boards of trustees should work well. These dependents do not ask for charity; they are claiming only what is their right-consideration for special needs. There would be fewer worries for those whose burdens no legislation can lighten if these boards worked sympathetically.
Another interesting point in the Beveridge report is the fact that he differentiates between the earned pay of the individual and the rate of benefit. It seems to me that the argument in favour of that is quite sound. He would not have the rate of pay such that there is no margin between what a man may earn and what he would get if he were idle. He puts no premium on idleness or laziness, which is often involved in such schemes. He provides a subsistence level, which to me seems quite low, but above that the individual is encouraged to save and to get more if possible for his other wants. I think most people will approve that principle. There are no people more indignant at the malingerers who draw pay without working than the workers themselves.
At page 166 of the report, Sir William Beveridge goes into the question of the standard of living. One paragraph reads as follows:	[DOT]
The social surveys showed not only what was the standard of living available to the community just before the war but also that it had risen rapidly in the past thirty or forty years. The recent London and York surveys were designed to provide comparisons with earlier studies. They yielded unquestionable proof of large and general progress. When the New Survey of London Life and Labour was made in 1929, the average workman in London could buy a third more of articles of consumption in return for labour of an hour's less duration per day than he could buy forty years before at the time of Charles Booth's original survey. The standard of living available to the work people of York in 1936 may be put over all at about 30 per cent higher than it was in 1899. This improvement of economic condition was reflected in improvement of physical conditions. In London, the crude death-rate fell from 18-6 per thousand in 1900 to 11-4 in 1935 and the infant mortality rate fell from 159 to 58 per thousand. In York the infant mortality rate fell from 161 per thousand in 1899 to 55 in 1936; in the same period nearly two inches was added to the height of school children and nearly five pounds 72537-23
to their weight. Growing prosperity and improving health are facts established for these towns not as general impressions but by scientific impartial investigations. What has been shown for these towns in detail applies to the country generally. The real wages of labour, what the wage-earner could buy with his earnings just before the present war, were in general about one-third higher than in 1900 for an hour less of work each day. What the wage-earner could buy when earning had been interrupted by sickness, accident or unemployment or had been ended by old age, had increased in even larger proportion, though still inadequately, by development of social insurance and allied services.
That period covered years of peace and years of war, years of prosperity and years of depression-1900-1936. It will be noticed that he states that the real wages had risen. There are some articles in the Toronto Saturday Night of January 9 and February 6 by Don Stairs dealing with this same question in the United States. He draws his information from such high sources as the Annalist, of July 26, 1935, and bases his conclusions on figures from the United States bureau of census, bureau of public roads and the United States department of agriculture, showing that the standard of living had risen in the United States. I tried to get comparable figures from our own bureau of statistics, but could find no comprehensive overall statement. I did, however, find this, that the wage rate in Canada in 1925 was 98-8, and the cost of living, 120-6; that is, the cost of living in 1925 was away above the wage rate. But in 1941 the wage rate was 118-9, and the cost of living, 111-7; that is, the cost of living was lower than the wage rate, which means that the worker could buy more with his money than he could previously. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) in his address this afternoon touched upon that and pointed out that the wage earner could buy twenty-seven per cent more with his wages to-day than he could in the years of the first great war. So that there has been an increase in the standard of living in the intervening years, and yet it has not been enough. There are still gaps. There are still a number of people who are living below the subsistence level, and I hope they will be covered by this new security legislation toward which we are moving.
I have touched on a few points on the Beveridge report, Mr. Speaker, because it seems to me that the better informed we are on the problems and difficulties which may arise even in the committee, the more likely are we to be able to overcome these difficulties.

The Address-Mrs. Casselman

(Translation) Mr. Speaker, I know that many difficulties of a constitutional and financial character crop up in connection with the drawing up of a social security plan, in view of the size and political structure of our country.
Our way of life is not the same in the east as in the west; and the difference is even greater as between the various provinces, but we are united in our common resolve to reach a common aim, which is to achieve security and material prosperity for all our citizens.
From the Atlantic to the Pacific, we are all Canadians and moreover we are Canadians first and axious to see our noble country freed forever from the fear of destitution while enjoying that freedom for which our armed forces are now fighting.
(Text) If we are going to arrive at a comprehensive over-all system of social security, there will have to be some give-and-take across Canada, because the problem bristles with difficulties and it will not be easy to arrive at a solution. When the United States passed their act in 1935, which was amended later, they set up fifty-one different systems of social security, and the present chairman of their social security board is now advocating that they have a more uniform system. I refer hon. members to the Labor Information Bulletin of last October and the American Labor Legislation Review, where similar views are expressed. Mr. Altmeyer, chairman of the social security board of the United States, said in a broadcast on the American Forum of the Air, on January 17 of this year:
While I believe responsibility for the establishment and maintenance of a unified comprehensive system of social insurance should be centralized in the federal government, I believe that the actual administration of the system should be highly decentralized, with representative advisory committees and appeal councils in several states.
So that we have before us their experience to help us in setting up and administering our act.
I live in Alberta, and I know the mountains of Alberta. I know the mountain peaks are what we see, but we cannot see the depressions between those mountains. We in the democratic countries have pretty well arrived in our own minds at what the peaks of civilization and of freedom should be. But in between there are those depths which we want to fill, so as to make our civilization of as high an order as we can make it. We must also remember this, that no one country can do it alone. Think of the countries now under the nazi heel, of Norway, tolerant, democratic, freedom-loving Norway, which stood in the very forefront of civilization;

and think of Norway now in these last few years! We cannot do it alone, for any progress we might make in our own country could be swept aside by another holocaust of war. We must also think of how these things will be affected by the new international order that will be set up at the end of this war and in which Canada must play its part, because only under a stable international order could we count on having the time to work out our own progress and be assured that what we do is going to endure.


