[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) presented the report of the special committee appointed to prepare and report lists of members to compose the standing committees of the house, as follows:
PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS Messrs:
Baker
Benidickson
Brooks
Brunelle
Casselman
Coldwell
Cote (Verdun)
Cote (Matapedia-Matane) Cruickshank Diefenbaker Fair
Fournier (Maison-neuve-Rosemont) Graydon Green
Harris (Grey-Bruce)
Jaenicke
Knowles
MacNicol
Manross
Marquis
Martin
McDonald (Pontiac)
Mutch
Pouliot
Raymond (Wright) Richard (Ottawa East) Richard (Gloucester) Smith (Calgary West) Winters-29.
(Quorum 10)
BANKING AND COMMERCE Messrs:
Arsenault
Beaudry
Belzile
Black (Cumberland)
Blackmore
Br.adette
Breithaupt
Cleaver
Coldwell
Cote (St. Johns-Iber-ville-Napierville) Dechene Dionne Dorion Fleming
Fournier (Maison-neuve-Rosemont) Fraser Fulton Gour Hackett Harkness
Harris (Danforth)
Hazen
Ilsley
J aekman
Jaenicke
Jutras
Lafontaine
Low
Macdonnell
MaeNaught
Manross
Marier
Marquis
Maybank
Mayhew
Mcllraith
Michaud
Murphy
Nixon
Picard
Pinard
Quelch
Rinfret
Ross (Souris)
Sinclair (Ontario)
Stewart
(Winnipeg North) Thatcher Tucker-50.
Twine Isnor
(Quorum 15) PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Argue
Arsenault
Baker
Beaudry
Black (Yukon)
Boucher
Bradette
Burton
Case
Cleaver
Messrs:
Cockeram Cote (Verdun)
Cote (St. Johns-
Iberville-Napierville)
Cruickshank
Dechene
Denis
Diefenbaker
Emmerson
Ferguson
[Stage Direction]
Standing Committees
Fournier (Hull) Fournier (Maison-neuve-Rosemont) Fraser
Gibson (Comox Alberni) Gladstone Golding Grant Green Hamel
Harris (Danforth)
Homuth
Howe
Isnor
Jackman
Jaenicke
Johnston
Marshall
Maybank
McCubbin
McDonald (Pontiac)
Picard
Pinard
Raymond (Wright)
Rinfret
Rowe
Smith (Calgary West) Stewart
(Winnipeg North) Stuart (Charlotte) Thatcher Warren Winkler-50.
(Quorum 15)

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Adamson
Archibald
Ashby
Aylesworth
Beaudoin
Beaudry
Belzile
Bentley
Bertrand (Terrebonne)
Black (Cumberland)
Blair
Bonnier
Bourget
Breithaupt
Brooks
Campbell
Chevrier
Church
Cloutier
Drope
Emmerson
Eudes
F arquhar
Gagnon
Gauthier (Portneuf) Gauthier (Nipissing) Gourd Grant
Harris (Danforth) Hatfield Herridge Hodgson
Irvine
Johnston
Knight
Lesage
Little
Maybank
Mayhew
Mclvor
McCulloch
McKay
Michaud
Mullins
Mutch
Pearkes
Picard
Pouliot
Robinson (Simoe East)
Robinson (Bruce) Ross (Souris)
Ross (Hamilton East) Shaw
Smith (York North)
Stephenson
Viau
White (Hastings-Peterborough) White (Middlesex East)
Whitman Winters-60.
(Quorum 20)
AGRICULTURE AND COLONIZATION Messrs:
Argue
Arsenault
Barrett
Beaudoin
Belzile
Bentley
Bertrand (Prescott)
Black (Cumberland)
Black (Huntingdon)
Bryce
Burton
Cardiff
Charlton
Clark
Cloutier
Cote (Matapedia-Matane)
Coyle
Cruickshank
Dechene
Desmond
Diefenbaker
Douglas
Drope
Dubois -Fair
Farquhar
Fontaine
Gagnon
Gardiner
Gibson (Comox-	McCubbin
Alberni)	McGarry
Golding	McLure
Gour	Menary
Hackett	Michaud
Halle	Quelch
Harkness	Ross (Souris)
Harris (Grey-Bruce)	Senn
Hatfield	Townley-Smith
Jutras	Tucker
Kirk	Warren
Lapalme	Webb
Laurendeau	Whitman
Leader	Wright
Leger Lesage Matthews (Brandon)	Wylie-60.
(Quorum 20)

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Bertrand (Prescott)
Bowerman
Brunelle
Cardiff
Daniel
Denis
Hamel
Jaques
Knowles
Lapalme
MacLean
Marier
Murphy
Pinard
Robinson
(Simcoe East) Sinnott
Smith (York North)
Stokes
Stuart
Tustin-20.
(Quorum 8)

[Stage Direction]
Archibald
Arsenault
Ashby
Baker
Belzile
Benidickson
Blair
Bridges
Brooks
Bryce
Cote (Matapedia-
Matane) Cruickshank Gauthier (Nipissing) Gibson
(Comox-Alberni) Gillis Hazen Kirk Kuhl
Messrs:
Langlois Leger Lennard Little MaeNaught McDonald
(Parry Sound) McLure Merritt Reid Sinclair
(Vancouver North) Sinnott Stanfield Stirling
Stuart (Charlotte) Tustin Winters Zaplitny-35.
(Quorum 15)
MINES, FORESTS AND WATERS Messrs:
Adamson Black (Yukon) Blackmore Coekeram
Dion (Lake St. John-Roberval)
Gagnon
Gariepy
Gibson
(Hamilton West) Gour Gourd Hodgson Kuhl
Lafontaine
McCann
Lalonde
Lapalme
MacNieol
Maloney
Matthews
(Kootenay East) MeCuaig
McCulloch (Pictou) McCullough (Assiniboia) McDonald
(Parry Sound) McDonald (Pontiac) McGarry
[Stage Direction]
Standing Committees
[Stage Direction]
McMaster
Moore
Raymond (Wright) Ross (Hamilton East) Ross (Souris)
Sinclair (Ontario)
Sinnott
Viau
Webb
White (Hastings-Peter bo rough) -35.
(Quorum 10)
Barrett
Brown
Desmond
Dubois
Hlynka
Knowles
[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Matthews (Brandon) Pouliot
Richard (Gloucester) Richard (Ottawa East) Rinfret Rowe-12.
(Quorum 7)

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Archibald	Lapalme
Baker	Lockhart
Black (Cumberland) MacNicol	
Blackmore	Maloney
Beaudoin	Maybank
Belzile	Merritt
Brown	Mclnnis
Case	Melvor
Cote (Verdun)	Mitchell
Croll	Moore
Daniels	Pouliot
Dechene	Raymond
Ferguson	Ross (Hamilton East)
Gillis	Reid
Gingues	Sinclair
Homuth	(Vancouver North)
Johnston	Smith (Calgary West)
Lalonde	Viau-35.
	(Quorum 10)
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS	
	Messrs:
Beaudry	Knowles
Benidickson	Lapointe
Blanchette	Leger
Boucher	Low
Bradette	Macdonald (Halifax)
Claxton	Maelnnis
Coldwell	Marquis
Croll	Hayhew
Diefenbaker	Mcllraith
Fleming	Mutch
Fraser	Picard
Graydon	Raymond (Beauharnois-
Green	Laprairie)
Hackett	Reid
Isnor	Sinclair (Ontario)
Jackman	Strum, Mrs.
Jaques	Tremblay
Kidd	Winkler
Fraser
Gibson (Hamilton West)
Golding
Halle
Hansell
Healy
Henderson
Hlynka
Kidd
Kuhl
Laeombe
Lalonde
Lapalme
Lapointe
Lennard
MacLean
MacNaught
Maloney
McCuaig
McCubbin
McCullough (Assini-boia) . McDonald (Parry Sound)
McGregor McLure McMaster Nicholson Robinson (Simoe East)
Ross (St. Paul's) Sinclair (Vancouver North)
Sinnott Strum (Mrs.)
Tustin
Viau
White (Hastings-Peterborough) Winters-54.

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Adamson Aylesworth Black (Chateauguay-Huntingdon)
Bruce
Cardiff
C'astleden
Cloutier
Dion
Douglas
Eudes
Fournier (Maison-neuve-Rosemont) Gauthier (Nipissing) Gourd Gingues Herridge Henderson Howe Jaques Kidd Knight Lapalme Leger
Marier
Marshall
Matthews (Brandon)
McGarry
Mcllraith
McKay
Menary
Mitchell
Mullins
Nison
Pearkes
Probe
Reid
Richard (Ottawa East)
Ross (St. Paul's) Skey
Smith (York North) Stephenson White (Middlesex East.)
Winkler Winters Zaplitny-44.
Mr. MACKENZIE moved that the report be concurred in.
Mr. BRACKEN:: May I ask the mover whether it is important that this motion be passed to-day? I have not seen the report myself, and I am sure that the other members have not.
Mr. MACKENZIE. We will certainly let the motion stand over.



PRINTING

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Adamson
Arsenault
Aylesworth
Baker
Beaudry
Bertrand (Prescott)
Bertrand (Terrebonne)
Boivin
Bradette
Bradshaw
Brunelle
Campbell
Castleden
Church
Clark
Cote (St. Johns-
Iberville-Napierville)
Dubois
Emmerson
Fontaine
Motion stands.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. A. TUCKER (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs) presented the first report of the special committee on veterans affairs and moved that the report be concurred in.
[Stage Direction]
Labour Conditions
He said: The main part of the report has to do with reducing the quorum from 31 to 20. It is important to get that adopted as soon as possible.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a measure to incorporate the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the purpose of (a) acting in the place of the Minister of Finance in the operation of the National Housing Act, 1944, and (b) providing discounting facilities for loan and mortgage companies; to provide for the appointment and salaries of the officers and staff of the corporation and the appointment and fees of the directors; to authorize the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund of sums not exceeding twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000 J for the provision of paid-up capital for the corporation; to make available for the housing functions of the corporation moneys appropriated under the National Housing Act, 1944; and to make provisions with respect to the functions and powers of the corporation.
He said: His Honour the Deputy Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a measure to amend the National Housing Act, 1944, and to provide more particularly for an increase in the appropriation for loans and guarantees under Part II of the act for the payment out of unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund of loans and losses in respect of loans, not exceeding in the aggregate one hundred and fifty million dollars, and in respect of guarantees, up to an aggregate principal amount of one hundred and twenty-five million dollars of investments guaranteed.
He said: His Honour the Deputy Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of .the day:
John Bracken: I have two questions to direct
to the Minister of Labour, and one to the Minister of Finance.
I	should like to ask the Minister of Labour to communicate to the house any information he has in his possession regarding the threatened labour dispute in the meat packing plants. Has the minister received representations regarding this dispute from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture? If so, what is the attitude of the government with respect to such representations ?


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: I will answer the second question first. I have received a letter from the secretary of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. Any decision made with respect to the purport of the letter will be made known when the government makes a decision. The answer to the first part of the question is, yes. We are in constant touch with the provincial departments of labour with respect to what some people anticipate will be a dispute or strike in the packing house industry in this country.


Mr. HOMUTH:: Well, whose baby is it?


Humphrey Mitchell: You are a pretty big
baby yourself. -


Karl Kenneth Homuth: And you are not too tiny.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Answered!


Humphrey Mitchell: If my honourable and garrulous friend will just give me an opportunity to answer the question which was put by the leader of the opposition; I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that I can add much to what I have already said.


John Bracken: No decision has yet been made?	,


Humphrey Mitchell: On the first part of the question.


Mr. E. D. FULTON (Kamloops):: With respect to the anticipated strike in the meat packing plants, is the Minister of Agriculture in a position to make a statement which will reassure the producers of meat that their position with respect to marketing will not be prejudiced should there be such a strike?


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: Mr. Speaker, I think all that I can say is that if there is a strike in the packing
Demobilization-Air Services

plants the position of the producer will be prejudiced and nothing this government can do will prevent it.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Should do, or will do?


James Garfield Gardiner: Nothing that they can do will prevent the producers' position from being prejudiced if these men do go out on strike.


Mr. HOWE:: Nothing they have done?



STRIKE AT FORD MOTOR PLANT, WINDSOR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Bracken: I have a second question
to direct to the Minister of Labour. The long continuance of the labour dispute of the Ford Motor plant at Windsor and the failure to make any apparent progress in settlement, is, I am sure, causing concern to all members of the house and all interested in the future course of labour management relations in Canada. Would the minister indicate to the house whether any further steps to bring about a settlement have been taken? If not, would the government give consideration to having the Minister of Labour proceed to Windsor with a view to facilitating the settlement of this strike?


Humphrey Mitchell: I think my hon. friend knows
the situation at the moment. We are working very closely with the Ontario Department of Labour. An invitation went to both the employers and the employees to meet the provincial minister of labour and myself in the city of Toronto. But may I make this remark, which is equally applicable to the ministers of labour of all the provinces, that there is a physical limit to what a minister of labour can do and where he can be. That is why we built up our machinery, with a conciliation service which is as good, I think, as can be found anywhere else, to face up to a situation of this kind. I believe it is a fair observation, Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted to make it, that both the Ford Motor company and the leaders of the employee's organization are grown-up men. The company have made the decision, rightly or wrongly-and I said, when I was last asked this question, rightly, in my opinion-that until the company's officers are enabled to get into the Ford plant they will not sit down with the trade union leaders. That attitude is related to a very old prin-siple: as I said the other day to one of the hon. members from Montreal, the Canadian's home is considered to be his castle. It seems to me that if some concession on the part of the trade union organization could be made

in respect to that principle, which has been enunciated by officials of the company-and after all, there are two sides to a medal-1 would be prepared, in fact I would have been prepared a week ago, to go to Toronto with my good friend the acting minister of labour of Ontario and endeavour to arrive at a settlement of this dispute.
.1 could speak at length on the fundamental principles involved in conciliation, and as to whether the company or the trades union want this or any other government to write a contract for them. I shall not go further into that matter at the moment, because I understand that it is an issue in the discussion, but when my estimates are up, or if it is raised by any hon. member, I shall be quite prepared to give an answer.
I say frankly and sincerely that the labour departments of both governments are anxious to bring this fight to a conclusion. We were very successful in such matters during the war. But may I say in a kindly way that this House of Commons is not the place to negotiate a trade union agreement, because of the political implications that are involved. I know that persons who hold certain points of view are anxious to see such action taken by democratic legislative bodies, but it is my belief that it would not only be physically impossible, but that it is not in the interests of democratic institutions and their proper functioning, as we understand these things.
I have to be very careful to-day, because, as no one knows better than my hon. friends opposite, in an industrial dispute what is said at a distance is sometimes misconstrued at the point where the dispute exists.
I reiterate that I would be very glad to jump in an aeroplane to-morrow morning if it were necessary. I trust the parties to the dispute will act not only in their own interests but in the interests of the community and of the dominion as a whole, to assist in the reconstruction of the national economy following the conclusion of the war in the Pacific and in Europe.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: May I ask the Minister of Labour a question supplementary to that asked by my leader? I think I can solve a lot of his difficulties for him. Why not ask the parties to this strike, instead of meeting him in Toronto, to meet him in the Ford offices in Windsor? Then the picket lines are all shot, and he may be able to get these stupid people together so that they can talk to one another.


Humphrey Mitchell: I appreciate the constructive suggestion of my hon. friend, but in my opinion, and I say it sincerely, in a

Surplus War Assets

dispute of this description it is far better that we should meet on neutral territory. I am not standing on my dignity or the dignity of a minister of the province of Ontario, but I do not think it is in the best interests of labour relations in this country, looked at from the point of view of either employer or employee, for two ministers to go there and walk through a picket line when one party to the dispute are convinced in their own minds that the attitude taken, the picketing by the union in this instance, is illegal, though they do these things in the United States. That is why I thought Toronto would be the best place.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Surely we are not going to let a thing like that stand in the way of getting this matter settled.


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: Why not meet in the city hall?



STRAIT OF CANSO


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. E. McGARRY (Inverness-Rich-mond):: I wish to direct two questions to
the Minister of Reconstruction. First, has a report of the survey on the strait of Canso, with regard to the proposed bridge or causeway, been submitted to his department or any other department of government? Secondly, if so, will the report be tabled?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The report on the strait of
Canso has not been completed. It has been found so far physically impossible to complete the report by reason of the difficulty of taking borings or sounding in the strait. The water is 200 feet deep, the tide in the strait runs at five knots, and as an engineering feat, so far the problem of obtaining borings has been found impossible of solution. However, the investigation is porceeding, and I hope the report will be submitted in due course.



INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Clarence Decatur Howe: On Thursday last,
in response to an inquiry by the member for Broadview (Mr. Church), I said that I would table the interim agreement on international civil aviation. If we may revert to motions I will now table two copies of that agreement, with the consent of the house.



SURPLUS WAR ASSETS


Clarence Decatur Howe: I wish to table copies in English
and French of a pamphlet entitled "How to Buy War Surplus Materials". This pamphlet deals with the policy and methods of the War Assets Corporation. Copies have been distributed in English and French to all members of the house.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: It will likely be a small
pamphlet. When will copies be available? There are many inquiries for them.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They have been distributed
to-day.



CALGARY NITRATE PLANT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: On Friday last during the course of the debate I drew the attention of the Minister of Reconstruction and the house to a telegram I had received from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture relating to the nitrate plant at Calgary. In view of other representations which have been coming in, I wonder if perhaps to-morrow the minister would make a statement regarding the matter.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend read the telegram, but I did not understand that he was asking a question about it.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: I did; that was my
intention.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The position of the ammonia plant at Calgary, the ammonia plant at Trail and the ammonia plant at Welland is the same as that of all other war plants; from time to time consideration is being given to their sale. No definite arrangements have been made to sell any of these ammonia plants, but we have under consideration advertising one or more of them for sale in due course.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: The particular question was: will the government defer coming to a decision until another conference has been held with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture? That was the gist of it, as I remember the question.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have had two or three discussions with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, but I shall be very glad to have another. I have no intention of moving in the matter for a month or six weeks.
United Nations Organization



INQUIRY AS TO ESTABLISHMENT OF NON-PARTISAN PARLIAMENTARY SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Cariboo):: I wish to ask a question of the Acting Prime Minister. Has the government given any consideration to the appointment of a parliamentary scientific committee, to be chosen on a non-partisan basis, and similar to that appointed by the British parliament?


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Acting Prime Minister) :: No consideration has been given to the setting up of such a committee, but the question could be considered. If the hon. gentleman will give me any information he has about the matter I shall be glad to see that it is.


William Irvine: I shall be glad to do that.



UNITED NATIONS ORGANIZATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs): On October 4 the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Gray-don), on the orders of the day, asked me certain questions part of which had not been covered by notice he had sent in, and I stated I would get the information and make it available to the house as soon as possible. The question was:
May I ask the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the government has been advised of the decisions taken by the united nations preparatory committee regarding choice of a headquarters for the united nations organization? I ask that question because newspaper reports indicate that the headquarters of that organization is to be situated in the United States. In that connection I make one observation to the minister, namely, that I am not at all satisfied that what I regard as very strong claims for Canada have been pressed as enthusiastically as in my opinion circumstances would warrant.
The answer I wish to make is this. The government has been informed by the Canadian representative on the executive committee of the united nations preparatory commission that, at a meeting on October 3, it was decided by a majority of the executive committee to recommend to the full preparatory commission that the headquarters of the inited nations organization should be in the United States of America. Other locations for the permanent site of the united nations, including more than one site in Canada, had been suggested to the executive committee. According to the reports received from the

Canadian representative, it would appear that, before the recommendation of October 3 was adopted, the choice had narrowed to a selection between a site in a smaller European country, probably Geneva, on the one hand or some location in the United States on the other hand. It is understood that no recommendation has been made as yet by the executive committee as to the place in the United States at which the headquarters might be located.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: On Thursday last the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Lennard) made the following statement and asked a question. I quote from page 758 of Hansard:
Since Canadian canned meats are being advertised for sale by New York city retailers, and being sold free of points, will the government advise the house, at the earliest opportunity, what meats, fresh and canned, have been exported to the United States within the past six months?
The hon. gentleman gave me a copy of an advertisement from a New York paper upon which the question was based. This advertisement indicates that the meat referred to is veal and chicken pate; veal, ham and tongue; beef, pork and ham. These meats are all meat pastes, that is sandwich spreads, and are put up in seven-ounce tins. No permits have been issued for the export of canned meats to the United States in 1945. The figures of the bureau of statistics indicate that during the first six months of this year, 13,200 pounds of fresh beef and 200 pounds of pork were shipped to an army air field in the United States and were not for ordinary domestic use. Canned meat pastes of the type mentioned above have been exported in the amount of 595,407 pounds. There are no meat pastes being exported to the United States, to be sold free of points, which are under ration in Canada at the present time.



RATIONING-EXEMPTION OF HONG KONG REPATRIATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. RALPH MAYBANK (Winnipeg South Centre):: I desire to address a question to the Minister of Finance or to the parliamentary assistant to the minister. It is a question relating to meat rationing for repatriated Hong Kong prisoners of war. I gave notice of this question last week. I understand my

Provincial Legislation
colleague from Winnipeg South (Mr. Mutch) did likewise; therefore I am speaking on his behalf and my own and am duly cognizant of the responsibility. My question, in accordance with that notice, is: will the government consider exempting these Hong Kong repatriates from the meat rationing restrictions, since there is probably a very special need among them, they having had extremely little meat for four years?


Mr. R. W. MAYHEW (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, notice of the questions of the hon. members for Winnipeg South Centre and Winnipeg South was received too late on Friday to obtain an answer. However, the minister took up with the wartime prices and trade board the question of providing increased quantities of rationed foods to released prisoners from far eastern theatres of war. I am pleased to be able to announce that after consultation with medical officers of the Department of Health and Welfare and the Department of National Defence, it has been decided to issue additional ration coupons covering a period of three months to such released prisoners of war, which will entitle them to a fifty per cent increase in butter and sugar, and one hundred per cent in meat, over the amounts available to the general public. Instructions have been issued to the various ration boards for the issuance of these extra coupons to the released prisoners of war upon application.



PROVINCIAL LEGISLATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAICER (Lake Centre):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice in connection with the committee on disallowance of disputed legislation in Saskatchewan, which I believe is to be convened within the week. In view of the large number of protests which are being received by members from that province, will the Minister of Justice state why the government is taking proceedings by way of disallowance hearings instead of submitting this legislation to the courts for the determination of its validity?
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice):	I must state first of all that the
government is not taking proceedings by way of disallowance. The hon. member knows that the government considers, on reports from the Minister of Justice, all provincial legislation and before the expiry of the year
from the time when the statutes are officially sent to the department a recommendation is made by the Minister of Justice to council as to whether or not the legislation should be allowed to take such effect as by law it can have. No proceedings are being taken to disallow this legislation.