Mr. D. G. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, my first words must be those of congratulation to the mover (Mr. Harris) and the seconder (Mr. Halle) of the address. It was most appropriate that two members of the armed1 forces should have been chosen for that honour.
My next thought is to congratulate my new leader in the House of Commons, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon), upon the splendid manner in .which he discharged his onerous duty of replying on the address. I should also like to express my appreciation of the conscientious manner in which the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) carried on as leader of the opposition in spite of great difficulties, and of the high plane on which he conducted debate in this house and always endeavoured to raise its level.
Coming to the speech from the throne, I am sure that we were all inspired by the meeting of President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill at Casablanca, and now we know the result of their conference. One wonders where Mr. Churchill will be next. He is the dynamic spirit that has carried the allies through their struggles. I should like also to say a word in appreciation to the British people and our allies the United States, the Russians, the Chinese and all the smaller nations, for what they have done towards victory. It seems that now we are on the way to victory.
This afternoon the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) made a few remarks on which I would comment briefly. He pointed out that last year only 1,200,000 man hours were lost. I would ask him how many man hours have been lost this year, since the beginning of the year, through strikes. I estimate that we have lost already, in the steel strike alone, 1,200,000 man hours which should not have been lost, because there should not have been a strike. The trouble had been coming for such a long time that it should have been avoided if the government had taken courageous action in that regard.

The Address-Mr. Ross (St. Paul's)
My house leader has set out in a splendid manner the platform of the Progressive Conservative party as laid down in the convention at Winnipeg. I would remind the house that our party had a convention in 1927 at Winnipeg. There a platform was laid down which was progressive, and our party carried that platform into effect during their term of office. I might recite a few of the progressive features. There was the Natural Products Marketing Act, the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, the Bank of Canada Act, the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission Act, the Canadian Farm Loan Act extensions, the Canadian Fishermen's Loan Act, the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, the Act to Provide for Minimum Wages, the Act to Provide for Limitation of Hours for Work and a Weekly Day of Rest, the Dominion Housing Act, the Act to Provide for an Economic Council, and the Employment and Social Insurance Act.
It is true that some of this legislation was declared and improperly declared invalid, but there is no doubt that enabling legislation could have been obtained from the provinces in order to validate a good deal of it. The Liberal party and the government, however, with their laissez-faire method, did not raise a finger toward that end. The Employment and Social Security Act went a good deal farther than the Unemployment Insurance Act of to-day, and some of the ideas contained in that act are only now embodied in the speech from the throne.
I mention these things only to show the sincerity of our party, who have a habit of keeping their promises. May I point out that the word "Progressive" is not new in our party. In 1854 Sir John A. Macdonald, writing to Captain Strachan in the city of Toronto, said that he hoped the Conservative party would be broad enough to embrace all progressive Conservatives. Since confederation, practically all social legislation and great reforms have been put into effect or instigated by our party. As my leader pointed out, a part of our policy to-day has been embodied in the speech from the throne. It was amusing to hear the Prime Minister say the other day in the house that it has taken our party twenty-five years to catch up with his party, when last year, in the House of Commons, the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) said to his own party and to the government that this government never did anything unless it was forced to do so by the Conservative opposition.
The Liberal government has never given leadership; it has always followed with a policy of laissez-faire. In that regard I would
say a few words about the laissez-faire attitude of the Liberal party and the Liberal government with respect to old age pensions. I do not think anyone will disagree with me, or contradict me, when I say that Canada has treated in a disgraceful manner her old people who have passed their useful age. When one considers that they have been good citizens all their lives; when one considers that they have probably raised a family and, through no fault of their own, have been unable to provide for their old age and are now in the evening of life, it seems to me it is the right of these people to have some provision made for them. And what do they get? A dollar a day is the maximum they can obtain under the old age pension scheme, or $240 a year, and if they have more than $300, including pension, the pension is reduced, making a total of $300. It is a terrible thing for old people to have to live on a dollar a day or less, but not a finger is raised by the government to remedy this situation. Not only that, but if they happen to have a boy in the armed forces from whom they are getting a dependent's allowance, the old age pension is reduced by that amount, and all for the sake of a few paltry dollars.
It would take a long time to get legislation through the House of Commons to take care of this situation, and I say that the government ought to do it at the present time. It can be done under the War Measures Act. We should have some form of compulsory contributory old age pension scheme to which every one should contribute, from the dustman to the highest in the country, and everyone should accept the pension. Moreover, fancy having a means test for these old people and the investigation they have to face! It is degrading, and some remedy should be provided immediately. It took this opposition a long time to get the government to put into force some remedy for the condition of the widows and some benefits for the dependents of soldiers, and I suppose it will take a long time to get this put into effect.
With regard to the man-power problem, is man-power being used to the best advantage? In 1940 we had national registration, and as far as I know the only thing it has been used for has been call-ups. That registration would have been of great use if the questions asked had been more carefully thought out. "Can you milk a cow?" was one. Were they going to put all the people who could milk a cow into one category? The only thing that has been milked is the public; they have been milked for the cost of the plebiscite and of the national registration to the tune of some two and a half million dollars.

The Address-Mr. Ross (St. Paul's)
The government as far as its man-power policy is concerned is, after two years, back just where it was before. Some time ago they made a start; they got Mr. Little here, and what happened? He was forced to resign. Why? On account of lack of cooperation by the government. There was no man-power policy until he came. He established a good policy, but he was so trammelled and worried by the government that he was just forced out. The government did not have courage to back up the man they put in. We now have a new man, and I suppose there will be another policy.
The other day we received a copy of a letter-it was called an interpretative letter-sent out, I take it, for the guidance of the judges who were to judge what was to be done. The letter says that the agricultural worker is, of course, free to volunteer for active service. It goes on to say:
It is the intention of the regulations that agricultural workers are to be retained in agricultural employment as far as practical through the national selective service (civilian) regulations. To the extent that their services can be spared from the farms during the "off-crop" season they are to be encouraged to take temporary seasonal employment in lumbering and logging, forestry, fishing, coal and base metal mining.
Why are they allowed to go only into the primary industries? Some of them live near other industries which at times need casual help during the off season on the farms. Do they have to go away from their homes in order to go into these industries? Some of these farmers have a trade; can they not work at their trade? Then again, why should they be allowed to volunteer for active service if they are essential to an agricultural job? To my mind, the outstanding factor in determining whether or not they should volunteer is the essentiality of the man to the job, not whether it is an essential job. If they are essential to the job they should not be allowed to volunteer. On the other hand, some recognition of this should be given to them so that there would be no stigma on their name after the war for not having enlisted for active service. The same thing applies in other industries.
I should like to cite a case; no doubt there are many others.. A young man, married, was sent over to England in 1940; he was one of several others specially picked. They were chemists and were sent over by the government of Canada to learn a specialized industry which was to start up in Canada. They came back and were placed in jobs. One man was placed in charge of a very special job. But he was unhappy in his job. He was an

essential man in the industry, but he was unhappy because his friends had enlisted in the army. For that reason and as a duty he volunteered for the army. He was afraid that after the war there would be a stigma on his name because he had not served overseas. That man is not doing the job in the army as he could do a job in essential industry in Canada at the present time. There should be some way of preventing such things as that. There are many square pegs in round holes, men who have been taken from industry and agriculture and put into the army. Something should be done to take care of that situation. Unless something is done, agriculture will in very truth become what the Prime Minister called it in his radio address, namely a war casualty. Just think of the Prime Minister of Canada calling agriculture a war casualty!
The government have fooled around with this man-power business long enough; they should get busy and lay down some policy. Labour in many instances is not being economically or efficiently employed. At times men in factories are working only half-time, although they are at the factory all the time. The employers are wondering how to keep them busy while certain changes are being made. I know it is hard to get men back if they are laid off; but we do not want to lay them off; there should be some system, some pooling arrangement whereby those men could be placed on some other job where they could be useful in the meantime. Some planning ought to be done in that regard.
Our young men have responded nobly to the call of duty. I just want to remind hon. members of the situation a few years ago when some of the finest young men in Canada, called transient unemployed, were riding the rods during the depression trying to find work, but nothing was done for them. In fact, one hon. gentleman in this house, who was sitting on the other side at that time, spoke of them in not very nice terms, calling them spineless, pap-fed saps. What are those spineless pap-fed saps doing now? They are in the army, the navy, the air force, fighting the battles of our country in spite of the way in which they were treated during the depression. We must never let such a situation occur again in this country.
I have before me some figures with regard to the call-up. Under the National Resources Mobilization Act the army asked for 150,309 home defence conscripts covering the call-up operations for 1941-42. There were 750,611 notices sent out, of which 87,465 were not delivered. This left 663,146, out of which

The Address-Mr. Ross (St. Paul's)
number there were 216,791 from whom nothing was heard. They either had enlisted or died or been killed or dodged the draft. This left 446,355. Of these, 189,491 were in category A, leaving 256,864. Of these 120,610 obtained postponement, and I do not know what happened to the remaining 136,254.
These figures are interesting, but they do not jibe with the next figures. Notices to report for military service were then sent to 173,525 men; why, I do not know. Of these notices, 9,345 were not delivered, leaving 164,ISO. Of these, 32,826 vanished, I do not know where, leaving 131,354 to report at the training centres. Of these, 23,676 were found unfit, so that in all the army got 107,678 instead of the 150,309 they wanted. Mr. Grant Dexter summed it up in the Free Press in this way: Out of every 100 notices there were 11 not delivered, 28 never heard from, 59 turned up for medical inspection, 28 in category A, 16 postponements-9 agriculture and 7 industry-and 14 reported to camp. Three were unfit, and the army got 11 out of 100.
If that is not muddling along, I do not know what is. Why should we have such a ridiculous situation? Why should we send out 750,000 notices and find that 216,790 were never heard from, with apparently no one knowing where they are? If we do not know where they are, why not? But while this call-up was going on, there were thousands of other young men-good men, too-who volunteered for service anywhere in the world. Some of these men were vitally needed for our home production, in coal mines, toolmaking, as scientists and so on. Many of these men were essential to industry. There is a waste of effort; there is a lack of planning all the way through. Here are the three branches competing among themselves for men, with no cooperation whatever. The armed forces, industry and agriculture all want men, and they are given no direction at all.
I have in my hand a copy of a memorandum prepared at the beginning fo the war by General McNaughton concerning the supply of skilled men and tradsemen to the armed forces and to industry, from which I should like to read one paragraph.
Under a system of voluntary service in the armed forces there is a probability, having regard to the character of the Canadian people, that many men with the highest qualifications of all sorts will seek active service. The problem of ensuring that industry is not deprived unduly of the skilled engineers, mechanics, etc., on whom the rapid expansion of production depends by reason of their enlistment in or appointment to commissions in the armed forces, is thus prevented.
Some trades are vital, others are less important, and others again can be dispensed with under conditions of national emergency; hence a list of "reserved occupations" is needed.
Some industries are important to or for the production of munitions; others for the maintenance of vital services to the civil community; others again which are active in peace are of little importance in war. In consequence, a list of "essential industries" is required.
Where is the list of essential industries? Has it ever been prepared? General McNaughton says what I have also mentioned previously:
. . . having regard to the character of the Canadian people, that many men with the highest qualifications of all sorts will seek active service.
Many have done so, and many of them should be in essential industries in Canada. This memorandum goes on to point out how this question of national selective service should be worked out. Have these suggestions ever been followed by the Department of Labour? Judging by the results, I would say they never have.
That is all I have to say with regard to the man-power muddle, and now I should like to say just a few words with regard to the work of this session of parliament. We in this house have been accused of wasting time and of repetition, and of neglect in passing the estimates. I think last year it was said that we passed $36,000,000 through the house in thirty-six minutes. I would say that this is not the fault of the opposition; it is the fault of the government of the day. At the present time there is no proposed legislation on the order paper outside the $1,000 million resolution. Why should the proposed legislation not be there, so that members of the house may study it and become familiar with it, in order that they may know what they are talking about when it comes up? We shall have the war appropriation bills in a short time; and if we do as we did last year, almost every hon. member will want to speak half a dozen times or more on the same thing. Why could we not have the war appropriation bill set out in some orderly fashion, something like the estimates, so that the discussion might be carried on in an orderly way? By that means a great deal of repetition would be avoided. If we have a reasonable breakdown of the expenditures, which we are entitled to; if we are 'Shown how the money was expended by the various departments, a great deal of the time of the house will be saved and we shall have the whole story.
Much more information should be given this house. We want to know what is going