John George Diefenbaker: What are the hearings for?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The time for a recommendation had not yet expired. While it was still running certain petitions for disallowance of the legislation to which I have already referred in announcements to the house, were received, and requests were made that those submitting the petitions be allowed to submit additional reasons through counsel. We are not up against the alternative suggested in the question of which the hon. member sent me notice. The validity of the legislation, if it is not disallowed, can always be tested in the courts by anyone who may contend that it is unconstitutional.
The governor in council renders no judgment on the validity of legislation; we merely act under the terms of the British North America Act in recommending whether or not it should be allowed to operate. That is all that is being done here.
There seems to have been the impression that some sort of court had been set up to try the constitutional validity of this legislation.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not suggested in my question.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	That impression is
entirely erroneous; a report would have been made to council whether there had been any petitions or not. The law officers of the Department of Justice endeavour to take into account all that should be properly considered whether representations are made or not. Even if it were clearly demonstrated that a piece of provincial legislation was unconstitutional, that would not at all necessarily mean that the governor is council would disallow it; probably quite the contrary. These things are considered from the point of view of the national interest and not the constitutionality or otherwise of the legislation. And when there is a recommendation, as is . most frequently the case, that the acts should be allowed to have such operation as they can legally have, it does not mean that their constitutional validity cannot be contested before the courts, and it does not mean that their constitutional validity is not frequently contested before the courts. Neither the
Housing

Minister of Justice nor the committee will attempt to render any judgment on the constitutional validity of this legislation.
The hon. member asks why the committee was set up.


John George Diefenbaker: Is that procedure regularly followed?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: To my knowledge this is the first time it has been done. I understood that I was being given the assistance of two of my colleagues to prepare a recommendation for council, and I had no objection. I would never have any objection to having the assistance of my colleagues in the preparation of any recommendation I may have to make to council.


William Irvine: I should like to ask a supplementary question to that asked by the hon. member for Lake Centre. Seeing that it is the business of the government to review all provincial legislation whether there are any protests or not, why did not the government advise the protesters to take their case to the courts instead of to the cabinet?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that I am obliged to give a reason for that. We review legislation whether there are representations or not. We do not say to those who make representations, "Well, go to the courts." We just do not. I have no other reason.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, in the house on Friday last the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) asked a question as to priorities on building materials, and suggested that I reply to-day. In my remarks of last Friday I find that I have rather confused the issue, and I should now like to make a statement of policy.
In replying on Friday I was anxious to reply to the suggestion by the leader of the opposition that the government should modify its policy because of alleged bottlenecks being created as a result of the priorities in favour of Wartime Housing Limited.
In my reply I was particularly anxious to clear up a popular fallacy about Wartime Housing, namely, that owing to the assistance given to it in building houses for veterans, stocks of building materials are frozen or tied up in warehouses. It is undoubtedly this fallacy which is at the root of the complaints which

have been received by the leader of the opposition and others. I referred at that time to the reports regarding Calgary which on investigation were found to be quite untrue. I might have mentioned the cases of Edmonton and Winnipeg as well, and numerous others, all of which have been investigated and found to be untrue.
In my remarks I stated that there are no building material priorities at all in favour of Wartime Housing Limited. This was not correct. I should have explained that the government is, in fact, giving assistance to Wartime Housing Limited where necessary, and requires producers and distributors in certain cases to deliver to Wartime Housing Limited in priority to other users. The purpose in giving this assistance is to enable Wartime Housing Limited to maintain its building schedule and to complete at the earliest possible time its programme of building the low cost rental houses for veterans which are so urgently required.
The assistance given to Wartime Housing Limited is not a serious factor in creating shortages in materials available to private builders. As I said several days ago, Wartime Housing Limited is building only a very small proportion of the total number of houses under construction at present. To take the case of plumbing supplies, about which the greatest number of complaints have been received, the requirements of Wartime Housing Limited during the last quarter of this year would be less than twenty per cent of the estimated production. Its requirements of other building materials are even smaller, and in some cases will have no effect whatsoever on the supplies available to private builders. In the administration of priorities for Wartime Housing Limited every effort is being made to interfere as little as possible with the normal flow of materials into the building trades. As the production of building materials continues to increase, the government may be able to modify its priority policy as suggested by the leader of the opposition, but for the present it is felt that this is not feasible, since any change is likely to interfere with the building of low rental houses for veterans.


John Bracken: If I might comment on
the statement just made by the minister, I think perhaps in his own interests he should have left the situation in the confused state it was in previously, because I have a telegram from a person interested in this matter complimenting the minister on removing these wartime controls.


Clarence Decatur Howe: He must be a dealer in
building supplies.

Ford Motor Plant Strike


["I am not afraid of it, because I have done it before.\nUnder the C.C.F., or under any socialistic technique through which we would have government ownership, where would a plant sell its goods? How would it sell those goods on the world markets? One can readily understand how it could sell its goods on the world markets if the government were prepared to use a social credit technique, that of subsidizing exports where necessary to sell exports abroad. I can understand that. Under that system I could see where they would sell their goods abroad. I believe the Ford Motor Company could do it, as a private organization. But may I hasten to say that social credit would not bother subsidizing goods to be sold abroad in competition with goods from factories within a given nation. That is, we would not undertake to force our goods into the world markets. If a nation wanted our goods, well and good. But if it were a matter of putting our goods into the hands of another nation to displace its industry, we would be against it. I thought it was necessary to say that, because some people might misunderstand.\nI believe I have said enough at this time. Hon. members in this group are entirely in sympathy with the struggle being made by the Ford Motor Company employees. We realize they are doing things which they feel they would not like to do but which the government, because of the attitude it has taken, is forcing them to do. And the Ford plant is taking measures it is not justified in taking. Once more, by persisting in the present financial system, the government is forcing them into that position.\nAll I would say is simply this: Let the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell), get permission from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), who seems to be the one who runs the whole show, to go to the Ford plant and say to them, Look here, gentlemen; this problem must be solved, and it must be solved right away. I am not going to suggest to him the measures he should take. But I will say that it can be done, and I will say further that it must be done, if Canada's economic and social structure is to be preserved. If the minister cannot solve it under the present system, then I urge upon him that with all possible speed he adopt a system under which he can solve it.\nWhen I read the figures I have in my hand possibly some hon. members will wonder just to what extent they are in accordance with those supplied by the bureau of statistics. For those who wish to have the information authentically may I read this letter dated", "Ford Motor Plant Strike\nSeptember 25,\t1945, from the Dominion\nBureau of Statistics, and addressed to me in the following words:\nFurther to our telephone conversation1 of this morning regarding the percentage of wage-earners receiving various amounts of income.\nThe percentage of wage-earners earning less than $450 for the 12 months' period prior to the date of the census, June 2, 1941, was 32-9 per cent. 28-7 per cent of the wrage-earners reported earnings between $450 and $949; 29-9 per cent earned between $950 and $1,949 and 6-8 per cent earned $1,950 and over. 1-7 per cent of the wage-earners did not state the amount of earnings for the year.\nFor your information I am enclosing herewith census bulletins showing the earnings of wage-earners by occupation and the earnings and employment of wage-earners for the various census divisions or counties as well as a number of urban centres in Canada. The above statistics are taken from these bulletins.\nYours very truly,\nJ. L. Forsyth,\nStatistician.\nSo that hon. members may see these bulletins, I am holding them up in my hand. I think this will serve as a basis upon which to do our future thinking.\nWe shall have more discussion along these lines by and by.\nAt six o'clock the house took recess.\nAfter Recess\nThe house resumed at eight o'clock."]
John Bracken: I am not sure, but that
was the conclusion he drew from the statement the minister made the other day. I am sorry I shall have to advise him that in view of the statement made to-day he was wrong in that conclusion.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: May I inquire of the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs whether or not it is anticipated that there will be an imperial conference in Great Britain while the Prime Minister of Canada is overseas?
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs): I cannot say that that has been any such anticipation. No suggestion has been made to this government that there should be an imperial conference at this time.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to occupy
any of the time of the house at this stage with the matter I am about to discuss. However, I offer no apologies for doing so because a few days ago I endeavoured to have a brief discussion of this matter, and it might have been settled at that time.
My purpose in rising to-day is to discuss the labour difficulties at Windsor. From time to time the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) can make a statement that suits him in the house, without giving anyone on this side an opportunity of presenting the other side of the question as we understand it. I consider this matter to be of urgent importance; otherwise I would not take the time of the house to discuss it. A few days ago the Minister of Labour, in answer to a question here, referred to the difficulty at Windsor as a siege, and that is what it may very well develop into if steps are not taken to correct the present attitude of the employers, as I understand it. This is not a new matter either to me or to the Department of Labour. The fact is that I raised this question in the house seventeen months ago, and it is exactly the same dispute 47696-53
to-day as at that time, of course with the exception that it has been neglected and pushed aside in the interval, and hopes have been expressed that someone might take a reasonable attitude so that it would not develop into the situation that exists to-day.
While I am discussing this matter as an emergency issue from this side of the house I do not want it understood that I believe no one on the other side has tried to do anything about it. Personally I think some of the members from the area concerned have done everything within their power to have the matter settled in a satisfactory manner; and, as I see it, if the employers were reasonable the matter might have been settled by now.
As I understand it, the situation is this. Here we have our first post-war strike. If the present difficulty is allowed to develop, within the next few months it is likely to culminate in a general strike right across this country. Then, this reflects the inadequacy of th- labour legislation we enacted during the war for the purpose of getting production and improving relations between labour and management. It definitely sets out one thing; that is, that the Ford Motor Company in Windsor and other large employers of labour across this country accepted government legislation during the war because of the pressure of war, but immediately the war was over they took advantage of the loopholes which existed in the labour legislation and cut the line. Now they are back where they were in 1939, with the major objective in mind of defeating any intention the government may have of laying down proper labour legislation which would bring democracy into industry in this country. In other words my conception of the matter is that once again the employers of labour across this country-if the attitude of the Ford Motor Company is the general attitude-have used the workers of this country as suckers in another war; then, as soon as the war is over and the emergency has passed, they are right back where they were in 1939 or 1914. It is because I believe the government should recognize that attitude that I am discussing the matter in the house to-day. It is urgent, because, as was suggested only this afternoon in the house, the packing house workers-an essential group of workers at this time, when we are attempting to feed the people of Europe-are proposing similar action. They are running into exactly the same problems in the packing houses that the Ford workers have run into at Windsor-the fact that the employers want to back up on an agreement and on understandings arrived at during the war.

Ford Motor Plant Strike

Some 30,000 other workers in automobile plants across Canada have already taken strike votes, and to the extent of almost ninety per cent in most of the plants they have decided that when or if the Windsor workers want their assistance in similar action, they are prepared to give that assistance.
Windsor to-day is engaged in a little war, a war that can bring disastrous results to that section of Canada. The issues involved are simple. In 1941 workers at Windsor had signed an agreement with the Ford Motor Company. That agreement carried a clause with respect to grievance procedure, and the manner in which problems of the workers would be relayed to the management. That agreement worked out satisfactorily until May, I believe it was, of 1944, when the Ford Motor Company decided that that grievance procedure arrangement would not be carried on any longer. Because of a slight dispute on that issue the company abrogated the signed agreement and took its present stand. The real issue in Windsor is simply that the workers in that particular plant want to sign an agreement in accordance with the Dominion legislation. They want a union shop; they want some measure of union security, and the check-off for their union dues. That would not cost the Ford Motor Company anything; it is merely a general recognition on the part of the employers and the workers of the right to sit around a conference table, and bargain. That is the main issue.
The question of wages is one which I shall not discuss. As the Minister of Labour has said, that is something to be decided between employers and the union, when or if they decide to sit down together. And may I add this, that the matter of wages as it has been discussed throughout the press, particularly of this province, is most misleading. I have seen the statement in the press to the effect that the Ford workers are demanding a thirty per cent increase in wages. The natural assumption for anyone to make is that the workers are asking that this increase be made on top of their wartime wages. That is not true. We have talked this matter over with officials of the union, and we know the fact is that what they are demanding is a thirty per cent increase on their 1938 rates. The average 1938 wage paid by the Ford Motor Company was between $1,000 and $1,200 a year. The minimum paid in their plant was $600 a year. A thirty per cent increase in basic rates means that the Ford workers are at this time demanding a minimum wage in those plants of $1,800 a year.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Would the hon. member tell us how long the man getting $600 a year worked in the plant of the Ford Motor Company? How many hours did he put in in
a year?


Clarence Gillis: My information is that these plants are seasonal. They work about eight months in each year. A large percentage of the employees in those plants in pre-war years were working eight months for a minimum wage of $600.


Humphrey Mitchell: Perhaps I might clarify the situation.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Let us have the facts.


Humphrey Mitchell: I believe the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth) is asking for the base rate. For instance, a bricklayer may get $1 or $1.25 an hour. The point he is driving at-and it is a fair one, and one which I cannot answer; perhaps the hon. member can-is as to the amount of the base rate at Windsor.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Per hour.


Clarence Gillis: I just referred to the minimum rate in those plants.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Per hour.


Clarence Gillis: I do not know what the 'hourly rates are, but it does not make any difference. We might suppose that you receive $10 an hour, but if you worked only one hour a year that would be your total wage at the end of the year.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I know my hon. friend will not object to answering my question. If I had a man working in my garden for one hour, for which I paid him 75 cents, he would receive 75 cents for the year if he worked only that hour. Let us be fair about it.


Clarence Gillis: That was the point I was making.


Mr. ROWE:: You did not make it, though.


Clarence Gillis: Yes I did; I said it did not make any difference what the hourly rate was, if at the end of the year the total take or the total earnings amounted to only $600. That is the 'thing that is important.


William Earl Rowe: But what do they get per hour?


Clarence Gillis: Just a minute; Mr. Speaker-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friend, but-


Mr. SPEAKER:: May I call the attention of hon. members to the fact that when another hon. member has the floor no interruptions can be permitted without his consent.


[Stage Direction]
Ford Motor Plant Strike
Karl Kenneth Homuth: I asked his permission.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: And you did not get it.


Clarence Gillis: In a few minutes I shall be told to take my seat because my time will have expired. However, this question can be discussed by every hon. member in the house after I have finished. Mind you, I am not concerned about simply raising this matter in the house; I want something done about it. Before I take my seat I am going to suggest something that should be done. Whether hon. members are prepared to go along in this matter and see that something is done about it is a test of their sincerity.
As I said a minute ago, I am no-t going to argue wage rates, because there are probably fifty different classifications in that plant -different groups with different rates. But I made that point simply because the press has been misleading.
In 1938 a large percentage of the employees in that plant received $600 a year.


William Earl Rowe: How much an hour?


Clarence Gillis: They are asking a thirty per cent increase on basic rates, or a minimum of $1,800 a year.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: No, no.


Gordon Graydon: Not $1,800?


Mr. McCANN:: How does the hon. member arrive at that-$600 with a thirty per cent increase amounting to $1,800?


Clarence Gillis: It is $600 to $1,800.


James Joseph McCann: But that is not thirty per cent.


Clarence Gillis: A thirty per cent increase in the basic hourly rate would bring them up to that figure per year, as a minimum.


William Earl Rowe: How do you know, if you do not know what they get per hour?


Clarence Gillis: There are many classifications in the Ford plant, as there are everywhere else.


William Earl Rowe: You do not know them,
though.


Clarence Gillis: If I had time I could tell you a lot, if you would take a trip to my office some time.


William Earl Rowe: I would prefer that you tell me here.


Clarence Gillis: I have not time this
afternoon.
47696-53J


William Earl Rowe: You do not know them.


Clarence Gillis: I know them better than you do. And when I have finished you can get up and say it. Then you would be telling us something.


William Earl Rowe: I am awaiting my turn.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: And howl


Clarence Gillis: As I said a minute ago, the matter of wages is not one I am concerned about. But I am concerned with the matter of establishing the collective agreement, union security and proper bargaining arrangements in the plant-the focal points in this strike.
Let me say this, that it does not reflect any great credit upon the present government in Ontario-because primarily it is their responsibility. If they were accepting that responsibility we would not be discussing the matter in this house this afternoon, and there would be no strike in Windsor.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: You had better talk about Nova Scotia.


Clarence Gillis: This could not happen in Nova Scotia. We settled the matter down there thirty years ago.


William Earl Rowe: Well, in Ontario they at least know how much they are getting per hour.


Clarence Gillis: That is the point; I have been trying to tell you. However, if what I say in the house goes over the hon. member's head, that is not my responsibility.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is pretty evident what the Tory attitude, is anyway.


Clarence Gillis: The minister pointed out that a conference had been called in Ontario, to which union officials and officials of the Ford Motor Company had been invited. If I am correctly informed, the union officials were prepared to go along with that meeting. But the Ford company took the attitude that they were not going to go into any conference with our Department of Labour or with union officials until such time as they and their office workers were permitted to go back into their offices through the picket line. The Minister of Labour in his statement the other day asserted that on that particular point he was in agreement with the Ford Motor Company. I am not going to debate the merits or demerits of the tactics of the workers in keeping out the office staff, but I am going to say this: The office workers are not stopped from going through the picket line. The fact of the matter is that the office workers are not reporting for work. That is our informa-
Ford Motor Plant Strike

tion direct from the union officials, that there is no one stopping the office workers from going through the picket line.
The minister makes quite a play of Mr. Campbell being kept out of his office. The Minister of Labour is an old union man and has taken part in many strikes. A strike is a war, a war between employer and employee, and, the union official has a responsibility to see that that war is conducted in the best interests of those he represents. Mr. Campbell is doing the same thing, and no one is finding fault with him for that. But why does Mr. Campbell want to get back into that office, and why are the Ford workers not much interested in allowing him back into that office? My information is this, and if it is correct, there is justification for what the men are doing, Mr. Campbell has in that plant a lot of blue-prints, a lot of dies and tools, If he could take in fifty or sixty men for a few hours he could gather those up and farm them out to other plants around this province and keep that Ford plant in Windsor closed for the next seven or eight months while he is getting his work done elsewhere, and in the meantime the skilled workers at the Ford plant would be left high and dry. I am not saying that that is a correct analysis, but that is the information we get from union officials in Windsor, and I say that if that is true the workers at Ford have complete justification in keeping Mr. Campbell out of the plant.
Do not forget that Mr. Campbell is the man who started this strike seventeen months ago by his absolutely unreasonable attitude of using the workers once again for a war, and then when the war is over his attitude is: We go back into our little shell and you workers are no longer important in this country. But Mr. Campbell is going to find out before this war is through, as will every other industrialist who takes that attitude, that unless he goes along with his workers in the post-war and establishes the objectives for which we fought this war, he is going to have a very uncomfortable country to live in for the next fifteen or twenty years.
In their efforts to find a solution for the present difficulties the workers at the Ford plant have traversed every piece of machinery that has been provided by the government, all the conciliation machinery, P.C. 1003, every order in council that has been laid down by this government. The workers at the Ford plant have complied with every one of them.
Why does Ford take that attitude in Windsor? The same company, the United States company just across the line, has pro-

vided for its employees in the United States everything that the workers in the Ford plant in Windsor are asking for. Why is there industrial democracy in the United States? Why is not the same union security set up here as there? Why is not the grievance procedure with respect to the stewards that has been provided in the United States for Ford's workers there, provided also in Windsor for Canadian workers? That is something to which the Canadian government has a right to get an answer. There is no reason why the Ford company in Canada should be tying up industry and creating friction by refusing to deal with its employees in this country as it deals with its employees in the United States.


James Joseph McCann: Have they not a million workers out on strike now?


Clarence Gillis: Where?


James Joseph McCann: In the United States.


Clarence Gillis: The question is wages over there. The question here is union security, and that is provided in the United States.
What is the solution? My solution is this, and you have a precedent for it. I do not expect the Minister of Labour to run around all over this country wherever there is a labour dispute; for that is not his job. But he has in his department the necessary machinery and officials that he can direct. I think that what the Minister of Labour should do immediately is to send a controller to Windsor to take over the Ford plant there. If he is prepared to do that the workers at Ford are prepared to go back to the status quo prior to their going out. The Minister of Labour then, through his controller, would try to bring the employer and the employees together to work out an agreement between employer and employee that would be in accordance with the many government pronouncements that have been made in this house on the question of collective bargaining. That is the answer, and it is not something new. This government has already done it. In the middle of the war they took over National Steel Car at Hamilton. There was a strike there, and the Minister of Labour sent in a controller. The strike was settled, and there have been no difficulties there since. The government did the same thing in Montreal in connection with the Montreal Tramways strike last year, where the situation was worse than it is at Windsor now. The Minister of Labour sent in his controller and the difficulties were settled. Just a couple of months ago the Minister of Labour again, when there was a strike in British Columbia in American Can, a company with ramifiea-


[Stage Direction]
Ford Motor Plant Strike
tions all across this continent, sent a controller in there, in a bigger show than this Windsor set-up, and to the best of my knowledge he settled that dispute satisfactorily. The United States government at the present time are not adverse to that line of action. Just a few days ago the United States government stepped into the oil industry in the United States and took over, and is now bringing employer and employee together.
The fact of the matter is that we fought this war for something; hundreds of men left the Ford plant at Windsor to join the armed forces, and now they are coming back and are working in that plant. That is their means of livelihood. We preached to them that in fighting this war they were fighting for democracy, and now they come back to the Ford plant and find that their employer is refusing them the very rudiments of industrial democracy-the right of the employee to bargain with his employer, the right to sign an agreement, the right to say-what their wage rates are to be. Now what will be the opinion of the boy who comes back from fighting this war and finds his employer taking that attitude? It is the same old game that we saw in 1914-18. We fought a war from 1939 to 1945, and now the war is over, and the war slogans are down. Personally the war is not over for me, and it is not over for the hundreds of thousands of young men who are coming back to this country after fighting a war that they really thought they were fighting for democracy.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that in a situation such as this, where there is a dispute, the first one in the post-war period that can affect labour relations clear across this country, the responsible government should step in through the Department of Labour and see to it that a sensible understanding is arrived at, based on the principles which were often enunciated by the Minister of Labour and other members of the government on the subject of labour relations during the process of fighting the war.
My hon. friend over here was much concerned about the question of wages, and I said that I was not going to go into that because it is not my business; it is the business of Ford and the employees when they come together. But let me leave this thought with you, if you think that the wage demands which the employees are making at this time are unreasonable. I understand from fairly good authority that during the years of the war the Ford Motor Company, Canadian section, made $27 million profits after all taxes were paid; they increased their reserves from $60 million to $90 million; they paid dividends

to shareholders of $9 million. I understand that if two and a half million dollars were taken from that $30 million of reserves they put away during the process of fighting this war and were applied to the dispute now going on at Windsor, it would settle the whole question. The company would still have a lot of money.
Karl Kenneth Homuth: What does the hon. member mean, that two and a half million dollars would settle the whole question?


Clarence Gillis: It would provide for the increases in wages.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: For how long?


Clarence Gillis: For a year.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: And after the year was up, what then?


Clarence Gillis: Take some more out of the $90 million reserve.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: That is all right, but explain that.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: We can see where their friends are.


Clarence Gillis: Ford's friends are very obvious in this house.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: No, not "Ford's friends"; but we are not going to be deluded by a one-sided argument.


Clarence Gillis: I shall not detain the house any longer. I feel very strongly on this matter, and I seriously suggest to the Minister of Labour and every hon. member that action should be taken by the department immediately to head off what I consider to be the initial stages of a general industrial upheaval in this country if the dispute is not handled at once and in a reasonable manner.