The Address-Mr. Ross (St. Paul's)
on. But when we ask for information it is always the same old story; we are told that it is not in the public interest, or that it will give information to the enemy. Well, I have before me a report to the 78th congress of the United States on lease-lend operations, published by Edward R. Stettinius, Junior, lease-lend administrator of the United States. I will not take time to read it all, but there are one or two paragraphs which may be of interest.	He mentions some planes, some
medium tanks, some anti-tank guns and so on sent to Egypt and then, in connection with the north African campaign, goes on to say that Great Britain provided two-thirds of the warships and transports employed in the original landing operation. Does that give information to the enemy? The report states:
Sixty per cent of the ground forces were American and the air forces were equally divided. Of the landing craft employed most were American-built. Some had been lend-leased to Britain and were manned by British crews. United States fighter squadrons, on the other hand, flew 160 Spitfires provided by Great Britain under reciprocal aid.
Then it goes on to say:
Supplies lend-leased by Britain to our armed forces included such items as 100 miles of portable air-field runways, more than half a million anti-tank mines and grenades, 130 reconnaissance boats, four complete 1,000-bed field hospitals, and medical supplies for 100,000 men.
It tells also, by tables, where these articles went. Then again at page 50 there is further information about the material supplied. Does it. give information to the enemy? Or is it "not in the public interest"? It is certainly in the public interest. The public are paying the shot, and the public are entitled to know what they are getting for their money. That is what I think about the matter. There is no reason in the world why we should not have much fuller information before the House of Commons. We are always told it is "not in the public interest".
Moreover, too many statutes are altered by order in council when the house is in session. There is no reason in the world why a report should not be made to the house. After all, we are responsible for the discussion of the rights and wrongs arising when the laws are made. Then, too many regulations are put through without reference to the House of Commons, but while it is in session.
Not only that, but we are supposed to come here and sit for six or seven months, as we did last year, when, I suggest, it would have been far better if we had come for a month, returned home for a month, come back for another month, and then returned home. When

we did arrive, much of the work was not ready for us. Had we had an opportunity to return to our homes, we might have discussed some of the measures in our constituencies.
Then, I have in mind the question of the rationing of butter. We were told by the administrator that there was no chance of butter rationing; yet, two months later, butter is rationed. Had the House of Commons been sitting, the administrator would have had the advice of the members, coming as they do from various parts of the country-members who know what they are talking about. Greater information would have been available, and the whole matter would not have been left to the administrator. There are many other matters which might be discussed by members of the house, either in the house or in committee, before regulations are put into effect.
After all, members of the House of Commons are responsible to the people, while the administrators are not. If more opportunity were given to members to discuss matters in the house we might go a long way toward getting rid of much of the dissatisfaction and discontent that exist. Parliament in Canada must be kept supreme. We do not want dictatorship, although we have almost a dictatorship now. We are not consulted about most action taken.
I now come to the matter of questions asked on the orders of the day. This afternoon the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) undertook to lecture my leader when he asked questions. Is there any reason why we should not follow the practice in the British House of Commons, and have a question hour? Could we not have a similar period? We may put questions on the order paper, and the answers will appear in Hansard or in Votes and Proceedings. On a great many occasions questions of great importance are answered very briefly, or by indicating that an order for return will be tabled. Perhaps the lapse of time between the appearance of the question on the order paper and the tabling of the order for return may have the effect of losing any advantage there may be in the answer given.
After all, members of the House of Commons are entitled to know what is happening, and the only way whereby they can get information is by asking questions across the floor of the house. There are just as good reasons why hon. members should receive verbal answers to questions as there are against the reading of speeches. There is no reason why we could not have a question hour during which time public matters could be discussed across the floor of the house.

The Address-Mr. Marshall
Our first concern to-day must be for our own self-preservation, the winning of the war. Coupled with that aim is our obligation to see to it that those nations of Europe which are now occupied are freed. It is our obligation to see to it that there is a return of rule and order in the world. In that connection we are anxious to know something about our armed forces. Are our armed forces as efficient as they could be? Have we sufficient reinforcements? What about our auxiliary services? Are those in command of our armed forces the very best we can obtain? We as members of the House of Commons want to know this. Are our weapons the best? Is our equipment the best available, and in sufficient quantities?
We hear rumours and criticisms, and we are entitled to know the truth. No doubt, a little later in the session an opportunity will be given for the discussion of these matters. However, we want these questions answered more fully, and we do not want to hear that it is "not in the public interest" to answer them, or that by answering we would be "giving information to the enemy." The war is not yet won. Probably we are on the top of the hill, and the strength of the allies is probably equal to that of the axis powers. We must not be turned aside from complete and ultimate victory by any premature proposals of peace. Let us not be led astray by any such proposals. Victory and lasting peace can come only when the axis powers are swept from the seas, from the skies and from the territories they now occupy.
The war is our first concern, but we must not overlook the post-war period. Free enterprise must formulate plans against mass deprivation of work. Actual plans must be laid and ready. We cannot allow our forces to be discharged until there is work for them to do; we cannot permit dismissal of those who are now working in munitions factories until they are supplied with other jobs-even if we have to throw into the lake the munitions they may have to make.
Free enterprise must plan. Unless we put our economic and industrial house in order, constructively, the demagogues and the rascals will step in; they will take over and move in. Every crackpot with a promise of $50 every fish day, every scoundrel with hate for humanity in his heart, will try to wrest power for himself and his faction. They will make their appeals to the war weary, the dispirited, the hungry and the jobless. They will offer them pie in the
sky, but quick, in exchange for their liberty and dignity. They will promise them jobs from a fuehrer and regular train service of a Duce if the workers will but surrender their freedom and independence. Reason and common sense will go by the board, and the process of evolution which has brought our nation to relative well-being will be wiped away.


Mr. J. A. MARSHALL (Camrose):: Mr. Speaker, before I proceed to a discussion of some of the questions referred to in the speech from the throne I desire to pay a tribute, not only on my own behalf but on behalf of the members of my group, to those gallant and heroic men who took part in the battle of Dieppe. Dieppe is one more glorious page in history written by Canadians, and it will ever rank in importance with those memorable battles which were fought and won by Canadians in the last war, the Somme, Ypres, Vimy Ridge, Passchendaele and Mons.
In the southern part of my constituency there is a thriving and prosperous town called Stettler. From this town and the adjacent countryside have gone forth many men and women to serve their country in every branch of the armed services. They are giving of their best in every theatre of war where Canadians are found to-day. Some of the men enlisted in the Calgary tank corps, but little did they realize that at some future date they would play a part in what may be looked upon as one of the most important engagements fought thus far in this war.
I recall how the people of that district received the first intimation that their sons had taken part in the Dieppe raid. I recall, too, quite vividly the day when the telegrams were coming in almost hourly, announcing the fate of some of these men on the bloodstained sands of that French shore. Men and women of that district went about their daily tasks dreading what the hour or day might bring forth. When the roll call was finally completed it was discovered that that district had, through its sons, played a leading part in the Dieppe raid. Some of them made the supreme sacrifice and others are languishing to-day in German prison camps.
I read with great care the tribute which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) paid in his speech to the men at Dieppe. It was a wonderful tribute, couched in masterly English as only a master of English could do. He spoke of their resource, their ingenuity, their bravery, their valour and their heroism. All these words struck a sympathetic chord in my own heart as no doubt they did in the heart of every hon. member of this house. But I
The Address-Mr. Marshall

must confess that I was deeply disappointed at the manner in which he closed his eulogy. While I am precluded from quoting the words he used because they were used in this debate in which we are now engaged, I shall endeavour to give their essence as best I can.
He said that he hoped that word would go out to the living among their numbers that the House of Commons, whatever difference there may be in its parties, was one in its thought for them and its determination to see that everything that was in its power to do would be done to help and support them. Such an indefinite promise as that will, I think, bring cold comfort to many aching hearts. Surely the Prime Minister of this country could be more definite and more specific when making a promise to these men. Never in the history of this country was there given to any man a greater opportunity to assure, not only the dependents of these men who gave their lives, but all men and all women who are fighting the battles of their countiy in all the armed forces that no matter what might happen to them, Canada would deal fairly with their dependents.
It is tragic to think that such an opportunity should be allowed to go unaccepted. As I contemplate the conditions which are likely to prevail in this country at the close of the present war, unless we change the system under which we are operating, I wonder what will be the fate of these men and these women and their dependents. Would it be too much to ask the Prime Minister not only to pledge himself as leader of the government but also to pledge his party and to pledge parliament and the Canadian people that the wives and the children, the fathers and the mothers of these men shall never know the meaning of the term "economic insecurity."	[DOT]
Rumours fly thick and fast that we are approaching a general election, and I suggest to the Prime Minister that he take unto himself and his party another plank, one which we have had in our platform ever since the war commenced, one which we still have there and one in which we still believe. It is this: "Economic security, with individual freedom for every Canadian citizen." I do not think that is incompatible with anything in the Liberal platform.
I should like to deal now with three important questions which are to be found in the speech from the throne, and in dealing with them I shall reverse the order in which they are to be found in Hansard. Those three questions are (1) the parliamentary assistants to be appointed to assist cabinet ministers whose duties have become particularly onerous
fMr. Marshall.]	.
because of commitments of war; (2) redistribution of representation in the House of Commons, and (3) social security measures for the whole of Canada.
Dealing with the first one, I am not convinced that any good purpose will be served by the appointment of secretaries to ministers of the crown. I realize, of course, that there are some ministers who perhaps would find themselves displaced by their secretaries within a very short time. There are in the cabinet to-day men who might be stunted or stultified by their secretaries. But I cannot find any man, or any woman for that matter, who would be able to fill the shoes of the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe). I think anybody would have difficulty in acting as understudy to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), or to the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) ; and although I do not agree entirely with the methods adopted by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), or the manner in which the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) deals with the problems of the farmers, I believe that the efforts of these men would be in some way constrained by the appointment of secretaries to them. We have been at war for three and a half years now, and if those departments which have to deal directly with the prosecution of the war have not yet been so organized as to give the ministers a great deal more freedom than they had1 at the beginning, then there must be something radically wrong. I find myself admiring particularly the Minister of Munitions and Supply, and wondering, as Oliver Goldsmith said of the Village Schoolmaster, how "one small head could carry all he knew." It would be a calamity if anyone were to try to act as understudy in the House of Commons to a man of that calibre.
I come now to the second question-and I can touch on these questions only briefly and superficially-redistribution of the representation in the House of Commons. Gerrymandering has been the sport of the major political parties ever since confederation, and I am quite satisfied that this practice will not be eliminated when redistribution of the present representation comes up in the house for final approval. I believe that the whole question which underlies the representation of the people of Canada in the Canadian House of Commons should be thoroughly gone into. Redistribution of representation has been the subject before a special committee in the British House of Commons, the Vivian committee I believe, and that committee has submitted its report to the British house. I have