Mr. ALISTAIR STEWART (Winnipeg North) :: I believe the workers of this
country are puzzled, dismayed and discouraged at the lack of a positive labour policy on the part of the government. We can remember that up to June 11 they had a policy-jobs, work for all, security for all. Where is that policy now? The workers at Windsor are without protection, and surely the most elementary protection for the workers in a democracy is the right to join the union of their own choice, the protection of union security, the closed shop, and the check-off. Yet these are being denied to them, and apparently the government does nothing about it. Well, I believe either the government's promises are going to be ful-
83S
Ford Motor Plant Strike

filled, or their bluff is going to be called, because the insecurity of labour is becoming more and more obvious.
All across this country to-day men are being laid off; plants all over Canada are reducing their staffs. I draw to the attention of the house the fact that when a man is laid off or when he is on strike it is a very serious matter for that individual. There are few scourges worse than unemployment. When a man is unemployed he has no income. It is true that to-day he gets this miserly pittance of unemployment insurance, but that is far from adequate to pay his rent, it is far from adequate to provide food, including the dairy products which are so necessary to keep his children in health; it is far from adequate to provide medical services if they are needed; it is far from adequate in these days of approaching winter to see that the house is kept properly warm and that the children do not suffer. Always under strikes or mass unemployment it is the children who suffer most. Therefore I suggest that there is much validity to our case and to the union case that when the worker is being transferred from war-time to peace-time employment, during the period of transition he should be given a minimum of $25 a week. He and his family cannot expect to live on less.
Under capitalism as we have known it the lot of the worker has been unemployment, then work for a little time, then unemployment again. There is no security. In our lifetime we have gone through two wars and two major depressions, and the mass of the people have always suffered the worst. There are young men coming back to this country whose only chance in the nineteen thirties was the chance in 1939 to fight and die for Canada, These boys are coming back expecting something better than when they went away. They want a Canada wherein there is work for them, and some sort of union security, but apparently the government is unwilling to provide that type of security. In Winnipeg we have the case of MacDonald Brothers Aircraft plant, which at the peak of employment had 4,500 men employed. The number is now down to 400. What has happened to those 4,100 people? Some, though only a few, have got other jobs; some have left the province; the great majority are unemployed.
I want again to emphasize the fact that unemployment is a personal tragedy for those who suffer from it, and therefore, it is the duty of the government and this house to do everything within their power to ease con-
ditions for these people and see that the pledges are kept that there shall be work for all in Canada.
We are told that there are a million new jobs in sight. Where are they, and at what rates of pay? I believe that the "million new jobs" is a mirage. It does not delude the workers of this country. It is true that there may be a million new jobs, but if there are, they are at twenty-five cents an hour, and we are not going to take them at that wage.
The trade unions of Canada are far in advance of the government with plans for reconversion. The trades and labour congress have already presented their recommendations to this government. They have asked:
(1)	That all citizens -who have been engaged in essential civilian industry be immediately allowed "reconversion pay" during this period of dislocation on a basis of one month's pay for each year's service up to three years;
(2)	To spread available employment, a maximum forty-hour work week be put into effect, with no reduction in wages;
(3)	To create confidence and maintain buying power, that general reductions of Pay be prohibited;
(4)	That restrictions be lifted from building materials and that the construction of homes be carried on with the same effort, ingenuity and dispatch as was displayed in the production of urgently needed war materials;
(5)	That necessary public works be immediately commenced; and
(6)	That the reconversion of all war plants suitable to peace-time production be speeded to the utmost.
There, Mr. Speaker, is a programme. The workers of Canada have a programme. Where, then, is that of the government? In Winnipeg we have signs of another strike, a national strike, in the packing house industry. I was at a conference of packing house workers a few days ago. These men appreciate the problems of industry and the problems of the national economy; they only hope that the government appreciates them in exactly the same way. The question of income tax was discussed by these workers. They had no objection to high rates of income tax provided they were sure that their fellow workers were getting jobs. They discussed rationing. They had no objection to rationing; they encouraged it in order to feed the starving people of Europe, though they disagreed in many respects with the way the government was handling it, but that is another matter. If the government are to be sure of getting the support of the working people of this country, they have to support-


Mr. CASE:: Will the hon. member permit a question? Does the hon. member mean to imply that there is lack of employment in the


[Stage Direction]
Ford Motor Plant Strike
Ford Motor Company, that there is no employment there? He is speaking about unemployment.
Alistair McLeod Stewart: I implied nothing of the sort. What I said is that there is lack of employment in Canada.


An hon. MEMBER:: Where?


Alistair McLeod Stewart: It is very obvious. Go to any employment exchange and you will see evidences of it. Talk to the workers, and they will tell you. You can get jobs at thirty-five or forty cents an hour, but nobody can afford to work at that.


An hon. MEMBER:: How much do you want?


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I want to see the workers of Canada get a living wage and some security. We will not stop until we get that. That should be the policy of the government, because it is one of the promises which was held out to the workers. The \vorkers in the packing houses are asking for a forty-hour week and thirty per cent increase in pay, so that they would get the same wage for a forty-hour week as they are now getting for a forty-eight hour week. Wages in the packing houses are not high, and the conditions in some departments are dreadful. I do not know whether hon. members have been through the packing houses and have seen the conditions under which these men work, often wading through blood and dirt. Have they seen the workers in these shops travelling from sub-zero to almost tropical temperatures in different rooms, day after day? Here is an industry that seriously impairs the health of the worker. It is all very well thinking in terms of an hourly wage, but after all that is not the way to think of those engaged in these jobs. You must think of them in terms of an annual wage, and then ask how long such men will be able to carry on in the packing house industry. As a matter of fact, a man of fifty is pretty well through because the severity of the work in the packing plant is such that he cannot carry on after that age.
These men are asking for some improvement in conditions, some hope of security from the government, and they are not holding anybody up. I may tell the government now, and they know it as well as I do, that there is going to be a strike in this industry unless they get busy and bring down a policy which will suit the workers throughout the country. The workers do not want very much. They want union security and reduced hours of work, they want decent working conditions and incomes on which they and their
families can live in comfort. These are the minimum demands of those who have been producing to win the war, of those whose sons died to win the war. They are the minimum demands of the workers of Canada, and the workers are going to get them, or they and their brothers who are coming out of the services are going to know the reason why.


Mr. FRED ROSE (Cartier):: I was surprised at the easy manner in which hon. members approached the question raised by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis). I should have thought there would be more interest in the matter in this house. It is not for labour alone, it is not for the unions alone, it is for Canada that the Ford workers are striking to-day. They want to make sure that we do not go back to prewar wage levels and insecurity. They are not there fighting merely for the Ford employees but for the men who are coming back from overseas and who will not be satisfied to go back to pre-war conditions.
The strike is not something that these workers have brought about because they wanted to strike. It is not that. Workers in various plants and industries have felt for the past year a change in the attitude of employers. Before V-E day, when war materials were necessary, employers were willing to collaborate, but once they felt that the war was coming to an end they started to provoke trouble in the shops. They laid off active unionists and fired certain workers and rehired at lower wages. All these methods were resorted to in order to prepare for the post-war period. The workers to-day on strike are saying that this is not going to happen. If their income is insufficient it will not be merely the Ford workers who will suffer. What about the storekeeper, the dentist, the doctor, and everyone else?
We have been speaking in government documents about high income; that is mentioned in most government documents. But how will anyone obtain a high income unless the government gives the lead by encouraging an increase in wages? I should like to know what sort of increase has there been in the productivity of labour in industry. According to certain figures I have seen, it appears that there has been an increase of thirty per cent in industrial efficiency in the United States. I do not know what the corresponding increase in productivity in Canada has been, but I believe there has been a similar increase. Thus an increase in wages for Canadian labour will not affect profits. In fact, I have no doubt that when it comes to profit*

Ford Motor Plant Strike
there will be more than a slight cut in excess profits taxes when we hear about it on Friday-night. The employers will be looked after.
What about the workers? The Ford strikers want union security. They are not asking for anything new. The Canadian congress of labour and the trades and labour congress have asked for union security, but the government has done nothing. There were no changes in P.C. 1003. In this house we see orders in council often enough, but in regard to labour legislation there has been no change. I suggest that the government can still pass the necessary order in council amending 1003 so as to give the workers union security. Union security to the worker would mean that he could go into the shop feeling that he was a human being and that the boss could not manipulate wages and working conditions to his detriment.
I was very much disappointed in the replies I received last week from the Minister of Labour regarding steps to settle the Ford strike. I was told about a home being one's castle. I did not know that the office was Mr. Campbell's home, although I understand he has built up very elaborate offices in the plant. Campbell can sit back and say, "I don't care a hoot what happens to the country; I don't care if we reconvert in a hurry so as to give employment; I will wait until I break them." But the workers cannot wait. And their only weapon is organization, union security and the picket line.
I should have liked to hear some word of encouragement from the Minister of Labour rather than the statement that he thought the other party was right. In my opinion P.C. 1003 should be amended, and it should be amended in such a way that Campbell will know that he must meet with the union; that union security is the law of the land. If Campbell still does not wish to negotiate, I fully concur in the request of the member for Cape Breton South to take over the plant. This is a time to give leadership. If nothing happens now, if greedy employers are encouraged to-day, a very bad beginning will be made in reconversion.
I have met many boys who have come back from overseas. What do they say? They have been flying officers, flight-lieutenants, lieutenants in the army and so on. They have got used to a new standard of living, and they will insist upon a decent standard when they get back.
The union is fighting for these boys just as much as for the small storekeeper. These people are fighting for every worker in the country and they should get the support of this government. It is not enough for the
(Mr. Rose.]
government to say: We will try to do our best. When the government wants to try, it generally finds better methods than those now employed with regard to the Ford strike. It is the duty of the government to act, and I hope we shall get action in a hurry.


Mr. J. S. SINNOTT (Springfield):: Being a member of parliament I am much interested in this labour movement. I do not take an unkindly attitude towards the working man, because I have done much hard work myself and I know he is entitled to a day's pay. But I believe during the past few weeks there has been an attempt to incite these workers to what they are doing. I have in my hand a letter in which it is stated that ten thousand citizens of Toronto met on October 3 and passed a resolution which reads in part:
This public rally for a labour programme on reconversion, and in support of the Ford and Guelph strikers, urge you to regard these matters as of national urgency; and that you move for their immediate discussion in the House of Commons demanding government intervention at once, (1) to grant union security in the Ford and Guelph plants, (2) to take action for the maintenance of purchasing power of the working people of Canada, and (3) to guarantee operation by government control, if necessary, of war plants now closed, or closing.
We would appreciate your answer as to what action you intend taking in this matter.
I think this is the improper place to discuss this; I think it is improper to waste the time of 245 members of parliament to discuss the situation.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: Will the hon. member say what it is right to discuss here?


William Irvine: What is the place?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I have the letter here which I wrote in reply, and I shall read it to the house. It is as follows:
Ottawa, Ontario, October 9, 1945.
Mr. Malcolm Murdock,
AFL-CIO Delegate Reconversion Committee,
617 Yonge street,
Toronto, Ontario.
Dear Sir:
Your letter received this morning, re Toronto, Ford and Guelph, Kitchener, Hamilton, Oshawa towns, etc., Ford strike.
Please notify immediately as to the wages and conditions offered you by the Ford Company. Without this information, I would not be in a position to place your urgency before the house.


Fred Rose: Would the hon. member permit a question? Was the hon. member present when the strike question was explained?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I continue with the letter:
I would also give you to understand there is a Minister of Labour appointed to look after this matter, and I do not see any reason why


[Stage Direction]
Ford Motor Plant Strike
the time of the House of Commons should be taken up regarding this matter. In my opinion, if the Minister of Labour is not attending to his position in the manner he should, others should be placed in his position.
At this time I would not be able to place your complaints before the house until I had all the information from both sides.
Hoping at an early date to have such information as is necessary so I may be able to use my influence to help settle this very important matter.
In saying what I have in this letter, I have every regard for the Minister of Labour. I think he is endeavouring to settle this question. This is his baby; he is Minister of Labour. He should deal with it, and we should not take up the time of the house in discussing it.
Arthur Leroy Smith: I had not intended until quite some time from now occupying the time of this house, but inasmuch as I had occasion recently to see these men from Windsor, and also Mr. Burt, the president of the union organization in this country, and Mr. MacIntyre, their international representative, and had some frank talks with them, I think perhaps I should at least declare myself in this picture in no uncertain terms. In doing so I intend to confine myself entirely to the events at Windsor. I am much inclined to agree with my friend from Nova Scotia that they may be simmering in many other places. But may I say immediately that if we want a general strike in Canada, as these men are talking about, inflammatory speeches of the kind they are making is the best way to bring it about.
This dispute at Windsor involves a number of things, and they cannot be discussed here because we have only one side of the picture. But I am going to say this: it involves union security. I stand up in this house and I say publicly that I am in favour of union security. That is one of the big things they are talking about. I will go even further. I will go with them in the way they are going to get union security. They have it across the river from the Windsor plant. You can hit one plant from the other with a rock. Why they cannot have equal conditions with the same ownership is something with respect to which I cannot agree with my hon. friend.
In meeting these men I said this to them: "You are picketing this office building, and you are wrong. You are just so wrong-I cannot use the language here that I used there to state exactly what I said at the time. I know a little about this business. I am no new convert to unionism. I believe in organized labour. I have been a solicitor for the biggest union in western Canada for a great many years. They are on strike right now, the 47696-54
United Mine Workers of America, without the consent of their bosses. I may lose a job by having made that remark; nevertheless I have made it. Of course, money does not matter to us down here; our indemnity covers all our troubles, therefore we do not need to worry about things like that. But I say I speak from conviction with respect to organized labour- and I do not mean little unions, I mean strong unions.
What is the object of talking about collective bargaining if unions sit in on the picture with no money, and the bosses have all the money? It is not a bargain unless these unions are strong. I repeat, I believe in strong unions.
These men are completely wrong in picketing the Ford office building, and I will tell you why. They have an office workers' union which is composed of 870 members. They have not declared a strike. If they want to get within the law, let them call them out on strike, and then there would be no illegality in Windsor. But they are having the plant people picket the office. They say the office people are not coming down. That is perfectly true. I would not come down if I were working in that office. But aside from that one thing I am very much in favour of the attitude of the men there.
I now make this suggestion to the Minister of Labour. I greatly fear that there is much truth in what I have heard from my hon. friends just over here. We have the packing house situation in Winnipeg, where something seems to be going on. We have the mining situation in the west. You hear rumbles here and there. I give the leaders of the U.A.W.-C.I.O. credit for this, keeping the people at work in the other plants at Windsor. I have gone into it to some extent and I want to give Burt and MacIntyre in Ford and their colleagues all the marks I can for doing that at the present time-in other words, to stop this prairie fire spreading. I make this suggestion to the minister. The conditions which exist now existed when he invited the parties to meet him and the Minister of Labour for Ontario; in other words, the illegality was there; the offices were being picketed. There has been no change from the time of his invitation until now. The owners of this company, Mr. Campbell and others, refused the invitation given by the two ministers. When I say "ministers," please remember that I am including the Minister of Labour for Ontario. When that invitation was given, conditions in that place were exactly the same as at the time the invitation was refused. I say this: when the Minister of Labour for Canada and the Minister of Labour for Ontario invite Mr. REVISED EDITION
Ford Motor Plant Strike

Campbell for a conference, it is up to Mr. Campbell to come. Nobody ever lost anything by chatting about a dispute, by getting together about it.
Suppose you have a row with your wife. You cannot lay down a condition that she has to wear number ten shoes or something of that kind before you speak to her again. You may be wrong, she may be wrong, but the only way you ever straighten out these things is to talk them over across a table. Therefore it does seem to me, even if it is necessary to go to the length suggested over here, that if these people will not meet, the minister must use drastic methods. He should put the pressure on Mr. Campbell and say: Here, let us stop this nonsense. Let us say to the men: Pull out your union, if you want a legitimate strike. But in the name of God let us get together, stop this shadow-boxing and prevent a labour conflagration the like of which this country never witnessed before.


Mr. J. O. PROBE (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, when I listened in this house some weeks ago to a discussion as to whether this august assembly should declare the war at an end or whether we should wait some months before the Canadian government put its stamp of approval on the fact that peace had come to this land, even though our armed forces had ceased fighting the enemy, I was at a loss to know why we should be debating that problem. Hon. gentlemen to my immediate right kept insisting that the war should be declared over, because then the process of removing controls might get under way, which would give certain interested persons an opportunity to get back into free enterprise on a proper and unrestricted scale. First I suspected that possibly the war controls instituted by the government during the last five years were being retained to bring about an orderly transition from war to peace, as was indicated by a number of hon. members on the other side of the house. Then in reading various press reports relating to strikes in British Columbia, at Toronto, at Guelph and at Windsor, with the rumblings of a strike at Winnipeg; seeing the. football being thrown from the provincial government to the Minister of Labour at Ottawa and back; seeing the Minister of Labour here step into a reportedly provincial matter and settle the American Can strike in British Columbia by forcing a board of conciliation on the two disputants; seeing that when the packing house employees all across Canada were on strike or in process of going on strike the Ontario Minister of Labour took up the cudgel and was able to settle a dominion dispute, as a novice in this house 
I was left definitely at sea as to who had jurisdiction in any given field of labour legislation.


Humphrey Mitchell: Might I say to my hon. friend that he is still at sea, though I regret having to say so.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Just a minute, now.


Humphrey Mitchell: All right; an attack is being made on myself and on the Ontario Minister of Labour, who is not here.


John Oliver Probe: I made no attack on the Minister of Labour of Ontario. I said he settled a strike which was of dominion-wide proportions.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is a different-thing. First you said it was a dominion affair.


John Oliver Probe: I did not make a deliberate attack on the Ontario Minister of Labour. I am quite happy that he settled the dispute in question, though I did not say so.
Coming back to the point I was trying to make when the Minister of Labour corrected me on my way of expressing my opinions in this matter, we have certain wartime labour controls. As I see it, if we had to have those controls at all they should have been allinclusive. Apparently some government, whether it be the Tory government at Toronto or our own government here at Ottawa, is able under certain conditions to step in and either by conciliation or by an enforced arbitration, as happened in the two cases I mentioned, settle a labour dispute, under powers vested in the government by certain war measures and orders in council. I have come to the conclusion that the power of the government of this country is being used not to force reasonable conciliation in these disputes but to keep wages frozen, to keep overtime pay frozen, to keep minimum hours of labour frozen at a maximum figure. In my own province of Saskatchewan, where the provincial government authorized two weeks' vacation with pay for all employees, the power of the federal government was invoked to prevent those employees from receiving the holidays to which they were justly entitled. Only this afternoon I was reading in the Labour Gazette something relating to P.C. 9384, which is the wartime wages control order, in which various judgments of regional labour boards were given to this effect: "the primary function of war labour boards is to stabilize the wage structure in Canada, and that purpose cannot be achieved by equalizing wages across the various economic regions of Canada."


[Stage Direction]
Ford Motor Plant Strike
So we have restrictive measures still in operation and being skilfully used by employers who request their application by the government because otherwise there will be an upward revision of the wage structure as a result of which the prices of commodities will go up. These restrictions are in effect in spite of the fact that the workers of this country are in a fatigued condition as the result of long hours with little if any overtime pay. This situation was emphasized to me two years ago at Dagenham, Essex, when I happened to be the luncheon guest of the managing director for England of the Ford Motor Company. I did not discuss politics on that occasion, or I might not have been given this reply to a question I asked with respect to worker fatigue. Mr. Cooper, managing director of Ford at Dagenham, said that in the plants of his company, owing to the excessive hours workers were employed because of the need for producing all available munitions of war, and because of the extra hours that were entailed in roof watching, home guard duties and so on, the incidence of accidents was increasing and the precision of the work being done was decreasing. This being so, if employers are interested in the efficiency of their plants it would seem to me that from that point of view, if for nothing else,* they would accede to the demands of their employees without having to be threatened with a strike. I will say to the credit of most employers of labour in this country that in spite of the restrictions on giving two weeks' holidays with pay each year, many of them have voluntarily recognized the necessity of their people having these holidays.
The Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe) sent out a small pamphlet entitled "Employment and Income, With Special Reference to the Initial Period of Reconstruction." In this pamphlet I noted the following paragraph which seems to me apropos of this discussion:
The transition period . . . with the demand for civilian goods, will require, talcing the country as a whole, all the labour and materials which can be made available. High employment and nation-wide skill will continue.
There will, however, be unavoidable dislocations and delays in some localities where war-time demands have necessitated heavy concentration of war orders and an abnormal war-time population.
The government, working in the first instance through the Department of Reconstruction, is making plans to meet these local situations. These plans include the speedy reestablishment and development of civilian industry in these areas. They will be supplemented, to the extent necessary and desirable by special attention to the field of housing and public works.
In other words, following up the election promises by all political parties, the Minister 47696-54J
of Reconstruction simply reiterates that there will be a more or less continuously high rate of employment, high income for the workers, social security and, I had hoped, collective bargaining. I could go on ad infinitum-or possibly I should say ad nauseam.
In my home city of Regina the problem of reconversion of our major industrial plant, Regina Industries, was settled rapidly. No more than a week after election day, quit slips were being handed out to the employees at the rate of roughly 150 per week. This was done to a point where, to-day, the one large industrial plant in our city is operating only on a skeleton-staff basis. The potentialities of the plant for any form of industrial production are going to be lost to western Canada, and therefore to the country as a whole because, as I understand from the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Abbott), the building is to be turned over for use as an ordnance depot.
The people in that plant who had developed certain skills did not go on strike, nor did they have the opportunity to do so. They were simply eased out because there was no work for them. The manufacture of Bren gun tripods for the Chinese government, which has been proceeding in the plant since June, is one of the outstanding jokes in our war production- simply because those tripods are obsolete. At any rate, the men and women who were working in that plant now have the option of either accepting work offered them at points outside Regina, or accepting unemployment insurance -and ultimately, of course, relief. It is not a simple matter to root up an entire family in one of the prairie provinces and move it either to eastern Canada or to British Columbia for the work obtainable in those areas. Selective service assured our workers in Regina that work was available at those points.
The acceptance of unemployment insurance offers no great incentive to the average citizen. In my view the Unemployment Insurance Act passed in 1940 is an iniquitous piece of legislation. We find that out of approximately 5,000,000 persons gainfully employed, 2,500,000 are covered by the terms of this legislation. The act is full of loopholes. Contributions must be made to the fund for 180 days by an employee in the two years immediately preceding an application for unemployment insurance benefits. To receive those benefits the individual concerned must be capable of and available for work, and must be unable to obtain suitable employment. In other words, he must be capable of earning. But if, through no fault of his own, a man
Ford Motor Plant Strike
[Stage Direction]
becomes sick, the act is not worth the snap of a finger, because under this legislation sickness is a bar to the receipt of benefits.
I did not like the implication of the hon. member who immediately preceded me in the debate, when he said that those of us in this group who are drawing attention to the seriousness of the situation are thereby aggravating its seriousness. But may I point out that those who are now on strike, by the terms of the Unemployment Insurance Act are ineligible for receipt of benefits, because strikers are barred from participation.
Moreover, no insurance benefits are available for the first nine days of unemployment in any benefit year. I know the employees of this country are not Mahatma Ghandis; they cannot enter upon nine-day hunger strikes, when conditions develop which would cause those strikes. This is another principle which deters our working people from making the final and serious move of taking strike action. The very fact that the workers at Windsor are on strike, after seventeen months of negotiation, and after exploring every available channel to secure redress for what they considered to be their grievances signifies clearly to me that their action is definitely that of a last resort.
Another serious defect in the Unemployment Insurance Act, to which I would draw the attention of the house, is that section of the Act which states that if a worker leaves employment without just cause, or is discharged for cause, he is not eligible for benefits.
The solvency of the fund, as set out in section 79, is something which will have to have the attention of hon. members in the very near future. Figures I have, show that in 1942 there were 26,900 applications filed for benefits under the act. In 1943 that number had risen to 36,600 and in 1944 to 30,897. In the first six months of this year the number of applications was 76,821, almost equal that of the whole of 1944. These were the applications for benefits which paid to married men with dependents, if acceptable under the Unemployment Insurance Act, a minimum of $1.80 and up to a maximum of $14.40 per week. These are the figures regardless of the number of dependents.
From the point of view of solvency, the defect in the fund as it is set up under section 79 is that no provision is made for continuity of payments to the fund. I do not wish to indulge in carping criticism, because as a matter of fact I think the government should be congratulated upon having instituted the semblance of an unemployment insurance

fund, even though it follows belatedly the example of other enlightened countries throughout the world. But there are so many loopholes in the Unemployment Insurance Act that either when the workers call upon its benefits they cannot get them, or the $300 million at present in the fund will soon be exhausted.
I have one more reference to make before sitting down. While our friends in the labour movement are being held at bay, so to speak, because they have infringed upon the law in a minor point in preventing a certain Mr. Campbell from entering his business premises, I notice that provision is being made to keep certain other people off the relief roll. A friend drew my attention to the dominion government telephone directory for the month of May, and in that directory I find listed under various departments of government, 1,582 telephone numbers of army officers: 9 lieutenant-generals or major-generals; 23 brigadiers; 75 colonels; 175 lieutenant-colonels; 335 majors; 613 captains; only 352 lieutenants, or second-lieutenants. That makes a grand total of 1,582 brass hats, shall we say. I was in service, Mr. Speaker; I was an officer wearing His Majesty's uniform; but when I think of the intricate mess in which the business of this country becomes entangled because scattered around various government buildings in the city of Ottawa there are enough officers to staff adequately three fighting Canadian divisions overseas, I am appalled. I do not think that all these brass hats so-called are from the province of Saskatchewan either. Even that might require some closer checking up. I have an idea also that the air force and the navy are adequately represented.
We are looking after certain people in this transition period. Certain parts of the army, as I say, are well represented. I have an idea, without knowing the actual facts, that these 1.582 telephone numbers of army officers in the May directory of the government cannot be matched by an equal number of telephones for privates and non-commissioned officers. But certain people are being provided for in this rehabilitation period while the workers of this country, who also did their bit, get the runaround. I would urge upon the Minister of Labour, for the sake of peace, order and good government in this fair Dominion of Canada, that he step into this strike at Windsor just as he stepped in to settle the labour dispute in the American Can Company in British Columbia.
William Irvine: Mr. Speaker, this question to me is of far greater importance than merely the strike at Windsor