The Address-Mr. Marshall
not seen a copy of the report, I have not read it, but I think it would bear careful study by the committee which the Prime Minister expects to set up at this session.
The war to some extent has caused a shift in the population of this country. Some parts of the west have been badly depopulated; people have moved from that section of the country to more highly industrialized centres in eastern Canada. That is a war problem.
It will remedy itself, I believe, at the close of hostilities, if not before hostilities end. For that reason I think this question of redistribution should be shelved for the duration of the war.
I come now to the most important question of all, that of social security measures. Here in this field of human activity and endeavour we find a welter of confusion-plans, plans and more plans. More plans have been advanced by different individuals and different organizations than a dog has fleas. When I spoke in this house last session I tried to emphasize one particular fact. I make no apology for bringing it up again at this session because it is very important. Plans presuppose objectives, and these objectives, so far as I am aware, have not yet been positively defined. Preachers, teachers, newspaper correspondents, university professors, orthodox economists and politicians have hinted at the shape of things to come. I have tried to crystallize in my own way the various ideas which these individuals have expressed from time to time. Here are the things which I think these learned gentlemen would like to impose upon us: (1) A return to the gold stapdard; (2) The establishment of an international police force; and (3) The complete destruction of British idealism, individualism and initiative, and the substitution of state autocracy.
I will admit that some planning is necessary; but as Major-General J. F. Fuller once said, "A planned world is a damned1 world, because, unlike the machine, man was not created on a drawing board." Since the war began we have set up controllers to control almost every commodity in Canada, and now we find it necessary to set up a controller to control the controllers. Likewise, in due process of time, I believe we shall have to set up a planner to plan the planners.
Already we have three committees operating in Canada, one under the chairmanship of Doctor Cyril James. They have taken a lot of time and spent a lot of money, and thus far we know little of what they have done. There is also the house committee set up last session which will be reconstituted this session. They have done little or nothing, and now we find there is a committee of the cabinet 72537-24	revised
I believe there are plans in existence today in Canada. When the time comes, these plans will be brought forward; but the blueprints from which the plans have been taken will be kept a closely guarded secret. I am suggesting that there are two probable sources from which these blue-prints (upon which the plans will be based) will emanate-one, from the blue-prints which have been made by the bank for international settlements. This may sound rather strange to many, but if hon. members want confirmation of this they will readily get it in the last report which was issued by this pro-axis and mysterious organization presided over by an American, the shares of which are controlled to a large extent by the axis powers. There is ample evidence that these blue-prints are at present in existence.
I wish now to make passing reference to the proposals of Sir William Beveridge. They are causing a vast amount of excitement, and enthusiasm as well, in the minds of the people.
You cannot hope to bribe or twist,
Thank God, the British Economist.
But seeing what the man will do,
Unbribed there's no occasion to.
What is one nation's Beveridge may be another nation's headache.
Who is this man Beveridge? It is necessary to know something about the man before one can appreciate, or otherwise, his proposals. "By their fruits ye shall know them". In January there appeared in the Edmonton Bulletin a long article dealing with the past history of this gentleman. It is not my intention to read it at length, but I want to read just a few lines:
He has been a one-man economic reformer in Britain since long before the war.
And here is the significant part:
He has had an important hand in every major piece of social legislation in the last forty years.
Social legislation which has caused grinding and punitive taxation, social legislation which has produced labour queues, the means test, idleness, want, disease, ignorance and squalor. Then again, to round out the picture, this man has long been closely associated with the London School of Economics. To some of us this fact has special significance. Professor J. H. Morgan, K.C., writing in the Quarterly Review for the year 1929 on the life of Lord Haldane said:
When I once asked Lord Haldane why he persuaded his friend Sir Ernest Cassel to settle by will large sums on the London School of Economics, be replied "our object is to make this institution a place to raise and train the bureaucracy of the future socialist state".



EDITION

[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Marshall
[Stage Direction]
Anyone who wishes to check me up will find the statement on pages 187-8. I commend that quotation to the earnest contemplation of hon. members of this house.
Three facts should be kept in mind in connection with this statement:	(1) Lord
Haldane said that Germany was his spiritual home; (2) Sir Ernest Cassel was the alter ego of Jacob Schiff of Kuhn, Loeb and Company of New York; (3) There is ample circumstantial evidence that this company, Kuhn, Loeb and Company of New York, financed Hitler during his rise to power and his subsequent operations. In these days of war and social upheaval we should be very careful of our approach to these post-war problems. Some people tell us that we should forget the past misdeeds of our public men, that the book should be closed and that we should open a new one. That, I contend, is wrong, because it is only by studying the mistakes of the past that we can go forward safely in the future. Certain individuals in this country and Great Britain have brought the British empire to the verge of destruction. Sir William Beveridge is one of them. I hope the day will come when these men, no matter who or where they are, will be ferreted out and will meet their just rewards.
Whatever the merits or demerits of the proposals of Sir William Beveridge may be- I am not discussing the proposals at the present time-there is no doubt in my mind that he has been responsible, indirectly perhaps, for many of the ills which have afflicted the people of Great Britain.
I want to make just two observations in connection with these proposals. First, there is no want in a workhouse or a gaol. Second, this plan is a plan for a servile state.
My time is almost exhausted. My constituency is an agricultural one, with problems which are common to all parts of Canada. I hope to discuss these problems at the proper time later in the session. I should like also to have had time to discuss the problems of the small businessmen, who are the backbone of our communities, the treatment that is being meted out to them at the present time and how they face disaster. Time, however, will not permit.
May I say, in closing, that I do not like the trend in this country toward centralization of power. I believe it was that trend which brought Germany to the point where she is to-day. I believe that unless some radical changes are made, they will at some future time mean the destruction of our own country. We should take heed now before it is too late.
Mr. W. H. MILLS (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, I hope I may add something to this debate that will be of assistance to the government, and not just repeat what has been said already. I believe our Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the members of his cabinet should have the cooperation of every member of this house in these trying times. There never was a period when a government had greater responsibility than is the situation at present, when it must bring in legislation that will bring about the greatest possible war effort, so that this conflict may be brought to a successful conclusion; for, if it is not, nothing matters. We must win this war, and that should be the first thought in the mind of each hon. member. We should forget politics; we should stop trying to play for a better position and put forth every effort toward winning the war.
I wish to direct my few remarks this evening to a subject which for some time past has had a great deal of publicity. I refer to the distribution of beef to civilians and to the armed forces, and the sale of beef cattle. In the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) I think we have one of the best ministers this country has ever had. Perhaps he has not been praised by all farmers from one end of the country to the other, but he has had a heavy role to play, and I think he has done more to be of assistance to the farmers of Canada than any of his predecessors. He is administering the one department of government that gives us legislation to control prices, the greatest legislation ever placed on our statute books. If this legislation had to be scrapped, however, I should be perfectly content to let everything stand as it is, for, while I believe that prices were frozen when prices of agricultural products had not reached equality with other prices, adjustments have been made from time to time so that there are few complaints to-day. I believe that further adjustments can be made and that everything will be satisfactory.
I should like to add a word of praise for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) who has as great a role to play as any man in this government. I think he will go down in history as the greatest Minister of Finance this country has ever had.
In the Ottawa Evening Citizen of Monday last I noticed four articles dealing with the beef situation. Up to that time I had no intention of taking part in this debate, for I believe it should be brought to a speedy conclusion so that we may get on with more

The Address-Mr. Mills
important business. I was, however, compelled to clip these articles. One was an editorial which states:
Packing company officials were reported the other day as suspecting that a black market in beef was being operated in the Ottawa district. Whether this is true or not, it is something to be guarded against if United States experience is to be avoided.
Washington is alarmed at the growth of the meat black market. According to Time price administration officials guess that 20 per cent of all live stock slaughtered in the country is going to black-marketers. In New York city alone, illegal meat sales total about $2,500,000 weekly. Cleveland reports that 40 per cent of its meat supply was being side-tracked to the black market.
It should be the firm resolve of meat purchasers as well as responsible government officials that no such situation shall develop in Canada. It would lead to chaos in the marketing of meat and to higher prices everywhere. It could lead to unwholesome meat being sold.
The "black market" process by which meat reaches retail stores is that wherein persons looking for quick profits offer farmers a higher price than the present ceiling on wholesale prices. The meat is killed and is then brought to the towns and cities. The retailers, harried by meat-hungry customers, buy the meat at higher prices and sell at an appropriate figure. And meat-hungry customers do not argue much over ceilings.
It is a difficult problem to deal with this traffic. Coffee and tea are easy. But meat is produced on thousands of farms and is slaughtered in hundreds of big and little abattoirs. The meat may be excellent, even inspected. But the price will be high. People should remember that there is a meat shortage and that the black market only makes the problem worse.
Another article, which I will not take time to read, states that an increase in price is to come into effect to-day, while still another article suggests that rationing of beef may commence about March 1. For the benefit of those who may not know a great deal about the slaughtering of beef cattle I should like to give an illustration, taking a 1,000-pound steer at ten cents a pound live weight. This would cost $100. A good average beef animal as sold on the market to-day will dress about 55 pounds to the hundred, some a little more and some a little less. At 17} cents a pound, which was the price when I made up this calculation, 550 pounds of beef would bring $97.65, and the extra 50 cents a hundred now being allowed would bring up that total to about $100. At the price of 171 cents, however, you would have to get $2.35 out of the hide to pay for the live animal. But instead of costing 10 cents it is costing up to 12 cents, so that at the ceiling price there will be a loss of $22.35 on every beef animal killed.
In Tuesday's Globe and Mail I noticed a report of the Toronto cattle market, in which it was shown that cattle were selling at from 72537-24i
11 to 12 cents a pound. I believe yesterday there were 55 steers sold in Toronto, according to the market report, at 12-25 cents a pound. So that at these prices, I am asking if there is anyone within my hearing who believes that these beef animals are not sold on a black market? What is the use of our kidding ourselves that we have not a black market right here in Ontario? There can be no doubt about that. My opinion is-and I do not know-that the government is perhaps subsidizing the abattoirs and that the private butchers are selling their beef at more money. There is no question about that; there is no other way to figure it.
What has made the handling of the cattle situation so unsatisfactory has been the frequent change in policy in the last year. The marketing of cattle, and the general beef situation are much different from the pork situation. At the outset of the war the Minister of Agriculture was able to go to England and negotiate a market for our bacon. As a result, there has been an increased demand. He has been able to tell the farmers what was wanted, and that we have an increased market. As far as I know, I have had no complaints whatsoever respecting the bacon and hog markets. But in the west end of my riding I have many beef cattle feeders, and I must say that at least for the last nine months the situation has been most unsatisfactory. This condition I believe arose from the fact that originally the outlet for our surplus beef cattle had been in the United States. That is the market the Prime Minister was able to negotiate within a very few weeks after his election in 1935. We have shipped to that market ever since quarterly quotas amounting to about 200,000 head. As I see it, the feeders had that to contend with. They did not wish to be cut off from that market. An attempt was made to buy our cattle, and to pay us a price equal to the United States price. That did not prove satisfactory. I might say I had a feeder say to me a short time ago, "Do you not think that our market ought to come equal to the United States market?" I said, "No; if it did it would blow the lid off the whole price control, and we would have things as they are in the United States." We do not want prices to go to the point they have reached there.
Perhaps I might explain by saying that I have a brother in Portland, Oregon. I hear from him frequently, and when he writes he usually encloses advertisements from local newspapers. Reading those advertisements, I see that a boy in that city driving a butcher wagon, a bread wagon or a laundry wagon