[Stage Direction]
Ford Motor Plant Strike
which happens to be the reason why the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) brings this matter to the attention of the house. Its significance is that that strike is just the beginning of a process which, if labour does not hinder it, will go on until wages have dropped to the point at which they were before the war, and it is because labour is determined to resist that and because they recognize that the power of their union, which implies collective bargaining, is the only weapon they can use to resist it, that you have the strike at Windsor. That, sir, is why there will be many more strikes in the next five years if something is not done about it. So, while some hon. members think this is not the time and not the place to bring this matter up-I have heard that said for many years in this house-I do not know of any better time and I know of no better place to talk about this matter than here and now. True, we tried to talk about it at some other time, but we were not given the opportunity. This is the only other chance afforded by the rules of the house for us to present something at least of the case of the workers at the Ford plant at Windsor.
I am not going to offer any sharp criticism of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell). I recognize that his job, if I may call it such, is a very difficult one, not only in this but in all similar disputes. His department, unfortunately for him, happens to be that point at which both the employers and employees meet in their conflict, and as such he has the most difficult task of perhaps any minister of the crown. I would suggest that the government should give him greater assistance by putting behind him a better policy, a policy which he can carry out with his whole heart, and which will be in line with what we might expect in a. country that has fought for and won democracy.
I would, however, suggest to the Minister of Labour that it does seem to me to be almost bringing this matter to an absurdity to say that action cannot be taken because Mr. Campbell cannot get into his office. I am not going to attempt any defence of the action which prevents him, other than to say that in my view, according to my information, the keeping of the workers out of their offices has now become a point of importance to the strikers. That is a factor in the case, but I do not believe that action on the strike by the minister should be delayed because of a minor point of that kind.
I agree most heatily with the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) that the minister should exercise whatever power he has and call the important leaders together, both of the industry concerned and of the striking men, and try to settle the difficulty-and forget about Mr. Campbell's office.
The government, I insist, must do something about this. Not only is the strike at Windsor the beginning of a struggle which, as I have said, will go on until wages drop to a point where the greatest possible profits can be made in peace time-that is the tendency- but it must not be forgotten that an essential industry, no matter which it is, has vital contacts with the whole industrial system of the nation. I would say to the Minister of Labour and to the government that it is just as important for the well-being of the nation and for the people involved in this strike that industry should be kept going in peace time as it was kept going in war. That is something the government will have to learn. True, it endeavoured to maintain full production during the war, and although it may not always have completely reached that objective it made a very creditable job. I suggest that the responsibility still rests on the government to perform that function.
It is being argued by influential people in Canada to-day that we cannot maintain wartime wages and war-time prices. It has been suggested by some of our influential newspapers that the time has come for this parliament and for the government to face up to that issue. One editorial remarks that, "what does seem to be suggested is a matter of common sense, and it is that either prices should be adjusted to wages or wages to prices." But mark this: "To leave the matter to a scuffle in the dark between labour and capital hardly seems sensible." That is precisely what this government is doing, in the case not only of Windsor but of the entire industrial system. They are leaving wage workers to scuffle with their employers in the dark in an attempt to maintain their wages at a living standard. The figures with respect to the wages of the striking workers in Windsor have been given by the hon. member who introduced this discussion. I need not repeat them, beyond laying emphasis upon the lowest figure he quoted, that of $600 a year as an income for the head of a family, which was included in an average wage which reached from $1,000 to $1,200 a year. Every hon. member knows that even $1,200 is not sufficient for a full life in Canada to-day, and we ought to be prepared to do something about it. Further, every one of us knows, if we know anything
Ford Motor Plant Strike
[Stage Direction]
about this situation or any similar one, that collective bargaining is the only instrument which labour so far has been able to use effectively in raising its wages when wages began to go down.
I add my voice in support of the suggestion already made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) that the government should send in a controller to keep this industry going while the processes of reaching agreements are continued. That would be a good way to get into Mr. Campbell's office; let a government controller go there and I am quite sure that he will be admitted through the picket lines. That will remove the difficulty, and the minister can then proceed to his heart's content to settle the strike.
I have said that the Minister of Labour should have a government policy behind him in a matter of this kind. Of course he has, but I imagine it is a policy he cannot like very well. I cannot imagine, from his background, his knowledge, and his fights for labour, that he is particularly happy there. I cannot imagine any labour man being particularly happy as a labour minister in any government which stands for the status quo, and I know the present minister must have his difficulties in that environment.
This government stands for free private enterprise. Now free private enterprise is manifesting its capacity to meet the industrial requirements of this nation from one coast to the other at the present moment. It has entirely failed to prevent vast numbers of men from being laid off without any income except the $14 a week which they may get if and when they receive their unemployment insurance. Free private enterprise has failed to meet the situation in Windsor. Free private enterprise is dabbling away with the problem in the packing plants until the first thing we know we shall have a strike at Winnipeg, Vancouver and other points, tying up the whole live stock industry. Free private enterprise has failed so badly that in the last two weeks we have had, to my knowledge, at least three deputations from various parts of Canada interviewing or seeking to interview the government with respect to the failures of free private enterprise to meet their immediate requirements. We had, for instance, a delegation of 300 in this building a short time ago. They had a specific programme, and their whole plea was that free private enterprise was failing to meet the situation. We had a delegation from Prince Rupert and other parts of British Columbia having to do particularly with rehabilitation and the transition period from war to peace-time industry.

We had another deputation from greater British Columbia centring, I (believe, in Vancouver and Victoria. These three different deputations inside of the last two weeks, along with threatened strikes which I have mentioned and the strike of which we are now speaking, indicate that in so short a time after the cessation of hostilities free private enterprise is on its knees. But it is part of the business of free private enterprise to allow the lag to come so that wages may be forced down, in order that greater profits may be assured for it in the future.
Therefore I am very sorry indeed that the minister has not a policy which would enable -him to meet, and meet satisfactorily, a situation of this kind, a policy which would guarantee every possible assistance to industry in order that it might function as a service to all the people of Canada.
I know pretty well what the government policy about industry is, as I have gathered it from its own published statements. I believe its policy is to allow free private enterprise to have free play until it becomes absolutely imperative for the government to do something, and this means that we shall have perhaps hundreds of thousands of people unemployed and perhaps riots here and there. Then the government is supposed to do something, and what it will do then is to increase public expenditures on public works to take up the slack. According to my information, that is the government's policy. Let free private enterprise carry on until it sticks, as the government is quite sure it will; when it actually does stick, then the government will make expenditures, and those expenditures are to be made from borrowed money, with interest to be paid on the borrowed money, so that the people have to pay higher taxes in order to pay the higher interest to the money-lenders. And so goes our system, like a snake that starts to eat its own tail, until it gets to the back of its neck and cannot go farther. That is the kind of economic system we now have in this country. The snake is busy eating its tail now and it will not be long coming up through the body.
I want to suggest one or two things to the government, knowing of course

well, at least hopeful that they will act immediately on them.
An hon. MEMBER:: You should have fired the first barrel. I think I know what you were going to say.


William Irvine: I want to point out first of all that we have fought for democracy, but I wonder whether as a parliament we have ever made any effort to say what this means, to


[Stage Direction]
Ford Motor Plant Strike
say whether a wage of $600 a year is fit for anyone in a democracy for which young men died. I wonder if we have ever tried to visualize what this thing means for which our men have given their lives. A country that cannot provide homes for its people calling itself a democracy! A country that can find neither jobs for its people nor sufficient income to maintain a standard of decent living calling itself a democracy! I feel about this, as I am quite sure many hon. members feel, that these young men have made a tremendous sacrifice for democracy, and I am damned if I am going to stand here and watch it made a fool of by this government or any other government.
I want to see the people of Canada get democracy. I want to see them get democracy in industry; I want to see them get democracy in ownership of the means by which they live; I want to see them get democracy in the ruling of their industrial lives and pursuits; I want to see the workers have a share in 'he policies of industry, in what they are making, how it is to be made, and all the conditions of labour. I want to see democracy in reality.
That is the fight which is beginning. The fight for democracy has been fought on the military field. The fight now swings into the political and industrial field; as it swings in there I swing in behind it, and so do all of us in this group. And these men are merely the first to make a protest.
I want the government then to guarantee first of all-a very small thing-a minimum income of $25 a week or $100 a month to every worker in Canada between his employment as a war worker and the time he is engaged in similar occupation in peace pursuits, and I want to see at the same time that that becomes a basic wage below which no worker in Canada will be permitted to work in the days that are to come. That is the first thing.
I know the question of money will be raised as usual. I have listened for days to the discussion of a money bill in this house and hon. members, particularly to my right, have laid stress on the enormous amounts of money we hav been spending, how much more we are spending now than we spent twenty years ago. Who cares whether we are spending more now? If we were not spending more now than twenty years ago we would be fit only for a lunatic asylum. The point is, can we produce the goods? That is the first point, and the second point is, can the people of this country consume them? You may say, no; they cannot consume them all. All right; let us fill them up anyhow. Let us fill them up once; let us put something on their backs once; let
us give them a home once; let us see to it that all the people of Canada have all they can eat of wholesome food, that they have homes in which to live, homes that are comfortable, beautiful and worthy of a democracy. Let us see that their children have a chance at education and that they have an opportunity to maintain a free life. Let us do these things; then what is left over we can use for foreign trade, and I imagine there will be quite a bit left over. But let us make sure that our people are not going to be deprived of anything that can- be produced in Canada whiLe machinery and workers are idle and material is going to waste. That is the business of government. That is the responsibility of this administration; the administration is going to be held to that responsibility, and this strike is the first sign of its task.
I suggest to the minister, therefore, that he do two things: first, that he call the leaders together and, if he cannot effect a settlement immediately, he put a controller in there in the interests of government until the matter is settled. I advocate this not particularly for the strikers of Windsor but as an industrial policy for the future. We cannot afford to tie up any great industry in a country in which the people need goods, and it is the business of government to see that our industries are kept going and that those who labour in them receive sufficient for their labours to make it possible for them to live democratically; that is, to live in accordance with a standard of living for which they would not be ashamed that their fighting men overseas had died.
Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: We all agree, I believe, with the objectives which have been expressed by our C.C.F. friends. I believe we all agree with the fine sentiments expressed by the previous speaker (Mr. Irvine). I am quite sure that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) agrees with all that. I rather suspect that ninety-five per cent of the Liberal party agrees with it. But the big problem which confronts them is, where is the money coming from to do all this?


William Irvine: You tell us.


John Horne Blackmore: That is what I rose to do. During the ten years I have been in this house I think I have never found fault with a difficulty without offering a possible solution, and I propose to make no exceptions to that rule. Whether the people who listen to me will have vision and understanding sufficient to be able to appreciate the solution I offer is a matter for their concern, not for mine.


Mr. GIBSON (Comox-Alberni):: We shall try.
Ford Motor Plant Strike


John Horne Blackmore: May I point out to all hon. members something of the problem which confronts the labouring man not only in the Ford plant at Windsor but throughout the length and breadth of this country. In a few minutes I am going to read a statement from the bureau of statistics which conveys a doleful picture of the wage situation which prevailed in Canada in 1941. First of all, let me give a summary of that finding. During the twelve months period which ended on June 2, 1941, of the Canadian wage-earners 32-9 per cent received less than 8450 a year. How many of my Conservative friends want to see the boys come home from overseas and go into jobs where they get as little as that? How many of my Liberal friends want to see that? The next question is, what are you ready to do about it? Do you not realize that the system you are operating to-day, against which these Ford workers are striking, is the very same system that in four years will force the labour people of Canada back into that wage structure? What about it? Do you want that? What are you going to do about it?
In the year ended June 2, 1941, 28-7 per cent of the wage-earners of Canada received between $450 and $949 a year. Now, my Conservative friends, how many of you want to see your boys return from overseas and take that wage? How many of you Liberals want to see your boys take that wage? Yes, but suppose it is your boy; that is a different matter altogether. Suppose it is you, then what? How would you like to try to support a wife and three or four children on a wage like that?
These men in this Ford plant realize that those conditions actually did prevail; they actually lived through them. The members of this house sat and twiddled their idle, useless thumbs while it went on, and the Liberal government under the charge of William Lyon Mackenzie King sat there and allowed them to do it. These are extremely serious matters.
Furthermore, 29-9 per cent of all the wage-earners in Canada received in that same year between $950 and $1,949 a year. I should like to ask how many members of this house want to see the boys they raised and saw go overseas come back and take that wage? This adds up to the following impressive total: In the year ending June 2, 1941, a war year, 91-5 per cent of the wage-earners of Canada were receiving under $1,950 a year. Before we can fully appreciate the ardour and the fervour and determination with which these men in the Ford plant are waging their battle with every means at their command, we must understand the gloom of the picture which they see,

and get their point of view. And when we understand it, let us get our newspaper supporters all over this country to give that picture so that everybody understands it. I have the idea that the members of this house can have considerable influence on the newspapers, especially where these members happen to be Liberals and Conservatives.
It is of the first importance that the Canadian people be informed as to the true facts which obtain in this country. Let us take a look at the case of the Ford Motor company owners. We must understand both sides. Let us see what confronts them. But before we do have a discussion on their problem, let us ask ourselves this question. Why did those wage rates prevail in Canada? Tell me, am I right when I say that those wage rates prevailed in Canada because of a foreign trade complex which exists in the minds of the Canadian people? If I am wrong I shall welcome being corrected by any Liberal or Conservative who will produce evidence to prove his point.
When we are labouring under the foreign trade complex we naturally assume, if we are employers, that wages must come down because prices must come down, because we must be able to sell our goods in competition with other producers, first of all in our own country, and second, in other countries, producing goods that will compete with our goods in foreign markets. That is argued by producers. That puts the employers, perhaps not the Ford motor people to so great an extent, but certainly the packing people and most other producers, in an almost impossible position. Their backs, too, are to the wall. Each side in this struggle finds itself with its back to the wall; each feels that it must fight to protect its very existence; each adopts whatever weapons and tactics it considers essential to success. Thus we see the struggle in Windsor to-day threatening our very national peace, order and good government, if not ultimately our very national existence.
Our C.C.F. friends will say, well, it is an evidence that private enterprise has failed. I say that is pure piffle. It is not evidence that private enterprise has failed. It is evidence that private enterprise is thoroughly alert, thoroughly familiar with the situation confronting it, and is fighting to subsist. If it is unable to make a success of the situation it is not an evidence that private enterprise is failing; it is an evidence that government policy in this country is failing; it is an evidence that we are endeavouring to make work a system which cannot possibly work.


[Stage Direction]
Ford Motor Plant Strike
The thing that nearly everyone in the debate thus far has condemned in the government is this attitude which I, too, condemn, namely, that the government seems to take the position that the government is merely a referee in the situation; that the government must not participate in this quarrel between these little boys; that it is not responsible in the situation. I will not say that the minister has taken the attitude that he is not responsible, but thus far his attitude has been such that he appears to take the view that somebody else must take the responsibility before he can assume his.
Now may I say this once more. The government will simply have to change its financial system or this kind of thing will go on to the ultimate utter destruction of the country. Already we can see what may happen. The government never will be able to solve the problems under the present system. When I say we must change the system, I do not mean that we must change to government ownership, and I will discuss that for a moment or two shortly. I do not want to quarrel with my C.C.F. friends, but I wish to tell them that in my judgment they are barking up the wrong tree; they are going up a blind alley. If they were to apply their policies in this country they would not succeed any better than the present system is succeeding, because they would not be putting their finger on the main cause of the trouble.
The present system distributes too little purchasing power, and it cannot do otherwise. Let us for a moment refer to the figures I used a short time ago. If enterprise, whether government or private, in this country were obliged to compete in the foreign market, certainly it would have to bring down the prices of its goods in order to go on that foreign market. What would it do? That is a matter which has to be considered very carefully. Let us look again at the figures I gave. It will be noticed that I pointed out that 91-5 per cent of all the wage-earners of Canada were receiving less than $1,950, and 32-9 per cent of them were receiving less than $450. In a country where the wage-earners are getting such meagre incomes as those, how in the world can the Ford Motor Company or Canada Packers or any other organization sell its goods? That is the first difficulty. There just is not the purchasing power going into the hands of the people to enable them to buy the goods. And if all the industries in the country were taken over by the government and run as government concerns, that fact would not necessarily change the wage structure one
dollar. If the wage structure were raised, then unquestionably the prices of goods would rise and the problem of selling the goods would be accentuated and intensified. The fact that under our present system insufficient purchasing power is consistently going into the hands of the people puts private enterprise under an impossible handicap; and to blame private enterprise for inability to deal with the situation confronting us is as bad as to tie a man hand and foot, weigh him down with a hundred pound weight, and blame him because he is not able to run. Under the present financial system private enterprise has not the ghost of a chance. There must be a means of obtaining purchasing power which can be distributed among the people, which can increase the incomes of those people whose wages we have had under review.
Even if the government owned the plants the same thing would be true. I believe the average run of our C.C.F. people and a great many of the socialistically inclined people in the Liberal party, the Conservative party and elsewhere, as well as throughout the country, have in mind an idea with regard to the profits people are making that is altogether fallacious. There are big profits in some cases, yes; but any man who has ever taken over even a farm and tried to make a go of it-
An hon. MEMBER:: Or a brick yard.


John Horne Blackmore: -yes, or a brickyard, and tried to make a go of it, or any kind of concern, knows how hard it is to make profits. As I look over my C.C.F. friends, I do not know how many of them have ever tried to do that. It is hard to make profits and easy to lose them in just a few bad years. By way of example, in a perfectly kindly way, may I suggest that for a moment we consider what would happen if the C.C.F. were in power in Canada and took over the Ford plant. I should like to ask three or four questions. Let us ask them in a perfectly straightforward way, because we must have the truth. Would they pay all the workers a living wage?


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: Yes.


John Horne Blackmore: I imagine all the
members of the C.C.F. would chorus yes, as their leader has done. Would that living wage be less than $1,800 a year? I do not think any member of the C.C.F. would dare say no.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: I would say it could not be less.


John Horne Blackmore: You would not say it could be less, would you? .
Ford Motor Plant Strike


Mr. COLD  WELL@: No.


John Horne Blackmore: You would not consider for a moment having a wage of less than $1,800 a year?


Mr. COLD  WELL@: I do not think a man can live decently on less than that if he is married.


John Horne Blackmore: I quite agree. You see, social crediters and the C.C.F. do not disagree very much (with respect to objectives; it is when we come to techniques that we disagree. Now, this is the question the C.C.F. would have to answer immediately. Where would the money come from with which to give those workers $1,800 a year? They would say, out of profits.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Out of production, not out of profits.


John Horne Blackmore: Well, you could not possibly get it out of production without taking it out of profits.


William Irvine: Would you let me answer that question for you?


John Horne Blackmore: Yes, gladly.


William Irvine: My answer is that we would not hesitate to create just as much money as was necessary to equal the goods we were competent to produce.


John Horne Blackmore: I am very glad to hear that answer, and I presume it meets with the approval of the leader of the party; is that right?


Mr. COLD  WELL@: That is right.


John Horne Blackmore: Then I am going to ask the C.C.F. why they have been so busy for years now trying to destroy the social credit movement in Canada, which is the one movement which has gone on record as favouring that very thing. Now let them explain that.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: No; you have the cart before the horse.


John Horne Blackmore: That is a pretty weak answer.


William Irvine: Maybe we are getting together now.


John Horne Blackmore: If we do it is the C.C.F. who will have to do the getting together, because they are wrong. If they agree with what the hon. member for Cariboo has just said, then no member of the C.C.F. has any right whatever to oppose any social erediter in this country; he could not in honour do so, because that is precisely the attitude the social credit, people have taken.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Then why did the social crediters disapprove the hon. member for Cariboo in 1935?


John Horne Blackmore: If I remember correctly the hon. member for Cariboo had a rather bad record when he got out to Alberta in 1935. He did most excellent work in the House of Commons; he made some speeches of which any social erediter would be proud, but when he went to Alberta later he rather spoiled it all. But we will discuss that later on; I think we have the goods on my hon. friend which will be quite sufficient if we have to use them.
If the C.C.F. favour the creation of money to equal the goods produced, that is fine. Why have they not advocated it in this house up to this time? They have never done so. Probably now they are beginning to favour that idea. I think you will find, Mr. Speaker, as the days go by in this country, that all parties, perhaps the C.CF. first, will come to realize that the one group which was right in this matter in 1935 was the Social Credit group. They will find that the social crediters were right in their monetary views; that they were right in their price views; that they were right in their dividend views. Why, the C.C.F. even advocate a dividend of $25 a week; that was done by the hon. member who just preceded me. Other parties will find that the social crediters were right in their war ideas and in every single thing upon which they made a public pronouncement.


Mr. FAIR:: And will be right in days to come.


John Horne Blackmore: And you will find that the members of the other groups gradually will come to that point of view. If the Canadian people could only know that this would happen quickly enough to save us from disasters which threaten, such as the Ford dispute, then the people could breathe a sigh of relief.
There just is no possible way of solving this problem except the way I suggest. I ask this: Where would the money come from? If the C.C.F. would use the method that the social crediters suggest, use the price system they suggest, use the wage system they suggest and use the dividend system they suggest; in other words, if the C.C.F. would become social crediters, they would solve the problem. And they would find that if they did that they would not need to own the plants. All they would have to do with the Ford Motor Company is this-and I hope the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) will not make any silly mis-


[Stage Direction]
Ford Motor Plant Strike
takes because he has made many in this House of Commons. He had better not laugh a foolish laugh until he realizes that if the Ford Motor Company knew its prices would be guaranteed by social credit technique: if it knew positively that its workers would be guaranteed their incomes by social credit technique, and if the workers knew that their incomes would be guaranteed by that technique, and that markets for their goods would be guaranteed by that same social credit technique, they would end the strike to-night. There would be no further argument at all. There would be no need for any government to take over the plant.
Where could one find an organization more efficient in the building of motor cars than is the Ford Motor Company? For what do hon. members suppose the company is operating its plant? Is it just for fun? Does anyone imagine for a split second they would not sell their goods, all the goods they can possibly manage to make, if they could sell them at remunerative prices? To imagine that is to accuse them of being stupid-and they are not stupid, or they would not be where they are. It would not be necessary to have the government take over the plant. All you have to do is to guarantee wages and prices, and put purchasing power into the hands of the people so that they may buy. Do that, and the trouble will clear up immediately.
Mr. LESAGE:: And in six months they like to buy more-and it will start all over again.


John Horne Blackmore: If the hon. member will come to my office I will talk to him. Obviously I cannot conduct him through a full course in economics right here on the floor of the house. But if he will come to my office


Joseph Arthur Lesage: I will.


John Horne Blackmore: -I will answer his questions so that he will not be able to say a word.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: Is it a challenge?


John Horne Blackmore: In fact, I will offer him this challenge: If he will bring five of his friends who are not prejudiced one way or another and set them down in my office, I will undertake to answer every one of his questions so fully that his five friends will declare they are answered. There can be no question about it at all.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: I take the challenge.


John Horne Blackmore: I am not afraid of it, because I have done it before.
Under the C.C.F., or under any socialistic technique through which we would have government ownership, where would a plant sell its goods? How would it sell those goods on the world markets? One can readily understand how it could sell its goods on the world markets if the government were prepared to use a social credit technique, that of subsidizing exports where necessary to sell exports abroad. I can understand that. Under that system I could see where they would sell their goods abroad. I believe the Ford Motor Company could do it, as a private organization. But may I hasten to say that social credit would not bother subsidizing goods to be sold abroad in competition with goods from factories within a given nation. That is, we would not undertake to force our goods into the world markets. If a nation wanted our goods, well and good. But if it were a matter of putting our goods into the hands of another nation to displace its industry, we would be against it. I thought it was necessary to say that, because some people might misunderstand.
I believe I have said enough at this time. Hon. members in this group are entirely in sympathy with the struggle being made by the Ford Motor Company employees. We realize they are doing things which they feel they would not like to do but which the government, because of the attitude it has taken, is forcing them to do. And the Ford plant is taking measures it is not justified in taking. Once more, by persisting in the present financial system, the government is forcing them into that position.
All I would say is simply this: Let the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell), get permission from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), who seems to be the one who runs the whole show, to go to the Ford plant and say to them, Look here, gentlemen; this problem must be solved, and it must be solved right away. I am not going to suggest to him the measures he should take. But I will say that it can be done, and I will say further that it must be done, if Canada's economic and social structure is to be preserved. If the minister cannot solve it under the present system, then I urge upon him that with all possible speed he adopt a system under which he can solve it.
When I read the figures I have in my hand possibly some hon. members will wonder just to what extent they are in accordance with those supplied by the bureau of statistics. For those who wish to have the information authentically may I read this letter dated

Ford Motor Plant Strike
September 25,	1945, from the Dominion
Bureau of Statistics, and addressed to me in the following words:
Further to our telephone conversation1 of this morning regarding the percentage of wage-earners receiving various amounts of income.
The percentage of wage-earners earning less than $450 for the 12 months' period prior to the date of the census, June 2, 1941, was 32-9 per cent. 28-7 per cent of the wrage-earners reported earnings between $450 and $949; 29-9 per cent earned between $950 and $1,949 and 6-8 per cent earned $1,950 and over. 1-7 per cent of the wage-earners did not state the amount of earnings for the year.
For your information I am enclosing herewith census bulletins showing the earnings of wage-earners by occupation and the earnings and employment of wage-earners for the various census divisions or counties as well as a number of urban centres in Canada. The above statistics are taken from these bulletins.
Yours very truly,
J. L. Forsyth,
Statistician.
So that hon. members may see these bulletins, I am holding them up in my hand. I think this will serve as a basis upon which to do our future thinking.
We shall have more discussion along these lines by and by.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



OLD AGE PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, October 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. Maclnnis:
That, in the opinion of this house, the time has arrived -when consideration should be given to amending the Old Age Pension Act by lowering the pensionable age to sixty years, by increasing the amount of the pension so as to enable the recipients to live in health and selfrespect, and by deleting the income requirements for eligibility.
Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to-night to speak to this resolution, but my colleague who was to resume the debate to-night has been unavoidably detained and so I am going to say a few words in support of the resolution pending his arrival.
The resolution speaks for itself. The time has come when in the interests not only of humanity but of our whole economic structure the old age pension should be raised so that people who have approached the eventide

of life may be able to live in comfort and decency. I do not think anyone in this house will contend to-day that an old age pension of $30 a month even at the age of seventy is sufficient in the kind of economy in which we are living. From time to time figures are produced by the bureau of statistics to show that more than twice that amount is required to meet the bare necessities of living in this country; and to expect our people to live at a rate of $30 a month or $1 a day is, I think, altogether wrong at this time. We have just concluded a great war, and our industrial equipment is now many times as large as it was before the war. We are now engaged in reconverting war industry to peace-time needs. Hence it is right not only to maintain but to extend the purchasing power of the people in order that they may buy the goods which can be manufactured with our largely improved machinery and skills.
This afternoon we were discussing, for example, the rates of wages that should be paid in industry. One could discuss in the same vein the prices which must be paid for agricultural products in order that the producer might have his purchasing power largely increased. And now here in the old age pensioners we have a group of citizens getting on in years who should be retiring at sixty and enjoying the rest of their days, but who are now at seventy kept at a level far below that of a decent subsistence. Hence we believe that every consideration should be given by the government to this resolution.
There should be no means test. The means test can be readily eliminated, and if the pension is paid to all those who attain a certain age, then through our income tax structure the amount in excess of what is needed to maintain the standard of living to which the individual has been more or less used can be withdrawn by taxation as not being required to maintain the standards to which I have referred.
We therefore believe that the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) in moving this resolution has placed before the house something which deserves the support of every member on all sides of this chamber. I do not intend to say more except that I am, of course, in thorough accord with the resolution, which I hope will be recommended to the government for its consideration and early action.


Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, before I proceed with my remarks on the resolution, I wish first of all to compliment you, as I did when you received your appointment, upon your elevation to the

Old Age Pensions
Speakership of the House of Commons. In extending my congratulations to you in my letter I stated that I fully realized you were thoroughly qualified to hold the position. Also I told you that I was hoping that I might get the position myself. This was an absolutely legitimate hope, I think in view of my experience as Deputy Speaker and as one of the old-time members of the House of Commons. I am now, I believe, the senior Liberal member for the province of Ontario, and, like you, I myself have come up the hard way fighting every inch of the way to make my mark in the section of Ontario where I went as a pioneer nearly forty-five years ago. It was a hard thing to see the prize escape my grasp. However, we must take these things in our stride. I know that the position of Speaker is in absolutely capable and responsible hands, and I am sure that you will enjoy the cooperation of every section of the House of Commons, just as I did in the two years that I was Deputy Speaker of the house.
I should like to take this first opportunity I have had of speaking to this body and thanking every member of the House of Commons from 1943 to the last general election for the wonderful cooperation that I received from every hon. member.
It is not necessary for me to say that I am in agreement with the resolution which has been brought forward by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis). It must strike particularly the new members of parliament when they see what we call private members' day function in this House of Commons. It is practically the only opportunity open to every private member during the session to give expression to his sentiments and to bring forcefully before the house the matters in which he and his constituents are interested. I vividly recollect when I was first elected member of the House of Commons. I sat in the farther corner of the house and for three or four days I listened to the debate on the speech from the throne and was puzzling why there was so much deliberation. At first it seemed futile. But after a few days it dawned upon me that I was hearing the voice of the maritimes, the voice of central Canada, Quebec and Ontario, the voice of the prairie provinces and of British Columbia. Here I heard discussed all the problems of every part of Canada, and I should like to say to the premiers of the different provinces in the Canadian confederation: Do not worry too much over provincial prerogatives and initiative because every federal member of the House of Commons is primarily a muni-cipalist, then a provincialist, and then a
federalist. So that there are all the necessary safeguards so far as provincial government activities and autonomy are concerned.
No one has ever doubted the sincerity of the mover of the resolution now before us. I for one during my first years of association with the hon. member for Vancouver East in parliament and in committees was inclined to be a little impatient with him. Of course, I shall never be a socialist. But after I had had an opportunity of sitting with the hon. member for Vancouver East and listening to him from time to time I was convinced of his sincerity of purpose, just as I was when he made his presentation the other day in moving this resolution.
If the Chair wanted to rigidly follow the rules of the house the resolution might have been held to be out of order, because the subject of old age pensions is on the agenda of the next dominion-provincial conference. However, I believe it was a fine thing to allow the discussion of old age pensions by every section of the house. The hon. member, in speaking of finance, said he did not know very much about it, and I believe he remarked that he was not well informed on problems of money. But he said also, in the statistics he gave the house, that to implement the scheme contemplated in his resolution would mean the expenditure of $800 million. That is interesting, for the party to which he belongs is definitely opposed to either inflation or deflation. They will never allow anything which in their opinion would inflate or deflate the earnings of the workers and farmers of this country. When I make that statement I have in mind a resolution which I believe was brought forward a year or two ago by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright), who was worrying about what would happen to the bonds belonging to the Canadian people, fearing that they might lose some of their value. We had a good discussion. I know that as far as the house was concerned there was no demagogy about it.
But I could go farther on the same lines if I wanted to. To this resolution I could present an amendment asking, for instance, that old age pensions be paid to people at fifty or fifty-five years of age, and that they should receive S75 or 8100 a month. But we must remain within the limits of realism. After all, here we are in the federal forum looking after the affairs of this country, and this should be done in a national way. I believe that without exception every hon. member is progressive-minded. We fully realize that the days of the common man have
Old Age Pensions

been ushered in, and that there will be no retreat. The New Deal spirit must carry on. It is absolutely impossible to reverse our direction, and nobody would want it. At the same time in our -discussions we must keep away from demagogy, for eventually the people will analyse and pass judgment upon our actions.
As I have said, it would be easy for me this evening to go much farther than the hon. member for Vancouver East, but I do not belive it would be fair to my constituents, to parliament, or to the country. Let me refer to one statement he made which I do not fully understand. In quoting statistics of persons of certain age groups he said that there were 610,000 employed, the remainder being nearly 700,000, and he created the impression that these latter were unemployed. I well remember a few years ago that an hon. member, when speaking or a matter of that kind, made the statement, relating to one phase of modern life, that every farmer should have at least two wives. As far as I was concerned as a single man, I was highly scandalized, but when I came to analyse his statement I thought there was some realism about it. In any event, to my mind the hon. member for Vancouver East created the impression that nearly 700,000 of these people were unemployed. It occurs to me that probably these people, or most of them, were unemployable. They may have been housewives or engaged in some similar occupation. Therefore the statistics he gave did not entirely convince me. When we discuss matters of this kind we must see the whole picture; we must survey the entire social programme of parliament; otherwise our judgments may be unfair. It is very easy, for instance, to single out and emphasize one item. Take health insurance: the implementing of that reform must be considered in relation to other reforms; you cannot single out one and leave the others out of account. Therefore I say that I have been pleased at the nature of the deliberation which has taken place so far upon this matter. We cannot afford to be backward; we are now going forward. I was greatly pleased at the fine cooperation which was shown last summer at the dominion-provincial conference between the federal administration and the premiers of the nine provinces. There were no "poor relations" there; we were all Canadians; all seemed to be equal. I hope as an Ontarian that the premier of the banner province will find it possible to maintain the same constructive attitude all the way through. The same should apply to Quebec and British Columbia, and,

indeed, to all the provinces. They are in the same position as far as this country nationally is concerned as Canada is in the international sphere. If people are suffering in Europe, if there is a depressed Asia, one feels no sense of security. The same applies to Canada; if some sections of this country are prosperous while others are depressed we shall not have unity and prosperity. I must give the highest praise to the premier of every province for the fine spirit of cooperation which was shown last summer when they met in Ottawa to discuss dominion-provincial questions. I hope most sincerely that that spirit will be maintained one hundred per cent. We come from different provinces, but there is one great unifying power, which is Canada, our only country.
I wish to touch briefly on pensions and insurance, and I should like the house to make a clear distinction between the two. As far as I am concerned I shall always be in favour of pensions for the blind, the invalids, the infirm, and the veterans. On the other hand there are those who in my opinion are not entitled to pensions. During the last election I told the people of my constituency that I was in favour of a scheme of old age insurance whereby a person who reached the age of nineteen or twenty-one should pay a nominal sum per month-for example, eight or ten or twelve cents-and that he would receive at the age of sixty or sixty-five the sum of $50 a month. I believe that is the best approach as far as old age pension is concerned. I do not believe in hand-outs to people who are able to look after themselves. Under the present system I have seen many injustices. How glad I was when I heard that under the new scheme, which I believe will be accepted by all the provinces, because it will be paid for out of the federal treasury, the sum of $30 a month will be paid without a means test. That, in my opinion, is a step in the right direction. I have never favoured the means test, because I believe it created many injustices to people who had a small nest-egg.
It is often contended at the present time that the government should be the mother and father and protector of the Canadian people. I still believe in individualism. I still think people should try to work for themselves. I repeat that for the moment there is no better scheme than the old age pension, but I hope the day is not far distant when there will be inaugurated a fine scheme of old age insurance. The thing is possible. We

Old Age Pensions
are going to adopt health insurance, and I know of no person in Canada who expects to receive health benefits without paying a certain amount for them.
After all, the government cannot accomplish miracles. I should not like to be in the position of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) at the present time. He is in a different position from that of the hon. member for Vancouver East, who in speaking on his resolution said he was not worried because the cost of old age pensions under his scheme would be $800 million. While sitting as chairman of a committee of the house, I tabulated the requests made one evening on the different government departments, and they made a total of $2,300 million-in one night alone! It is easy to make demands on governments, but one must cut his sail according to his cloth. We all sympathize with the Minister of Finance, for we know that, although he would like to implement all the logical requests which are made to the treasury, it is absolutely impossible for him to do so.
I do not believe in decrying my own country, nor do I think it behooves any member of parliament to speak in large terms of other countries and to suggest that they are better off than we are. We shall always have problems to solve but they can be solved and we should not be ashamed of our country. Far from it, we should be proud of our achievements not only during the war but in peace time. We must look forward, and our actions should be guided in one direction, namely, to work for the common man, to see that no one suffers and that everyone is given a chance to make a full, prosperous and comfortable living.
We have been forward-looking in all our legislation. Take the old province of Ontario, for example. In this province we have the mothers' allowance, which was a progressive piece of legislation, whereby a maximum of $80 a month has been paid to widowed mothers; and now we have family allowances. No one will say that this legislation is beyond criticism. I will not say to-night that the family allowance provisions are absolutely perfect, but the measure, has certainly been a marvellous thing for our people. I can assure you, sir, that many people in my section of the country, farmers, settlers who have worked hard all summer trying to put in a crop under difficult climatic conditions, have found the family allowance a blessing. It will enable them to remain the year round on their farms, so that they can look after their stock. I believe it has been a blessing.
I have made a special study of the manner in which the family allowance has been handled and the distribution of the money, and I can say that out of 100 cases I do not know of a single instance in which the parents, mother or father, will fail to husband every last dollar of that money. And for what purpose? To provide better food and clothing and in many cases better education for their children. On that score alone, I believe that this parliament, which was unanimous in the passing of that great social reform, should be complimented.
I repeat, a great deal of credit should be given the hon. member for Vancouver East for introducing this resolution, and those hon. members who have spoken on the subject also deserve our congratulations. At the same time, we must remain realistic. When I say that, I have in mind what has taken place in other countries, and let me say here that I do not intend to digress into a discussion of the political situation anywhere else. But during the election in Great Britain I received the London Times and there I read that the parties in opposition were making great promises. I am not worrying, of course, but I know the promises then made by one party in opposition, to-day the Socialist government, will not be implemented. They will not be able to carry out all the things they promised the British people. Only a few days ago they intimated that the coal situation will be no better than it was a year ago.
In other words, the moment you are harnessed with the responsibility of government you find what a sobering effect that responsibility has. I have been told by some gentlemen, married friends of mine, that before they got married they made fine promises to their brides-to-be. They were going to provide a grand piano, a. fine house, a fine car, and so on. But the moment they got married they discovered that it could not be done because they had not the means. The same applies to . governments. Governments would like to comply with the various requests that are made of them, but that is absolutely impossible.
Even to-day, now that we have peace, we shall have a budget of $4 billion, which will be raised in this way: $2,500 million by way of taxation and $1,500 million through borrowing. No matter what we say about gearing our financial structure to take care of our peace requirements as we did for war purposes, it will not be possible. However, I have never taken a disproportionate view of the so-called depression and I am puzzled sometimes by the socialist party when they bring up that topic. They had no infallible

Old Age Pensions

remedy for the depression from 1930 to 1939. They had no formula by which to bring about better conditions. The then Prime Minister of Canada may have made mistakes, but he tried to do his best. But what was the spectacle we saw in the great republic to the south of us? Could they solve the depression there? Could the people in Europe solve the depression over there? No, because all the great nations were caught in it. However, we have learned some lessons, and for my part I will never tolerate a depression of the same depth and breadth as that which we had twelve years ago. I do not think it is fair for the socialist party on every single occasion to talk about the depression. One would think it was their wish that we should have another depression. Experience has shown, and the progressiveness of parliament gives us some reassurance in this regard, that we shall never have another depression such as we had before. It is unthinkable that we should have had a bath of blood, so to speak, slaughter for the last six years throughout the world, only to end in that way.
Personally, I think it is my duty as a member of parliament to go to my people and tell them to sacrifice in a matter of meat rationing, to make other sacrifices, short of bloodshed, comparable with those which they made during the war, so that we may be able to solve the problems of peace. But I will not make any appeal to their passions.
This afternoon I listened attentively to the debate and I thought it was on a high level. No one can doubt the sincerity of the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) *when he speaks on labour matters. At the same time I believe that every other member of parliament has at heart as much as he has, the welfare of our workers and of our farmers as well. The same remarks apply to the question now before the house.
Before concluding, may I express the hope that when the premiers of the different prov- [DOT] inces come here again they will be imbued with the same spirit of unity, the same spirit of Canadianism that animated them this summer. Old age pensions must be discussed again and the legislation perhaps amended. Perhaps the monthly payment should be higher. At the same time we must be practical and logical. I fervently hope that health insurance will be implemented in every section of Canada because we are all united on that question. I hope also that the deputations, every time they speak, will think of the country as a whole and not of their own individual interests.

If they do, it will be all the easier for me to inspire my own people. I could go to the people in the lumbering section of my constituency and say, "You do not have enough butter or sufficient sugar or meat", but it is not my duty to do so and I do not believe that other hon. members wish to do that.
I hope that Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia, the provinces which are supposed to be more privileged than the others by reason of geographical, industrial and financial considerations, will think of the country as a whole and not merely of their own particular localities. Although I am a Liberal I wish to pay tribute to Mr. George Drew, Premier of Ontario, for the fine spirit he showed at the conference, and also to Mr. Duplessis. I am not talking politics; I am speaking as a Canadian, and he realized that the whole is greater than any of its parts. He realized that we must work in unison if we are to reach our goal of nationhood and prosperity and comfort for every citizen of Canada.


Ralph Maybank: I say at the outset that I have a feeling of much sadness for my hon. friend (Mr. Bradette) who has just concluded such a fine speech. I had not known until to-night that it was anything more than just ordinary bad luck that had caused him to remain single. I now understand from what he has said that the real fact is that he did not get married because of his own intellectual honesty; he could not bring himself to make those vast pre-marital promises which resulted in success for nearly all of the hon. members of this house. I should like to say to him that even yet he may succeed, and he need not be concerned about such promises, because, as every married man comes to find out, he does not really become successful by those lies that he tells. He finds out, after somewhere between two, ten or maybe fifteen years, that he was not believed anyway. Underneath her breath the lady is probably always saying, you are lying, I know, but it is pleasant. No real attention is paid to the lies; therefore, if the hon. gentleman still desires to get married he can just let himself go and make any promise he likes; it will not be held against him at all.
In speaking on this subject, Mr. Speaker, for just a few minutes may I say that there are two or three remarks which have been made in the course of this debate and in similar debates to which I should like to address myself. People say, what we can

Old Age Pensions
do in wartime, we can do in peace time. That is unquestionably true. I could never understand why there had to be so much emphasis put upon that statement as though there were some chance of argument in it, as though it were not self-evident. It seems to me it is self-evident that what you can do in war time you can do in peace time. It does, however, require certain conditions to be the same; it requires a psychological condition to be the same as in war time; it requires the very general agreement in the country that you have under the urge of patriotism.
One then has to examine just how it is that certain things have been done in war time, and just what will be necessary to be done in peace time in order to carry on in substantially the same way, that is, in the way of raising and spending money. If we disregard, for example, the method of producing money by printing it or by some other such means and decide that we are talking about the raising of money for the payment of social services in the same way we have hitherto done, then all that is necessary in order to pay the bill which is asked for in the resolution is to continue the same level of taxation that we have now, the same regimentation that we have now, and all that sort of thing.
Substantially what happened in 1939 and the years afterwards is something like this. In 1939 the Minister of Finance, speaking for the Canadian people, said, We will arrange that all people in the country who are working will work a little less for themselves, out of every hour's earnings a certain part will be used for the purpose of being handed to the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Munitions; they will take it and give it to other people who will do certain things to earn it. I recall that the first sum of money about which the Minister of Finance talked in that way was $100 million. It was not very long before it was also arranged that in addition to any contribution made by the people of Canada in that manner they would dig under their mattresses and would find money, purchasing power as it is sometimes called, and they would hand that over to the Minister of Finance in order that he might, in turn, pass it on to the other spending ministers, to be used by them in the manner that I have indicated. It was not very long after that before the Minister of Finance, in the name of the Canadian people, made a similar request, the only difference being that the second or third time he spoke he was not talking about any dribs and drabs and jots and tittles like $100 million; he went far beyond that. By this time it was not the case that a person had to
work about one-twenty-fifth of his time for the purpose of supplying spending money to * the Minister of Munitions and the defence ministers; it had reached the point in the case of the wealthy people where the contribution was half-time at least, and in the case of the less wealthy a somewhat lower proportion, but in the case of all a very considerable percentage of their time was to be devoted to raising the wherewithal for the spending ministers of the government to spend in the name of the Canadian people.
Substantially that is the way the money has been obtained. There is no question about that. There is no magic about it. It just meant that kind of hard work for all of the Canadian people; therefore, it is absolutely correct to say that what has been done in war time can be done in peace time, granted the will to do it. But you must have among the Canadian people an equal willingness to do this that you had under the urge of patriotism in war.
The hon. member who has just taken his seat spoke two or three times about the need of being realistic. Surely, Mr. Speaker, if we ask ourselves whether the Canadian people, any section of them, will be willing to continue to work that amount of time for the purpose of supplying spending money to the ministers of this government who will be charged with the distribution of such moneys as are dealt with in this resolution, we are bound to come to a negative answer. All across the country and in all classes of society at the present time there is a demand for the lowering of taxation. I do not know what the Minister of Finance is going to do on Friday, but it is perfectly certain we can say now, that large sections of the public will not be satisfied with the reductions in taxation which he will make. That dissatisfaction we shall find in the farming community; we shall find it in the section of the public which is made up of what we commonly call the white-collar workers; we shall find it among those to whom we sometimes refer as manual workers; we shall find it among those who are well to do, and we shall find it in the wealthy classes. There is no doubt in the world that the public of Canada will not continue to pay the taxation that they have been paying.
Such being the case, is it being realistic; is it cutting the coat according to the cloth when demands amounting to something between $700,000,000 and $850,000,000 are made in a resolution of this kind? I do not know the right figure; sometimes I have heard $700,000,000 and sometimes $850,000,000, but when one gets into figures as nearly astro-
Old Age Pensions

nomical as those probably it does not make any difference. In order to demonstrate that people will not continue to pay these taxes, no matter if the taxes are imposed, it is only necessary to look at what has already happened. Many men will not go to work on Saturday mornings because it does not pay them. Plenty of my friends have toldl me they do not see any sense in going to work on Saturday morning because they get such a very small amount of money for it. I have known men in the professional class who have refused certain commissions which were brought to them because their fee would be hardly worth while, since they were in an income bracket in which too large a percentage went, as they would say, to Mr. Ilsley. That sort of thing, to defeat taxation, grows apace once it gets started; and if people will do that, certainly they will much more easily defeat the loans which will be necessary for some time in order to carry on the business of the country. Apparently we have made up our minds that we shall carry on what is called deficit financing for a certain length of time; I do not know how long. We shall be raising considerable sums of money by taxation and endeavouring to raise further considerable sums by loans. Well, if people will not continue to pay taxes, much more strongly can it be asserted that they will not contribute to loans to keep up expenditures unless these expenditures are favourably viewed by one hundred per cent of the people, and there is nothing like that unanimity behind a proposition such as this. In the prosecution of a war which we could all say was indeed a war for liberty and, as the Prime Minister so frequently remarked, a crusade of righteousness, you could get unanimity, but that is not the case with a social measure of this kind. To go farther than the people of the country would desire at any given time is only to endanger other things.