The Address-Mr. Mills
gets $50 a week. If the young men in their early teens in Canada were getting that much money we might be able to get more for our beef cattle-but it would do us no good. If there were no price control the hardware merchants would not know what to ask for manufactured products they have on their shelves. They would not know what replacement values would be.
Last summer cattle prices went up as high as 13J cents a pound. I do not think that was a good thing; it would have been better had they not reached that height. With that in view, however, the greater number of our feeders bought their cattle last summer at prices which do not permit their selling them on to-day's market, because if we had to stick to the ceiling to-day, the price to the farmer would not be over cents a pound.
I was in western Canada last fall when word came through to the effect that no more cattle were to be shipped to the United States market. One buyer at Maple Creek had orders next morning to cancel thirteen cars of feed1. I had purchased my cattle. They were loaded next day and shipped here. I imagine there never was a time that they could have been bought any cheaper, because there was a heavy demand to keep cattle in the west, there being no other outlet for grain. Cattle offered about the only way in which they could turn their grain into cash.
To satisfy the beef-cattle man in Canada I recommend that the price of dressed beef should be placed at 22 cents a pound.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is for carcases.


Wilson Henry Mills: Yes, carcases. Those cattle
would net the feeder about 12 cents a pound. That would satisfy feeders and, considering the prices they paid for their stockers last fall, they need that encouragement. If we take the minister's statement of yesterday to the effect that it takes eight pounds of grain to make one pound of beef, we find that it bears out my contention, because certainly grain is worth at least a cent and a half a pound. This would mean that it would take 12 cents worth of grain to make one pound of beef, to say nothing about the roughage and the labour required to take care of the cattle.
If this were done there would be orderly marketing. We see reports in the press that there are not as many cattle in the country. I know that many feeders are not feeding their cattle as heavily as they might, hoping to carry them along so as to get the high prices next spring. But have we any assurance that if too many cattle reach the market next spring we shall receive the ceiling? One

article in a newspaper states that it will reach a high figure on May 27, and that then the market will fluctuate according to supply and demand.
I visited my home over the last week-end, and while there I went to stables within ten miles of home, each with approximately forty highly finished cattle. They would average from 1,400 to 1,600 pounds. The owners would like to sell, but one man paid 10J cents a pound for his replacement cattle last fall and the other man paid about 11 cents a pound, and they do not feel like accepting 11-99 cents a pound. Twelve cents a pound would satisfy them. Those cattle would be out of the way, and they would be filling in to-day, when there is a shortage. They would not be coming on the market at a time when there is supposed to be a high price. There is a chance that next spring we may not be getting more than 10 cents a pound for our cattle, if too many reach the market. That may be the condition, unless the government steps in and exports to the other side-and I should hope that that would happen. I hope we shall never see cattle cheaper than they are to-day. If it were possible to get 12 cents a pound for finished cattle, I venture to say that there are ten carloads in the west end of the county of Elgin which would go to market next week.
I should like to say a word about farm help. Members of the opposition have been saying a good deal about farm help and have criticized what has been done, but they offer no solution. When I was going home last weekend I saw carloads, almost train-loads of soldiers. When I got to London, four carloads of soldiers changed there to take the electric cars to St. Thomas. Every one of those men looked as though he would make a good farm labourer. When so many men are taken out of industry, when they no longer play a part in this country's production programme, there is bound to be a shortage. When they come directly from the farm, it affects farm help.
I should like to say a word also about the treatment the farmers in military district No. 1, which is western Ontario, have received. They have been given every consideration, and no one could be more considerate than Mr. W. A. Martin who is administering that district. I do not know of any young farmer from my county who is in uniform to-day and who should be back on the farm. Last year we had considerable assistance from volunteers and students from the city. Near me was a home fitted up where girls from Alma college changed about all summer. They were of great assistance. We also had a good deal of help with our sugar beets from people

Mutual Aid Bill
who came out to volunteer. I should like to have seen some city fellows hoeing sugar beets. I never was very lazy myself, but I think I am too long in the back because I never was able to boast about the sugar beets that I could hoe. I know of one girl who came out to help, and she told of others who were rushing by her and who seemed to be able to hoe a lot. She tried to do a good job, and she was able to get to the end of the row by night. They were being paid so much a row, but she never asked for any pay, saying that she was just getting the experience.
There is another recommendation I should like to make, but I do not know whether it can be carried out. I think every farm hand, every man who has worked in agriculture, who is in the armed forces on Canadian soil should, if he so requests, be granted a postponement for next summer in order to return home to assist with the work on the farm. A man who has always worked on the farm, who has grown up on the farm, is worth considerably more than inexperienced help. I know of some men who have been in the army for some time. I am thinking of one boy in particular who, I know, would like to come out for the summer.
I was greatly pleased, when the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Roebuck) was speaking, to hear the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) announce that provision was being made for the widows of war veterans. This is very worthy, but it should have been done long ago. Many soldiers have died, and many more will die from the effects of service in the last war. At times it is hard to make the board believe, or they will not acknowledge that a death is directly attributable to war service. If a man is not getting a pension of fifty per cent or over, there is nothing for his widow. I know of widows who have worn themselves out in taking care of their husbands before they died. Many of these women are in the sixties; they are not able to get out and earn a living,'and they are too young to obtain an old age pension. Again let me say that I am glad to hear that something is going to be done for them.
I have nothing further to say except that I hope something will be done to satisfy the cattlemen of this country. The only thing that will satisfy them is to have the ceiling price put up so that they can get 12 cents a pound for their fat steers delivered at the station.
On motion of Mr. Maclnnis the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Gardiner the house adjourned at 10.50 p.m.
Friday, February 12, 1943