Mr. BURTON:: If the hon. gentleman will permit a question, is he of opinion that any great number of people in Canada would oppose giving the aged people a pension such as that suggested in the resolution?


Ralph Maybank: Unfortunately I did not get all the question, but I think I have the sense of it. I believe my hon. friend asked if I was of opinion that any considerable number of people would oppose giving a larger pension and giving it to people at the age of sixty without any means test, as set forth in the resolution. Oh, yes, I am very strongly of that opinion. I have had many letters from people saying, "I am sixty years of age, Maybank, and by gad I don't need any pension; I don't think it is necessary yet." I 
have had that told me by a good many people, and I have had a great number of people write and say that unless taxes were reduced there just would not be any government in this country at all. I wonder that some of the writers who are penning these letters to me do not burn the paper with their words. I could not think of reading their letters in this house, because I am quite sure I should be ruled out for using blasphemous language. That is my opinion, at any rate; of course if I am wrong about that there is a way of finding out.
My remarks come down to this. At the present time I do not think this is a feasible proposition in the light of the present taxation; in the light of the attitude of most of the people in reference to taxation; in the light of the fact that a large social welfare programme is already envisaged which will involve the expenditure of a large sum of money, and in view of the fact that this proposal is non-contributor}'. That last remark leads me to say this. I am very much in favour of any kind of scheme that will be contributory. There are some features of the proposals which have been brought before the dominion-provincial conference which I do not like. The outstanding improvement that has been suggested is the payment to everybody afte^r the age of seventy, although I think that age is too great, and the payment of the pension from sixty-five to seventy years on somewhat the present basis. The matter of divided responsibility is a feature I do not like, but I feel that no person can deny that the present proposal of the government is an improvement over the existing practice. At the same time I do not like it as well >as I would like some plan purely contributory in nature, something to which my honourable friend who preceded me referred as insurance. It seems to me that old age pension payments constitute the type of social law that lends itself particularly and peculiarly to the insurance principle. I think it would be very much better, even at the present stage of the dominion-provincial conference, if everything could be dropped in favour of a straight insurance proposition. I know there are difficulties in the way. I know, for example, that already some people are under insurance schemes, such as civil servants and people who work on railroads and in a large number of industries. Even so, I believe it would be better to treat this particular branch of our social welfare legislation in a different way and put it under a straight insurance principle, make it an insurance scheme.
Some years ago I read in the Labour Gazette that at that time four per cent of our

Old Age Pensions
people were over seventy years of age, and of those four per cent, fifty per cent received the old age pension, which was $240 a year at that time. Just playing with the idea of insurance, I made some mental calculations. Upon the presumption, which would not hold good at all times, that money wouild yield five per cent interest, I soon realized that the payment of $1 by a' child the minute after it was born, if that could be done, would actually provide for its old age pension. I will tell honourable members how it worked out. At five per cent, in fourteen years that $1 would become $2. In another fourteen years it would become $4. By the time that child reached the age of seventy the $1 would become $32. From what I already said we see that one hundred people would pay into the fund. That is $3,200. Of that number, two people would draw pension, and a fund of $1,600 is more than enough for the average old age pension of $240 after the age of seventy.
I mention that only to illustrate what can be done. I do not claim complete accuracy in that example, but I mention it for this reason. It shows what can be done under a contributory scheme, as against this other type of old age pension.
Hon. members from the other side of the house have said that what I am really doing is simply taking up time, and their suggestion is that I am talking the case out. I wish to deny as sharply and as emphatically as I can any such allegation. Those hon. members who speak in that way remind me very much of an old deaf and dumb gentleman who was a cooper, and whom I knew at one time. This gentleman used to have arguments and, as mutes must, he expressed himself with his fingers. After he had spoken, if I may use that word, he turned his head away which was the only way he could prevent anyone else from saying anything. He feared an answer.
That, of course, is typical of those hon. members. They do not want anybody else to have a word on any subject which, they think, is their own. Well, of course, such people cannot stop a man from talking quite as easily as the mute could, although I imagine if they wished to they could.
However, there is one thing that cannot be done by the C.C.F. party.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: One thing?


Ralph Maybank: Just one, at the moment, although there are many; they cannot come to the House of Commons and bring along their silencing storm-troopers. They might as well learn that now as at any other time. When any hon. member-and I do not care
on which side he sits-undertakes to practice upon me any unfairness in connection with a speech I make he will find out, when he is finished, that it would have been just as well for him not to have started it because, to hold strictly to parliamentary language, it will not be efficacious.
Some have spoken in opposition to the means test. In my opinion it has always been objectionable. I had a good deal to do with it in those days when, because of the circumstances of the post I held, I was forced to administer relief. It is just about as disheartening an experience as anyone can have thrust upon him. Yet we have to admit that in every country where there is an old age pension system, and where it is not contributory, there is a means test.
Again, being realistic, I do not believe it will ever for long be wiped out, while old age pensions are paid out of general taxation. This is another reason, in my opinion, for old age pensions being placed on an insurance principle, and not coming out of general taxation, because, depend upon it, whether you like it or not the time will come, every once in a while, when either the means test will be placed upon people who are receiving from taxation, or the circumstances of payment will be changed, or something of that sort will be done.
I suppose it would be right to say that any such remark as that is made in sadness. But that is the truth of the matter, and those are the facts of human nature. Just as long as pensions are paid out of taxation there will be problems of that sort. And the only way to have pensions paid is, as a matter of right, resulting from insurance. As a matter of fact, the means test in this country is more severe than it is in New Zealand; at least I would think so, from my reading of the law. I realize, of course, that one can never tell for certain, until he actually gets down to administration. But those hon. members who extol New Zealand-it being the most distant country in the world1, and therefore the greenest-should remember that down there they first exact an insurance premium from the citizen, and following that they give him the means test. They do both.
But we never hear hon. members say that. First of all, in New Zealand they exact a certain sum of money by way of insurance, part of which goes to old age pensions; and then they pay the old age pension only according to the means test. It is a somewhat more generous means test than the one in this country, but at least it does not come anywhere near giving a free pension to all.
Old Age Pensions


William Irvine: May I ask a question? Would the hon. member kindly point to that section of the resolution which would preclude the use of a contributory system?


Ralph Maybank: The hon. member is quite right, and I thank him for his question, because it leads me to say that this resolution does not preclude the idea of a contributory system. But there is a general principle which most people follow in rhetoric, in logic and, indeed, in law, namely, that when something is not included in the words spoken it is generally thought to have been excluded. Everybody knows that. But, mind you, Mr. Speaker, that must not be taken as final and definite. Evidently the hon. member thinks that from the wording of the resolution a contributory system could be meant. Well, if that is what is meant, then of course I can only say that the mover of the resolution and those various persons who have spoken 100 per cent in favour of it might have been a little more clear. If they had, it would have put the debate on an entirely different plane. Of course there would not be any means test if you were first paying for it. The reference in the resolution to relinquishing means test is in the words which seem to me to preclude any idea of contribution. It would not have occurred to me-perhaps I am just a little dumb-that a person would propound a resolution which would be condemnatory of the means test when, all the time, he had in his mind that a contribution not referred to in the resolution would first be exacted from the beneficiary of the scheme.
I have given the hon. member that much explanation of the reason why I have spoken as though there were to be no contribution. However, that is about as far as I can go at the present time, because I see my time has expired.



LABOUR CONDITIONS-STRIKE AT FORD MOTOR PLANT, WINDSOR

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Ilsley for committee of supply.
William Irvine: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock I was about to ask the hon. member who then occupied the floor, the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Black-more) a question. My question is this: During the course of his speech he made a remark to the effect that I had done very

well here, but when I went back to Alberta I had done something more or less terrible, which ruled me out. It seems to me that what the hon. member said cast reflection upon my character. I would now ask him if that was what he intended.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, I should like to read the words I used with respect to the hon. member, and then make such explanation as will make it clear that there is no reflection upon his personal character. The words were:
If I remember correctly the hon. member for Cariboo had a rather bad record when he got out to Alberta in 1935. He did most excellent work in the House of Commons; he made some speeches of which any social crediter would be proud, but then when he went to Alberta later he rather spoiled it all. But we will discuss that later on; I think we have the goods on my hon. friend which will be quite sufficient if we have to use them.
I can readily see, Mr. Speaker, that without knowing the background which caused me to use those words, any person casually reading the record would form a wrong opinion of the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Irvine). Therefore it is only fitting that I should offer an explanation that will set the whole matter in its right light.
May I point out that the hon. member for Cariboo-and he will correct me if my memory is in any way at fault-was part of the Ginger group elected in 1921 by Alberta as representatives of the United Farmers of Alberta movement.


William Irvine: That is correct.


John Horne Blackmore: Secondly, he continued as the United Farmers of Alberta representative right down to 1935. That is, he was always U.F.A.


William Irvine: That is correct.


John Horne Blackmore: It might be argued that they ceased to be U.F.A. members and became identified with Mr. Woodsworth in the C.C.F. organization, but I hardly think that is correct.


William Irvine: Yes, that is true. That was endorsed by the annual convention of the U.FA.


John Horne Blackmore: That automatically made the hon. member a C.C.F. member. That is a matter which has quite an important bearing on what happened in Alberta afterwards. Meanwhile Mr. Aberhart-this is rather old history to some-had been working steadily for about two and a half years popularizing and explaining social credit to the people of Alberta, as a result of all of which the people of Alberta formed what is known as the Alberta Social Credit League. Mr. OCTOBER 9, 1945
Ford Motor Plant Strike
Aberhart, after the league had become very strong, offered the Liberals an opportunity of expousing the cause of social credit and they refused to accept it. Then he offered it to the United Farmers of Alberta in convention assembled, and they rejected it. Now, so far as I recall, the hon. member for Cariboo, who was present at that convention, if I recall aright, did not disassociate himself from the U.F.A. convention when it refused to accept social credit.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I ask Your
Honour if this is a question of urgent national importance?
Mr.. BLACKMORE: I was not able to catch what my hon. friend said. I think it will be seen to be quite clear under these circumstances that that put the hon. member for Cariboo in a very uncertain light with respect to the social credit movement in Alberta. It is quite obvious that the social credit league would not know just exactly where the hon. member stood.
On April 2, 1935, in the House of Commons the hon. member for Cariboo moved an amendment to the budget amendment, and the following words appear in Hansard as identified with the hon. member:
That the amendment be amended by striking out all the words after the word "Canada" and adding thereto the following:
"and would appear to be based upon the assumption that poverty and debt are inevitable conditions within the country;
and whereas the real and potential wealth of the nation, based upon our natural resources and our capacity to produce, is such as to make possible an abundant provision for all the requirements of our people;
Therefore, this house is of the opinion that the government should take immediate action to insure the fullest and most equitable distribution possible of our socially-created wealth and that, as a first step in this direction, the measures which may be necessary to meet the pressing needs of the farmers and the unemployed should be financed by the social credit of Canada, thus avoiding a further increase in the debt burden of the country."
He went on to say:
I submit at the outset that that remedy is one which will very soon have to be accepted not only by this government but by all governments in the world. I make that "prediction-


Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, our friend of the C.C.P. party moved an amendment on going into supply to discuss a matter of urgent national importance. I do not think a private disagreement between the hon. member for Cariboo and the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) stands above the dispute at the Ford Motor Company plant. The private dispute between the two hon. members can be aired when we
have more leisure. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we get on with the business of the house and discuss the question of urgent national importance which has been raised, namely, the strike at Windsor. I submit that that should take precedence.


John Horne Blackmore: The minister has just delayed the house one and a half minutes by his interruption. I would have finished in another fifty words. If I can conclude the quotation it will save the hon. member for Cariboo from rising on a question of privilege to-morrow, which he would have a perfect right to do if I did not put this matter right. He went on to say:
I make that prediction because in my opinion there is only one alternative to that, and that is to witness the complete collapse of civilization itself.
Now, Mr. Speaker, bearing in mind that the hon. member had supported social credit in the house and then took a stand at the UfF.A. convention refusing to accept social credit, the social credit league could hardly be expected to accept him as a candidate at the election.


An hon. MEMBER:: So what!


Mr. P. E. WRIGHT (Melfort):: Mr. Speaker, it is not very often that I rise in the house to take part in a labour dispute. I represent, as most hon. members know, an agricultural constituency. But I believe that this particular strike is of vital importance not only to the locality in which it is taking place but to the whole of our Canadian economy.
The strikers at Windsor, as has been said to-day, are coming out fighting for a certain principle, and that principle is that their take-home pay shall not be reduced during the period following this war. The farmers in my part of the country regard this strike as their first line of defence. They are vitally interested in seeing that the take-home pay of the workers in the Ford plant is maintained because they have had a demonstration in this war of what it means to agriculture to have spending power in the hands of the workers of Canada, and any attempt by this government or by private enterprise in Canada to reduce the wages of the worker would have a repercussion on agriculture generally throughout the country. Agriculture recognizes that if the take-home pay of the worker is reduced, it will mean within one year less money for what agriculture has to sell. The farmers will sell . less butter, less eggs, less milk, less fruit, and less of all those other farm products which the worker buys. So that agricuture is vitally interested in seeing that the standards of living in Canada are maintained.
Ford Motor Plant Strike

Certain people speaking in agricultural communities have tried to create an entirely wrong impression in the farmer's mind with respect to the pay the worker in industry actually receives. Only to-day in the house certain hon. members wanted to know what these automobile workers received per hour. I have heard speakers in country districts say: Yes, workers in the automobile industry receive SI an hour. Immediately the impression is created in the farmer's mind who works fourteen hours a day: That means $14 a day. The farmer works thirty days in the month, for he has to milk his cows and feed his stock every day, so that he figures that the automobile worker receives thirty times $14, or $420 a month, or about $5,000 a year, and naturally he thinks these fellows are getting fairly well paid. But that is not what happened. Statistics show that the average take-home pay of the workers in the automotive industry before the war was a little better than $1,200 a year. They want to advance that by thirty per cent to have take-home pay of approximately $1,800 a year. Every farmer in Canada realizes that $1,800 a year is not an excessive salary, that it will do no more than permit the average working man to have a reasonable standard of living. Therefore I tell the government that I believe agriculture in this country is behind the workers at this time in their efforts to maintain the rates of pay which they have been receiving during the war, and I think the government will find that out before this is over.
Another point. It is the government that are paying for this strike. If I understand correctly, the Ford Motor Company of Canada have made sufficient profits this year; any further profits would go into the excess profits tax, and the government get over ninety per cent of those additional profits, so that the company are not interested in whether the plant opens or not. But I say that the government should be interested because they are paying for this strike; they are the people who are actually maintaining the Ford Motor Company's position in keeping these people locked out of the plant. The people of Canada, not the Ford Motor Company, are paying for it. I bring that point to the attention of the minister and to the government, so that the people in the country will know what the position is.
I believe that other hon. members representing agricultural districts should rise and express their opinions and what they believe to be the opinions of the people they represent with respect to these strikes. It is a serious situation which we are facing in Canada. It is
[Mr. Wright.1
a serious situation which we are facing on the North American continent. We in this house cannot afford to remain quiet about it.


Mr. E. G. McCULLOUGH (Assiniboia):: I rise at this time as a farmer member to add my voice to what our group, including the hon. member who has just taken his seat, has said on this subject. It is our group, the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group, which has tried to bring before the people the important fact that to-day Canadians are interdependent. To-day they have come to realize that it makes no difference whether you are a worker in industry or a farmer, you are entitled to a decent standard of living. I rise to-day recognizing this truth, that if we are to win the peace we must win this fundamental fight to establish a minimum wage scale in industry.
As a practical farmer I say that farmers recognize that the Canadian industrial worker is our best customer, and we are interested in seeing that he gets a decent wage. Now that the nations of the world- have gathered, as they did at Hot Springs, Virginia, and recognized the duty of setting a minimum standard for the world, we as Canadian people have a first and domestic responsibility of establishing that standard for our own people. The leader of our group, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) asked earlier in the session that $25 a week be set as a floor for wages. That is a very good beginning, but we realize that we must have a wage scale in harmony with the cost of living, and similar treatment in respect of the things which agriculture produces. This is a fight in which all members of the house have -to take part. The good things which we can produce in Canada should be made available to the Canadian people. In the past the enemies of the common people, in the form of established big business, tried to divide and rule. To-day we must recognize as a Christian nation the dignity of labour and the right of the people who work to have decent -homes and decent conditions of employment.
In conclusion, I will say only this, that two things are necessary, namely, the establishment of unions and the provision of security. As a practical farmer I say that we recognize at this time the need for action on the part of this government.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am sure we have listened with rapt attention to the various points raised by hon. members since early this afternoon. But let me emphasise that important principle, first things first. The hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) has said that this dispute was over the question of

Ford Motor Plant Strike
take-home pay. That is not the case; the dispute is over the closed shop, maintenance of membership, and check-off. Let us be frank about that.


Clarence Gillis: Not closed shop.


Humphrey Mitchell: Just a minute. The hon. member had his say this afternoon.


Clarence Gillis: The minister is not correct when he says they are asking for the closed shop.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am telling hon.
members what they asked for. The hon. member can call it "union shop" or "closed shop".


Clarence Gillis: There is quite a difference.


Humphrey Mitchell: Oh no, there is not. You and I know that. We are talking the same kind of language.


Clarence Gillis: The rest of them may not understand.


Humphrey Mitchell: Wait a minute. I did not interrupt the hon. member this afternoon. May I remind him that the kind of language he used to-day, when used in Great Britain in 1926, created a condition from which British trade unionists have not fully recovered to this day. It took people with their feet on the ground to bring things back, although slowly, from the condition to which they fell after the general strike to the position which they held, as a result of much struggle, prior to that strike.
My hon. friend talks of war. Any fool oan talk of war; that is a simple thing to do. My hon. friend used language to this effect, that "we are not going back to 1939". Who suggested that we were?


Clarence Gillis: The Ford Motor Company.


Humphrey Mitchell: Just a minute. Who
suggested that the people of this nation, whether they be farmers or industrial workers, are being asked to go back to 1939? Let us be rational and sensible in discussing this subject. I hold no brief for the Ford company; they are quite capable of taking care of themselves; but all the angels are not on one side. If my hon. friend by good luck or bad management should ever sit where I am sitting at the moment-


An hon. MEMBER:: It might be bad management.
Another hon. MEMBER: On your part.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend knows
something about bad management. As a minister of the crown, one must try to be fair. I have no objection to my hon.
friend swinging completely to the left. This is still a free country. The right to express opinions is with us almost an article of religion. It is rather nice to know that tomorrow morning, after my hon. friend has made a speech such as he made this afternoon, when there is a knock at the door it will be the milkman and not an agent of the gestapo.
I repeat that all the angels are not on one side. All the employers in Canada are not grinding down the workers. There are many good employers in this country. Many employers need education in industrial relations, and there are many trade union leaders who, it may be said, need some education in industrial relations.
My mind goes back to the railroad organizations of this country which have had agreements with their employees almost uninterruptedly, with some slight exceptions, for the last fifty years. Take the paper industry and many others in this dominion. Why should the hon. member for Cape Breton South rise in his place and blame all employers as he did, or why should someone more to the right blame all the trade unions? The hon. member this afternoon said something about being suckers in this war.


Clarence Gillis: Right.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not believe that. 1 do not believe that anyone, whether he be on the extreme left-and my hon. friend will understand what I am talking about when I speak of the extreme left-or on the extreme right really thinks he can push back the growth of the trade union organization. If he does he is fooling himself. It is like trying to push back the ocean. My hon. friend knows something about the agitation from the extreme left-leave out the right-in the trade union organization of the country. May I say this to the hon. gentleman as a democrat and, I believe, a sincere democrat: Moving as we are in these troublesome times, let us hang on to the only advance that man has made since the dawn of history, and that is the right to express himself and be a free man.
My hon. friend talks of union security. He and I, and some others with less knowledge of the fundamentals of the movement, have discussed the question, and I will say without fear of successful contradiction that this government has done more for social progress in the life of this nation than any government since confederation.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Humphrey Mitchell: I remember the hungry thirties. That is all right.
Ford Motor Plant Strike


William Earl Rowe: You did not want to go behind 1939 a few minutes ago and now you are going to 1930.


Humphrey Mitchell: But there is this to be said. There is a conflict in basic thinking, but the fact remains that this government set in motion a labour code wherein for the first time in the history of the nation the right of trade unions to organize by law was made effective. My hon. friends talk about union security. Well, the next step is trade union negotiations shall to all intents and purposes be fashioned and consumated on the floor of this House of Commons.


Clarence Gillis: No, no.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend says, "No, no", but I am reading into his language, which I have a perfect right to do


Clarence Gillis: I did not say that.


Humphrey Mitchell: -the implication which is there. What is the position that we are in at the moment? My hon. friends, for political reasons-and that is quite an honest reason, notwithstanding opinions to the contrary-feel that governments should by law collect the union dues. In my day andi in my hon. friend's day, we always felt that to make a good trade unionist you brought him back to the union hall; that is where trade unionists were made. But the new idea today is that the government should by law insist that men shall belong to a particular organization and shall pay their dues into that organization by law. That is the effect of the suggestions made by my hon. friends.


Clarence Gillis: You get your income tax in that way; what is wrong with getting union dues that way?


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not need to tell my hon. friend that there are four dominant labour organizations in this country, and on the basis of pure, practical administration, any government that sets out to collect dues by law is going to get into trouble.


Clarence Gillis: No, no.


Humphrey Mitchell: I go deeper than that. We have just had a war predicated on the belief that the human being as a spark of the divine and that freedom is fundamental. You have to carry the question to its logical conclusion. This might be said truthfully, that prior to the outbreak of the last war, in 1914, the most powerful trade union movement in the world, numerically, was the German trade union movement. What happened in that country? May I say to my good Conservative friends that business went to

the state, trade unions went to the state, insurance went to the state, banks went to the state; and when Hitler came along these people thought they were free individuals, whereas actually they were servants of the state. And what happened? It is a matter of history that when he got his fingers on the ammunition he said, "This is the way you are going or else", and within twenty-four hours there was a dictatorship supplanting democracy in Germany and no trade unions. To use the simple language of the man in the street, any fool can govern the country with a bayonet in his hand as long as he does not stick it into himself. That is simple.


An hon. MEMBER:: Or his fist.


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes, or his fist. My hon. friends are always talking about taking over industry. What they want to do is to accomplish socialism by the instrumentality of the trade union organization.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: Who said so?


Humphrey Mitchell: I am taking the implication. My hon. friend the member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) says, "Who said so?" That is what good solid German socialists all said, "Who said so?" When they got to the end of the road and saw what the implication of their sentimentality really meant they wound up with Hitler.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: They wound up in concentration camps under Hitler.


Humphrey Mitchell: I saw that, too. I was in Germany when the revolution happened and that is why I am so sincere about this. Therefore I say this to my hon. friends. Just as the destiny of a nation or a civilization swings backwards and forwards as regularly as the pendulum of the clock hanging over this House of Commons, so political thought swings likewise. If, my hon. friends, were in power for one session, the reflection of their attitude toward the nation would be in the opposite direction the same as it was in Germany, where you had the development of a powerful communist party which reflected itself in the Hitler movement.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: You are not mixing us up with the communist party, surely?


Humphrey Mitchell: I am talking about the swing of the pendulum. My hon. friends are so clever that they do not see much farther than the next election. What I am pointing out to my hon. friends is this. Things move along from one stage to another until freedom has disappeared-freedom as we understand it.



OCTOBER 9, 1945 S65

[Stage Direction]
Ford Motor Plant Strike
I am going to go briefly over the steps that led to this dispute, and I speak quite sincerely and without bias toward one side or the other. I do not think all the faults are on one side. I do not believe that in any dispute, whether family, industrial or business dispute, the faults are all on one side. One hon. member in the opposition said today that this dispute had been in existence for seventeen months-
Clarence Gillis: Right.


Humphrey Mitchell: -that it had been pushed around for seventeen months. That is hardly fair. We have used the best negotiators and conciliators there are in this dominion to compose the dispute. The basic policy of the government made possible the organization of the men who work in the Ford plant and Chrysler and General Motors at Oshawa and Windsor. We went through all the machinery that was established, machinery that has been approved by the trades union organizations of this country, machinery that is administered equally bv the workers and the employers in industry, with a judge or minister of labour as chairman of the respective boards. We sent Mr. Justice Richards, I think it is fair to say, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Justice Richards is one of the ablest conciliators in the dominion. We sent him into the dispute in Windsor; he was unsuccessful.
A board of conciliation was established within twenty-four hours under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice O'Connor, another able conciliator from Edmonton, in an effort to pull the dispute out of the fire. What was the finding of that board? The majority finding was for a check-off, a limited checkoff, it is true. They discarded the closed shop idea. I think, if my memory serves me correctly, Mr. Speaker, even the representative of the employees did not approve the arguments put forward in that dispute for the closed shop. I think that representative's name was Bora Laskin.
These are the words of Mr. Justice O'Connor, the chairman of the board:
We are none of us prepared to recommend a provision for a union shop but the chairman and Mr. Laskin are prepared to recommend that the parties agree to a voluntary check-off irrevocable during the term of the contract as a solution of the present difficulty.
May I go a step farther and say this also. This is a tribute paid by the chairman of that board to the departments of labour in the dominion and in the province of Ontario:
We also wish to record our belief that you, sir, the Minister of Labour of Canada, as well as the ministers of labour of Ontario from time 47696-55
to time have exhausted every possible governmental effort to compromise the differences between the parties and to keep the vital Ford plant in operation.
This is the decision or the recommendation arrived at freely by the impartial tribunal set up by the Department of Labour of the Dominion of Canada. Let me say this freely and frankly. I think the hon. member for Calgary West, if my memory serves me rightly-I may be mistaken in this-talked about what was being done in the United States. In the United States the contracts are arrived at freely, without basic law behind them. In the United States there is no law to say that you must have a closed shop, the check-off, or whatever the case may be, neither is there in Great Britain.


Clarence Gillis: There is in the United
States.


Humphrey Mitchell: There is not.


Clarence Gillis: Read the Wagner act.


Humphrey Mitchell: The Wagner act does
not have anything to do with the writing of the contract.


Clarence Gillis: Certainly not; nobody
suggested it.


Humphrey Mitchell: I know whereof I speak I am frank to admit that in Saskatchewan there is an act, but they have not any industry there, so it does not mean anything.


Clarence Gillis: There is in the United
States.


Humphrey Mitchell: It is the easiest thing
to do-*


Percy Ellis Wright: That is because we had a labour government for thirty years.


Humphrey Mitchell: It is an easy thing to
write an act of parliament for propaganda purposes. It is not true of the United States; neither is it true of Great Britain.


Clarence Gillis: It is in the United States.


Humphrey Mitchell: I know my hon. friend must have the last word. I say it is not; he says it is. That is the position we are in to-day. I wish to say this very frankly and with all the sincerity of which I am capable.


Arthur Leroy Smith: May I say it was not I who said that.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am sorry; I said I was speaking from memory. I thought it was my hon. friend.
An agreement is based on the principles of conciliation, give and take, because after all a trade union agreement is based on character and understanding between the parties to a

Ford Motor Plant. Strike

dispute; and any lasting collective agreement, whether it be in Canada, in the United States, in Great Britain or in any other free, democratic country is predicated upon that vital principle.


Clarence Gillis: Nobody argued otherwise.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friends are arguing the other way.


Clarence Gillis: No, they do not.


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes, you are.


Clarence Gillis: Your memory is bad to-night.


Humphrey Mitchell: If both sides are willing to meet together with myself and the acting minister of labour of Ontario I am prepared, as I say, to go to Toronto to-morrow morning or to some other city in an effort to pull this dispute out of the fire, as the trade unionists say. And I think my hon. friends have to give us credit for sincerity in that regard.
It is the easiest thing in the world to stand up in this deliberative assembly and say some of the things that have been said here this afternoon. Frankly, I believe one is playing with the destiny of the nation at this time when he does that kind of thing. I have seen it happen before. It happened in Great Britain. I saw it happen in Canada in 1919. We must have a degree of industrial statesmanship on both sides in this country, with all the give and take that one gets in industrial relations.
Some of my hon. friends seem to be pleased -they exhibited a kind of satanic humour this afternoon-with the idea that probably the packing houses will go on strike.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Come now.


Humphrey Mitchell: They say, there is going to be a strike in the packing-house industry.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: Now.


Humphrey Mitchell: Somebody says they are hoping for it. I believe that that dispute can be settled, provided that there is the right approach from both sides, from the labour side and from the employer side. I do not think it is beyond the wit of man to compose any kind of dispute; but if you go in defeated, if you go into an industrial dispute with a negative attitude I do not think there is any possible chance of arriving at a satisfactory agreement on one side or the other.
May I say also that we have built up in this country machinery of a kind that is the equal of any other machinery in the world. I believe it is in the best interests of the trade unions and of the employers' organizations to use that machinery, and not to challenge its soundness prior to any discussions taking place.

It has just been said that the mine workers of Alberta and British Columbia are going back to work. Nine thousand of them are going back to-morrow. That was done through the normal processes of collective bargaining. As I said this afternoon, many things might be said by myself or by some other member of this house, the import of which may be entirely different on the scene of the dispute from what it is here in the political atmosphere of the House of Commons.
I discussed this Alberta-British Columbia situation with my good friend Angus Morrison and with other officers of the organization, along with the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Usley), with the result that the miners are going back to work. I believe that the Ford dispute can be composed with good will. I think I have said this before in the House of Commons. I refer now to both sides of an industrial dispute. You cannot call a man a scoundrel to-day and expect him to sit down with you to-morrow morning. I remember giving this advice-like the hon. member for Calgary West-to, I will not say which side of the dispute in Windsor. I said: "If you must say something derogatory about a person"-that was not the language I used; trade unionists do not use that kind of language, but that was the import of it- "in this dispute, for goodness' sake, say it about me; do not say it about those with whom you are dealing because you have to sit down and make an agreement. I have no objections." They could not say worse about me than they have already said.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Mr. Campbell said they were lawbreakers, criminals.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is what I had in. mind.
Mr. SMITH (Calgary West); He should not have said that.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not think he should, either. Whether we like it or not, this dispute at the Ford plant must come to an end. I suppose I have sat as chairman on more industrial disputes than any other man in Canada. I am convinced that if men of good will, irrespective of what their demands may be, will apply the old principles of conciliation and display willingness to trust the other fellow, we can have longstanding agreement develop in the course of time in the automobile industry of this country.
As I said this afternoon, there is a limit to what governments can do under our way of life, under the principles of freedom. The Minister of Labour, whether provincial or

Ford Motor Plant Strike
federal, cannot sit down and take part in every dispute in this country. The machinery established has set up a medium for the compromise of difficulties; but in this dispute I am prepared, as I have stated already, to join with any men of good will to bring about an agreement in the difficulty in the city of Windsor. The question of wages has been discussed, and I could go into that at great length. Mention has 'been made of take-home pay, and all the things that are under discussion at the moment. Let us ever remember that the wealth of the nation is dependent upon the unit of production of the individual, whether he belong to management or labour. What is the problem of the automobile industry? It is the easiest thing in the world to draw up resolutions; all you need is a piece of paper and a pen or pencil. But .what they have to do in that industry is build a car that the ordinary individual earning from $30 to $50 a week can buy. If they do that, there will be work; if they do not, there will not. It may be argued that people earning from $30 to $50 a week should not have automobiles, but they do, and that is the back-bone of that industry.
In this period of reconversion, with our free economy and under democratic institutions, I believe the unions and the employers must sit down and size up the economics of their industry and, if I may use crude language, see how much the traffic will bear, both sides having in mind the well-being of the nation as a whole. I believe that with the development of industrial councils we have done a great deal in the last few years. I am free to admit that this is a matter of slow and steady growth, but we can move out of this difficult period and build a nation of which every man, woman and child, whether coming from the farm or from industry, will be proud. Mine is a difficult portfolio to administer. I am not asking for any sympathy, although I would like some advice if any hon. members have the answers to these problems. But I ask hon. members at least to give us a chance in this very trying field of industrial negotiation, so that we may move ahead and make a worth-while contribution to the life of our time.
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar); In his reply, Mr. Speaker, I think the minister has missed the main point at issue. This afternoon the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) spoke many times of bringing the parties together and negotiating an agreement. From the length of time this strike has been in progress it is obvious that all the usual methods of bringing the two 47696-55J
parties together have failed. We are suggesting that the time has arrived when the government should do what under similar circumstances it has done already, in the case of the American Can company, and what was done only recently in the United States: put in a controller, carry on the business for the time being, and bring the two parties together to negotiate an agreement which so far as possible will be agreeable to both parties.
That is our suggestion. This is not a political issue. We have not raised this question because it is a political issue. We are going to raise every issue of this description whether or not we are accused of playing politics, because we believe that upon the welfare of the workers and farmers of this country and the returns they receive for their labour or their produce the future welfare of all the Canadian people ultimately depends; and we are sent here to see that these groups get a square deal. It is all very well to talk about conciliation and good will, but my hon. friend the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) forgets that behind this dispute there are many years of difficulty. He forgets that Henry Ford was the last of the great employers on the north American continent to recognize the right of the worker to organize; and only when this war became a reality and production was urgently required was Henry Ford forced to come through and negotiate with a trade union. I do not think any of us will forget that on Labour day in 1939, I think it was, a parade of union men was held in the city of Detroit. Among them was a group of men who wore masks; and they did so because they were employees of Henry Ford. They carried a banner, I am told, which read, "Next year our masks will be off."
Free men? The Minister of Labour talks about free men. What freedom did Henry Ford allow in his plants? What freedom to organize was there? Hitler? Let us not forget that Henry Ford's interests in Germany and the interests of some of our other great North American concerns, including General Motors' Opel, we now know contributed heavily to the campaign of Adolf Hitler. That has been revealed by the records which have been found in Germany by the United States army. Let us not forget this when we hear Hitler's name bandied about this chamber. As my hon. friend knows, the German labour men were not the men who built up Hitler; nor did the German socialists. The socialists were the people, with Jews and others, who went to concentration camps. They were the people who were cremated, gassed, executed. To-day few of them are left. The people who fattened under Hitler were bad employers,
86S
Ford Motor Plant Strike

who tried to destroy the trade unions and the cooperatives and the people's movements in Germany. The minister cannot deny that.


Humphrey Mitchell: How about the communists?


Mr. COLD  WELL@: What?


Humphrey Mitchell: How about the communists? I was there when the revolution occurred.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: I am not talking about the communists. I am talking about the socialists and the trade unionists. We will leave the communists out of the picture; the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Rose) can speak for the communists. I am not speaking for them. I am speaking for the trade unions, the anti-nazi democratic socialists of Germany, if you will, and of Great Britain and other portions of the British commonwealth. The sooner we recognize that there is a great gulf between organizations which are democratic and socialist and those which believe in different methods, the sooner we shall get down to a decent discussion in this chamber.


Moses Elijah McGarry: Might I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: Certainly.


Moses Elijah McGarry: If the socialists obtained power in Canada would there be any labour unions?


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: My hon. friend asks if there would be any trade unions in Canada if the socialists obtained power. Are there any trade unions in Great Britain, where the socialists are in power? Are there any trade unions in New Zealand, where the socialists have been in power for ten years? My hon. friend should do a little reading; then he would know the answer to that question without asking.


Moses Elijah McGarry: I am just asking whether we would have any trade unions in Canada if the socialists obtained power?


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: Why would the socialists in Canada be any different from the socialists in other countries?


Moses Elijah McGarry: Did they have any trade unions in Italy?


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: Italy was a fascist state. My hon. friend had better do some reading. So let us keep these facts in mind when these matters are bandied across the floor of the House of Commons.
The Minister of Labour suggested that there was no difference between a union shop and a closed shop. He knows better than that.
{Mr. Coldwell.]
A closed shop requires that before a man obtains a job in a plant he must pass through a union, and be O.K.-ed by it. A union shop is one where a man can be freely employed by an employer, but he joins the union afterwards. They are two different things entirely. In one case the union approves the staff; in the other case the management chooses the staff. That is the fundamental difference between the closed shop and the union shop.


James Garfield Gardiner: Which are you in favour of?


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: I am in favour of the closed shop; because I believe, in spite of what the minister said about free men, that any man who takes the benefits paid for by his fellow workers ought to be compelled to contribute to the benefits which his fellow workers bring to all of them. If it is in a union shop-


James Garfield Gardiner: Then you are in favour of a principle whereby a man cannot get a job unless he belongs to the union.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: I say that any man who takes the benefit obtained by his fellow workers ought to be a member of a union.


James Garfield Gardiner: Answer the question.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: That is to say-and I am putting it in the minister's own words- that a man who expects to get a job ought to be a member of his union. That is clear.


James Garfield Gardiner: Then you are in favour of the check-off?


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: I am in favour of the check-off, yes. In fact my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), who is questioning me, and his party, before or just after he left Saskatchewan-and I am not sure whether he was premier, or whether it was his successor-put into effect in that province compulsory membership in the teaching profession. And for years the government of which he was the head amended acts so that the medical profession, the legal profession and other professions in that province had closed shops. That was under my hon. friend's administration in Saskatchewan. So that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.


Mr. TUCKER:: I rise to a point of order. A misstatement has been made. The hon. member, the leader of the C.C.F., has made the statement that lawyers are a closed shop.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: So they are.


Walter Adam Tucker: I say that any person who is willing to take the training and write the examinations may enter the legal profession; and the organization cannot keep them out.

Ford Motor Plant Strike


Mr. COLD  WELL@: My hon. friend is shouting, and I heard distinctly what he said. He has said that any lawyer who can pass the examinations may enter the legal profession.
I think if he comes from Ontario that is so, provided that he can pay the fee of $1,500.
I think that is correct.
But let me say this, that any worker who can take his apprenticeship and qualify in his trade or profession can join his trade union if he pays his initiation fees. I ask you: What is the difference?


James Garfield Gardiner: I was just asking for information.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: That is what happened to every such person in Saskatchewan in the higher professions, under my hon. friend's friends.


Arthur Leroy Smith: One question. I wonder if the hon. member has not confused the situation. He says that a person who gets a job in business should first belong to a union. I do not know that he meant to go that far. Does he mean, in short, that the union hires the people whom the boss pays?


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: I say-


Arthur Leroy Smith: That is a closed shop.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: I say it is exactly the same as the legal profession.


Arthur Leroy Smith: No, it is quite different.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: I know you lawyers will not admit it.


Arthur Leroy Smith: We belong to the oldest union, but we are not a closed shop.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: The oldest union and the strongest union in the world.


Walter Adam Tucker: But not a closed shop.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: And that means the most effective closed shop in the world. Yet you deny to the working class what you take for yourselves, and what you demand for yourselves.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Would
the hon. member please answer the question? We would say that I am an employer and you have a union. But I may have a union shop, and may hire a man for a thirty-day or sixty-day period. The man may not be fit for the job. That is the kind of shop I would favour, one where I could fire him if I chose, if he is not suited for the job. I agree that if he stayed a length of time
he must belong to the union. But surely my hon. friend would not want that man to join the union before the employer knows whether he is any good on the job.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: I think a man who
joins a union has behind him the references he has obtained from qualifying and working in the particular field in which he has engaged.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: Oh, well, there is
another roar from the other side. But let me say this to the hon. member who has asked a perfectly straightforward, honest and fair question, that I believe it is in the interests of the workers of this country that when a man enters a plant and takes a job as a member of a trade or a craft, he ought, before he joins and before he takes that job as a competent workman, to belong to his union. That would be, in effect, a closed shop.


Arthur Leroy Smith: In many
plants they will not take a man until he can do the job.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: He could not become
a member of a union until he could do the job; quite right.


William Earl Rowe: You have never hired many,
have you?


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: Probably I have hired
as many craftsmen as my hon friend has.


William Earl Rowe: I do not think so.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: I mentioned craftsmen.


William Earl Rowe: Politicians, probably.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: Perhaps I have not
taken as much out of the skins of some of the workers as have some of my hon. friends.


William Earl Rowe: And never put as much into them, either.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: No, nor into my own
skin.


William Earl Rowe: Never got much into you,
either.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: The Minister of Labour has said that freedom is fundamental. Yes, freedom is fundamental; but not freedom to injure one's fellows.


Humphrey Mitchell: I never suggested that.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: The basis of all law is
the limitation of freedom to do harm to one's fellow man. And so far as this strike
Ford Motor Plant Strike

at Windsor is concerned, I say it is in the interests of Canada as a whole that it be brought to a conclusion.
On several occasions the Minister of Labour has said that he is not the only minister involved. To-night's issue of the Ottawa Journal reports a press conference given by the premier of Ontario to-day. What does he say?
Primary responsibility for the handling of the strike at the Ford Motor Company of Canada plant at Windsor rests with the dominion government, Premier Drew stated here to-day during a press conference.
War-time orders in council passed by the dominion government with regard to wage's and other matters in the field of Canadian labour had not been altered or revoked, so it was therefore the responsibility of the dominion government to deal with the Windsor strike situation, he said. The provinces had no jurisdiction in this field.
There we have the view of the premier of Ontario. I urge upon the minister to take action, in view of what has happened recently, namely, the calling of the new strike in the power plant. We are told in the press-and I do not know how correct this is-that it will take from three to four weeks after an agreement is reached to turn on the power again, and to put that plant into operation. Every day that goes by just adds that much more to the time.
Is it not time that the Minister of Labour stepped into this situation? I say it is, and I am pleading with him to-night to do just that. If necessary-and I believe it is necessary

he should put a controller in the plant. Bring the two sides together so that they may negotiate an agreement; for as the hon. member for Cape Breton South said this afternoon, this is the first of the big peace-time disputes. We do not want these disputes. We have enough difficulty now in connection with demobilization and reconversion. We have enough difficulty in keeping the economy operating, without the addition of strikes. I take it that it is in the interests of everybody in the country that the matter be settled, and I am urging the minister to get busy and, instead of bandying words around the house, give us a little action.


Mr. D. F. BROWN (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended taking part in this debate, but since the subject is the city of Windsor and since I represent the constituency of Essex West, which comprises chiefly the city of Windsor, I think it is only proper that I should say something on its behalf. I am prompted to do so by an editorial which [Mr. Coldwell.l
appeared in the Windsor Daily Star on Thursday, October 4, which reads in part as follows:
This country needs propaganda, providing it is of the right sort. We have suffered seriously for the lack of it, while other nations have been making wise and effective use of this instrument. We would do well to follow their example, and there seems to be some hope that we shall now do that.
There has been considerable discussion this afternoon and evening from schoolteachers and ministers and farmers from Nova Scotia, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and other provinces, so that I think we can safely say that this is not just a matter of. concern to the city of Windsor but one of national import, and I think that, as such, it is about time, since we now have heard from all the so-called specialists in the opposition, that we should hear from the patient before the operation is performed.
We have heard a great deal from the opposition of the hungry thirties, of the lack of housing-all thinking in a negative way. I believe that the time has come for less oratory from the opposition especially, and a little more action.


John Oliver Probe: From the government.


Donald Ferguson Brown: I gather from the speakers who have taken part in this debate, aside from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell), who has done such an excellent job, that they are not as much interested in the patient as they are in expounding their own views and theories. But this is a serious matter. It is a matter of national import. The property rights, the living conditions and the welfare of eleven million people are involved, and anyone who is trying to make political capital out of the Ford strike at Windsor is a traitor to his country.
The principles in this strike go deeper than appear on the surface. After all, democracy was not intended for efficiency. In a democratic state the individual is supreme; in a socialistic state the state is supreme and the individual is merely the tool of the state.
There was a statement made about the city of Windsor by one hon. member. I do not think he intended a slight upon the city or upon its inhabitants when he said that certain things were being done by the stupid people of Windsor. I do not think he intended his remark as a slight. But I want to raise my voice on behalf of the ordinary people, the common people of the city of Windsor. As hon. members know, the city of Windsor has contributed probably more in this war than any other city in the Dominion of Canada. I mean by that more by way of manufactured

Ford Motor Plant Strike
goods, trucks, cars, tanks, chemicals, guns, foodstuffs, and besides all that, we have contributed in man-power. I think, too, it is only proper at this time I should pay a tribute to one other who has given his life on behalf of this country. I refer to the Hon. Norman A. McLarty, because it was through his trials and tribulations during his term as minister of labour that his health gave out but he carried on on behalf of his country until we now pay our respects to his memory.
The workers of the city of Windsor are just ordinary people, and as such they have common sense. As I have said, they are ordinary people, and I would ask anybody else in the Dominion of Canada if they are not ordinary people, too, because I think we are all on just about the same level. The people of Windsor are not wanting anything unusual. All they want is an opportunity to help themselves, an opportunity to educate their children and to raise their families, to clothe and feed and raise them properly. Yes, all they want is an opportunity to worship in the manner which they desire. So that their desires are no different from those of any other citizens of the Dominion of Canada.
I feel that the Ford company have many worth-while qualities. They have done things that are desirable. The union has done things that are desirable. The Department of Labour, to my knowledge, has done everything that is possible. While what appears on the surface does not indicate all that has been done by the Department of Labour, it is to my own knowledge that they have done a great deal, in keeping with democratic rights. I would urge upon the government to follow the suggestion that has been made. There are surely some common interests; and while talking sometimes gets us into trouble, on the other hand we shall never have any negotiations started or completed until after some discussion. I feel that the company and the union can be brought together at the instigation of the Department of Labour or some other body or individual and find out those things that are common, if they are honest and sincere, and I know that they are. If that is done I have no doubt that a common basis will be reached from which to work out a solution of this trouble.
Make no mistake. The people of Windsor are the stability of the city. They are not going to do anything that will bring discredit to the Dominion of Canada. It will be found when the smoke of battle has cleared away that Windsor is still one of the great industrial centres of the Dominion of Canada. We have all the facilities necessary to great industry; we have great industries and the
people to work them; we shall have, I hope, conditions of labour which not only will bring unexcelled success and advancement to industry, but will bring labour the fulfilment of its quest for happiness and contentment.


Hon. PAUL MARTIN (Secretary of State):: I am sure that no one is more concerned about the matter under discussion than is the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell). I know something of what the Minister of Labour during the last three weeks has been seeking to do, and I say to this house, and particularly to the hon. gentleman who introduced this discussion, as one who has spent ail his life in the trade union movement, from my contacts -and they have been daily-in this matter, the Minister of Labour has at heart no less than any other man in this chamber or outside it, the welfare of the workers of this country.
This problem is not peculiar to Canada. In the period of transition which is facing the world one reads of industrial unrest, of strikes, of differences between management and labour in countries where labour governments are in office, and it will not serve the cause of industrial peace in this country to enter upon a discussion of this important matter in the spirit of the suggestion that this government alone is faced with these tremendous responsibilities. One has only to take up the morning paper to find that a government composed of men like Ernest Bevin have on their doorstep, for one reason or another, this very problem.
This problem interests me deeply because, I think I can say without fear of contradiction from any group, that no one has stood up here in the last ten years and championed more vigourously and diligently than I have done the rights of the workers. To-night I say with all sincerity, knowing that my own community, my own fellow citizens, are involved, whose welfare I have at heart, that I am deeply conscious of the importance of the implications of this matter. The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) paid tribute to the work of the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Brown) and myself in this matter, and I may say that the Minister of Labour, who is so fully seized with this great problem, in connection with which at this very moment important matters are being considered, is not in the interests of the solution itself free to make full disclosure of what is being attempted. Over the weekend I myself was a party to discussions between the union and certain groups representing the management, in an effort to bring this matter to a solution, and I have refrained thus far from taking part in the debate only lest anything be said which would interfere
Ford Motor Plant Strike

with the things which the Minister of Labour -as ultimately will be revealed to his everlasting credit-has been doing in the interests of the workers to try to bring about a solution.
I regret that the temper of the discussion in some instances, although, I know, unwittingly, has not been calculated to help forward what is being attempted.
The Ford Motor Company is one of the important companies in this country. I am free to say that over the period of the years its policy of industrial relations has not been such as to make easy the task of any minister of labour. Mention has been made to-day of the wages paid by the company. Hon. gentlemen who do not live in industrial districts, particularly in the automobile centres, are apt to be misled by figures of the daily wages paid to workers in the automobile industry. As one who has worked in this plant, as one who lives in the community where the automobile industry operates, I say one should not be carried away by the level of annual wages paid in these plants. The fact is that, because of the mass production basis on which the automobile plants operate, over a period of time men working in these plants have found themselves employed for as little as six months in the year, and when one calculates a total annual wage on that basis it is insignificantly low, and can no longer be justified in a country like Canada.
But that is not a matter alone for a government. Industries have some responsibility in this connection, and constantly to try to put the blame upon those whose every effort is directed to improve the situation is not, in my opinion, the highest type of statesmanship.
These industries will have to learn that they cannot treat their workers as bits of steel lying on the cement floor of the plant. Of that there can be no doubt. The automobile industry, like other large concerns, will have to realize their social responsibilities to the men in their plants. That has been enunciated, in my judgment, in no more effective way than by the right hon. gentleman who leads this group on your right, Mr. Speaker. His pronouncements and those of his ministers from time to time have indicated that industry has a growing responsibility in this connection. If industry would preserve its integrity, then industry, particularly the automotive industry, must realize its responsibilities to its men.
It is not fair to say that this government is oblivious to this situation. The Minister of Labour was fully justified in saying that no government in this country and no government in the world since the advent of

war has done more than the present administration to bring about an increase in legislation which benefits the workers. Take family allowances, for example. I well remember joining with the present Minister of National Health (Mr. Claxton) and the hon. member for Cape Breton South in urging upon the house the adoption of this measure, so that in times like these we are discussing, and in a situation such as the one before us, the dependents of the workers would not be reduced to complete want. That was one of the reasons for that legislation; and while hon. members may criticize the amount of unemployment insurance benefits, the fact is that if we have to-day a fund of $300 million to cushion the shock of unemployment, it is the result of legislation brought into this house by this government.
The government believes in the right of labour to organize. The Minister of Labour, I thought, succinctly stated that to-night, and he warned any group which sought to interfere with the right of organization that it was making a tremendous error. I am afraid I should say this, as a member from the Windsor district, that there have been public pronouncements of certain important individuals in the particular plant involved in the dispute which would occasion the suspicion, at any rate, of an attempt to break the union. The Minister of Labour was quite clear on that point to-night. He said that you could not shove back the hands of time, or words to that effect. Any company that tries to break the union will find that it cannot succeed in ultimate terms. It may succeed for the moment, but if it does it will bring tremendous discredit upon itself and it cannot and will not succeed.
We believe that trade union organizations are a good thing. We believe that they are a good thing not only for themselves but for Canada, and I was particularly happy to hear what the Minister of Labour said1 to-night in connection with their continued growth. No, Mr. Speaker; this dispute, serious as it is, is not without being fully appraised and considered by the Minister of Labour and his department, with whom I have been in daily touch in this matter. Knowing of his intentions, knowing of everything he is trying to do, I simply want to say this. I do not want to say anything that will render his task more difficult than it is. He has stated in a broad way his belief in the right of the union to exist, in the desirability of its existence, and he has made an appeal to both parties to recognize their common interest. The time

Ford Motor Plant Strike
is near at hand when they must sit across the table and he is prepared to sit in with them to help.
The hon. member for Calgary West, in, I thought, his helpful contribution to-day described that very thing. It is because I know of what the Minister of Labour has done that I suggest to the house that everything, perhaps not seemingly in the eyes of those who do not know the full picture, but everything in terms of ultimate benefits to both union and management, is, in my judgment, being done by the Minister of Labour, and I thank him for his consideration and his effort on behalf of the people so many of whom I represent in this house to-night. I say to the company; I say to the management; I say to the union, let us all recognize that in these difficult days we have a common responsibility. Let nothing be done or said that will interfere with the effort to solve this particular dispute. Let the management realize its responsibility. Let it realize that by taking the union into its confidence, in the pursuit of what the Minister of Labour mentioned to-night, the industrial council idea and the democratization of industry, no one will lose by that kind of trust.
These parties, for reasons which I know, but which I think I should not mention at this stage, have engendered suspicion and hate which is not shared alone by the men working in that plant. That must go. It must disappear, and a basis of mutual confidence and good faith in one another must be restored in that plant and in others so that they can get down to work on a democratic basis, not only in the interests of the company but in the interests of the men. I believe that in working for the interests of the men the interests of all are involved.
We are faced with a situation wherein we are trying to reconcile a difficult dispute. The discussion to-day reveals that on all sides of the house, no particular group has any monopoly of interest in the welfare of the workers or in the interests of settling this dispute. There is a common recognition that good faith must be restored between the parties and that at the earliest moment steps must be taken consistent with our ability to effect a final solution between the parties involved.
Knowing the difficulties, and particularly in the light of my experience over this very week-end, I believe that objective is being approached as well as, under the circumstances and having in mind the interests of everyone, that can be done. This discussion has served one purpose, namely, to bring the matter into bold relief. It has served to confirm once again, through the Minister of 47696-56
Labour, the merit of trade union organization and the desirability of the management understanding this and realizing the dire consequences, otherwise, not only for' itself but for our country.
Perhaps this will not be the last discussion we shall have on matters like this, but I say to all groups in this house, no matter what our political parties may be, that there is an obligation, in the discussion of these matters, to give an example to those who find themselves involved in this dispute. It is in that frame of mind that I have entered into this discussion, and once again I affirm my belief in the right of trade union organization, and I urge the management to do everything it can to see that the purposes, the noble purposes, of the trade union effort are not needlessly disintegrated.


Mr. D. A. CROLL (Spadina):: I had not intended originally to enter this debate. The house has devoted almost the whole day to speaking about my neighbours and my friends, and in fact speaking about many who were my comrades in the last five or six years, and I think it is just as well that the house should know that these men are neither dupes nor tools, nor are they stupid. For just a minute we can turn the eyes of reason rather than emotion in that direction.
I think the strike is an economic contest coolly planned and conducted as though it were a horse trade or a transaction on St. James street. The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) said that the issue was the grievance procedure; the minister on the other hand says that the issue is union security. Odd as it may be, they are, I believe, both right. The negotiations actually broke down on grievance procedure. They might have broken down on anything if the parties did not have good will and wanted them to break down as they did in this case. Actually the union wanted union security. In so far as I am concerned, in so far as my own personal position is concerned, if it interests the house, they know very well where I stand, and I have stood there for a very long time. I am not only a believer but a supporter of union security. But what the house has lost sight of, I think-and this is no fault of the Department of Labour, because they have provided the machinery-is that for seventeen months the negotiations have been bedevilled by hearings and boards and lawyers and politicians, or would-be politicians, with the result that the animosities have now become the ruling factor and everybody has lost sight of the principle involved and of the poor people



Ways and Means-Interim Supply
who are now walking the streets. The animosities have become so deep, so bitter and so unrelenting between the company and the men that any conference table that will have any chance of success now must have new faces in new places.
The hon. member said that it was a matter of grievance procedure that upset the applecart; well, it might have been anything. I have lived with this problem longer than any other hon. member. I have lived with it for many years, and it has always been a struggle for these men. It has been a very long struggle and there have been many casualties, but they have all been on one side.
If we have done anything at all here today we have certainly indicated that we are not complacent about it; we certainly do not intend to sit it out. What we need at this particular time is to get at the root of the trouble and provide some leadership. The whole country is watching. What are we to do with the Ford strike? This will be a precedent; it will be the formula. *
I was gratified to hear the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) say that his approach was conciliation and peace. That is everyone's approach; but we must make sure that it does not get down to the point where it becomes a knock-'em-down and a drag-'em-out contest. Then it becomes too late. I do not think it is suggested from this side of the house or from any side of the house that we should dictate at this time to either one party or the other. But I do think that under P.C. 4020 the minister possesses authority to summon either Mr. Campbell or the union leaders.
Let the responsibility be with those who do not appear at the summons of the minister, and the people of this country will judge, and judge only too well. All that we can ask here to-day is that they be called togeth. i that they be put into a room. Let them decide; let them talk it out. Mr. Bevin, Mr. Molotov and Mr. Byrnes are having their troubles too. They are going back to try to talk it out to see what happens. These are not the only troubles in the world. We have to give them a chance.
It seems to me that the minister has been trying to do it. He is a better judge of what should be done than those of us who sit outside; but the danger is just this, and we must face up to it. If we do not give leadership at this particular time men who have different ideologies and men who have direct tactics may take over, in which case it may be too late. It is our duty in this

house to see that these instincts are channelled through democratic purposes; then we can feel safe.
I was gratified to sit in this house and to hear from all sides the kind of talk that would at least tell some industrialists in this country that if they have the bugler ready to blow taps on trade unionism they had better fire that bugler because trade unionism is here to stay. So far as I am concerned I cannot picture this country without a strong and responsible trade union movement. I can well remember; and the house can well remember, that in any fascist country the trade union movement fell first, and when we liberated the countries they rose first. They are the very core of democracy and we must preserve them.
I say again we are not asking the minister to take sides: it would not be fair at this time. But the minister has prerogatives. The minister can exercise his good office in order to get these people together for the purpose of talking out their problem. That problem can and must be talked out so that these people can get back to work again.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $29,769,000.11, being one-twelfth of the amount of each of the several items to be voted, as set forth in the estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March. 1946. laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for the fiscal year ending 31st March. 1946.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
James Lorimer Ilsley: I move:
Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31,	1946, the sum of
$29,769,000.11 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Ilsley thereupon
[Stage Direction]
Demobilization-Naval Services moved for leave to introduce bill No. 17, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1946.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
John Bracken: Might I ask the Minister of Finance if this bill is in exactly the same form as the last interim supply bill?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, Mr. Chairman; it is in exactly the same form.


John Bracken: Then there is no need to have any discussion. We support the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, October 5, consideration in committee of a resolution to grant to His Majesty certain sums of money for the carrying out of measures deemed necessary or advisable in consequence of the war-Mr. Ilsley-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.

Hon. D. C. ABBOTT (Minister of National Defence for Naval Services):: Mr. Chairman, a week ago when I had almost completed my opening statement with respect to the naval estimates I had just finished telling the committee that it was expected the main fleet bases on the east and west coasts would be maintained, but that most of the smaller bases would be closed. Continuing where I left, off, may I add that it is hoped to continue the naval division^, throughout the country. These establishments have been most valuable assets during the war and it is believed that they can prove their worth during peace.
Our establishments abroad are to be in large measure closed down. H.M.C.S. Niobe, the manning and training station near the Clyde in Scotland will be closed, probably before the end of the present fiscal year and 47696-56J
the property returned to its owners. The training base at Bermuda called Somers Isles is now being closed'. In Newfoundland, our facilities are being reduced to care and maintenance or are being closed as the need dictates.
During the war the Royal Canadian Navy maintained a division for operational research. Tlie principal members of this group were four physicists, two astrophysicists, and two mathematicians. The group was generally directed by Doctor J. H. L. Johnstone, O.B.E., and Doctor G. H. Henderson, O.B.E., both professors of physics at Dalhousie university. A close liaison was maintained with the national research council, and with the research organizations at the admiralty and in the United States navy. The section was not large but the work done was helpful. While it may be difficult to continue naval scientific research on an extensive scale during peace time, it will be generally agreed, I think, that the service should keep itself abreast of developments in the field and that an adequate organization and facilities for that purpose must be maintained.
I think perhaps I should now give the committee some precise figures on the operation of the convoy system, particularly in the north Atlantic during the war years. This was the theatre of war in which the Canadian navy played its greatest part. From 1939 until the end of May, 1945, the Canadian navy convoyed 25,859 ships eastward and 16,823 westward. The deadweight tonnage carried by these ships to the United Kingdom was 235,104,856. Of the more than forty-two thousand ships convoyed by the R.C.N., only 438 were sunk by enemy action. The greatest number of sinkings took place in 1942 when 149 merchant ships in the R.C.N. convoys were lost. In the years 1940 and 1941 ships to the number of seventy-five each year were lost. In 1943, 125 were lost. By 1944, the German U-boat threat had been mastered and the merchant ship losses in R.C.N. convoys in that year fell to the rather insignificant figure of seven.
In addition to these transatlantic convoys, the R.C.N. ran twenty-one sets of coastal convoys on our eastern seaboard in the gulf and River St. Lawrence, to Newfoundland and to some UJ3. ports. The total number of merchant ships thus protected in these coastal convoys was 18,898. That record of operations is one of which Canadians may well take pride.
A word now as to the future. While, as is the case in the other services, final determination as to just what our naval establishment should be in the post-war period cannot yet be
87b
Demobilization-Naval Services

made, and will be influenced to a large extent by the nature of our obligations under world or regional security arrangements, it is possible to state with some accuracy what our establishment will iprobably be.
During the war our naval role was primarily that of escort duty, carried out by lighter ships, few of which would be suitable for permanent peace-time operation, and in fact the role which it was contemplated we would play in the Pacific war was of a different character to that performed in the Atlantic and required the use of other types of ships.
It is now proposed that at the outset Canada's peace-time navy should comprise two cruisers, probably two light fleet carriers, ten to twelve destroyers, and the necessary ancillary craft, all of these of the latest and most modern type, while in reserve and for training purposes, we will continue to hold a certain number of frigates. Such an establishment will require a force of about 10,000 officers and men.
I have another announcement to make which should be of interest to the members of the naval forces who have served in the second world war. As the committee knows, there 'have been three varieties of stripes in the Canadian naval	service-the broad
straight stripes of the permanent force, the curly stripes of the Royal Canadian Naval Reserve, and the wavy stripes of the R.C.N.V.R.
It is now proposed that, in addition to the permanent force, there shall be a single reserve force known as the "Royal Canadian Navy Reserve". This force will comprise1 all reserves, including reserve air personnel as well as personnel of the university naval training divisions. A set of regulations will cover the reserve R.C.N. The uniform will be similar in all respects to that worn by the members of the permanent force, and for the time being, the total authorized strength of the reserve will be 18,000, exclusive of those on the retired list. In due course further announcements will be made with respect to its organization. It is unlikely, however, that it will be possible to complete this until demobilization has been further advanced.
I cannot conclude my remarks without making some reference to the Royal Canadian Sea Cadets. Many of these lads gradu-dated from the corps into the Royal Canadian Navy during the war. From reports which have been made by officers of various ships in which these ex-sea cadets served it is clear that the training they received while in the corps was of great advantage to them in carrying out their duties. There are today between fourteen and fifteen thousand sea
cadets and officers in the ninety-three corps distributed throughout Canada, and the naval service will continue to extend its full cooperation to the effort being made to keep the corps up to strength.
I am grateful to the Navy League of Canada for its sponsorship of the corps throughout the dominion, and as naval minister I take some satisfaction in the part the naval service itself has played in the training of sea cadets and in the encouragement of the development of the corps by naval officers across the country. This supervision and encouragement will be continued in peace time for it is not only expected that the Royal Canadian Navy continue in the future as it has in the past to obtain recruits from the corps, but we also realize that the training received by the boys in that corps helps to make them better Canadian citizens.
In the course of the debate a little over a week ago a number of speeches were made. I would refer particularly, however, to the helpful and constructive speech of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green). He made some suggestions, and at this time I would refer to two of them in particular.
One suggestion was that the statement with respect to the three defence services should be made at the same time in order that the committee might have the over-all picture. The same suggestion has been made by other hon. members, and there is much to commend it.
So far as my own two departments are concerned I should like to have been able to accept the suggestion; however, it was not feasible at this session. As hon. members will realize, a large part of the estimates refate to past expenditures, and expenditures which carry over from the war period. I feel sure, however, that in future sessions that procedure should be followed, and I can see that it would be particularly helpful in considering the future-although not the past-of the three armed services.
I believe I could help to meet the wishes of the committee in this way. My colleague, the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Gibson) has given his statement, and I have now completed nfy statement with respect to the navy. Circumstances permitting, I would be ready to make a similar statement with respect to the army on Thursday, let us say, and the committee could then decide which set of detailed estimates it might wish to consider first.


Mr. GREEN:: It would be helpful if the minister could do that.

OCTOBER 9, 1945	877
Awards jor Gallantry-Naval Services


Douglas Charles Abbott: So far as I am concerned, I shall be prepared to make my army statement on Thursday. We know, of course, that sometimes matters come up which must take precedence. However, I shall be ready to speak with respect to the army on Thursday.
The second suggestion made by the hon. member for Vancouver South was that a special committee should be set up to look into defence matters.


Howard Charles Green: A standing committee.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes. May I say that personally I would welcome the establishment of such a committee, because I believe it could perform a useful service. The discussion and consideration of defence matters in my view should not be the subject of party strife, and I believe a committee of that sort could perform a useful purpose. I would hasten to say, however, that I feel it would not be feasible to set up such a committee at this session, one which is of a rather special nature. While I cannot commit the government as to policy, yet I would recommend personally that such a committee be established at the next session, when I have no doubt we shall not be quite so pressed for time as, I am afraid, we shall be at this session. That is all I have to say in my statement with respect to the navy, except that it has been customary to place upon Hansard the names of those who have been given operational honours and awards.
Since I last made my report in April there have been 283 such honours and awards, and with the permission of the committee I should like to place those names upon Hansard. They are as follows:



O.B.E.-3

[Stage Direction]
Dolmage, Wilfred Gordon,
Lieut. Cdr., R.C.N.V.R., #107-3660-S-Cambie St., Vancouver, B.C.,
3 July, 1945.
Freeland, Harry, D.S.O.,
Acting Cdr., R.C.N.R.,
217 Weymouth St.,
Charlottetown, P.E.I.,
14 June, 1945.
McLarnon, Alexander McAllister, Acting Cdr., R.C.N.R.,
Apt. 5, Scottfield Road,
Allston, Mass., U.S.A.,
14 June, 1945.

[Stage Direction]
Cormack, David,
Commissioned Engineer, R.C.N.R.,
179 Kane Ave.,
Toronto, Ont.
14 June, 1945.
Dunnett, Charles William,
Elect. Lieut. (R), R.C.N.V.R.,
North Talbot Road, Box 23,
Roseland, Ont.,
7 August, 1945.
Hickey, Lester Alton,
Acting Lieut. Cdr., R.C.N.R.,
58 Hawthorne St.,
Dartmouth, N.S.,
14 June, 1945.
Melsaac, Wilfred,
Lieut. Cdr,, R.C.N.V.R.,
51 Villa Ave.,
Charlottetown, P.E.I.,
14 June, 1945.
Mighton, Albert Kenneth,
Surgeon Lieut., R.C.N.V.R.,
286 Main W„ Apt. 1,
Hamilton, Ont.,
26 June, 1945.
Pennie, Duff Morrison,
Warrant Engineer, R.C.N.,
Roblin, Man.,
14 June, 1945.
Young, Breen Philip,
Lieut. Cdr., R.C.N.R.,
286 North St.,
Halifax, N.S.,
14 June, 1945.

[Stage Direction]
Alcock, Ian Ernest,
Lieutenant, R.C.N.V.R.,
Rockland Lodge, 1249 Rockland Ave., Victoria, B.C.,
10	July, 1945.
Atkinson, William Henry Isaac, Lieutenant (P), R.C.N.V.R.,
729 Wellington Ave.,
Winnipeg, Man.,
20' August, 1945.
Baker, John Robinson,
Lieutenant, R.C.N.V.R.,
412 Russell Hill Road,
Toronto, Ont.,
31 July, 1945.
Balfour, St. Clair,
Commander, R.C.N.V.R.,
% Balfours Ltd.,
Hamilton, Ont.,
14 June, 1945.
Boak, Eric Eversley Garratt,
Acting Lieut. Cdr., R.C.N.,
1079 Joan Crescent,
Victoria, B.C.,
19 June, 1945.
Chenoweth, Richard Cassils, Acting Lieut. Cdr., R.C.N.V.R 3 Redpath Row, Redpath St., Montreal, P.Q.,
14 June, 1945.
Bradley, James Richard (1st Bar), Lieutenant, R.C.N.V.R.,
Cayuga Ave.,
Port Credit, Ont.,
3 July, 1945.
878	COMMONS
Awards for Gallantry-Naval Services
Brock, John,
Lieut. Cdr., R.C.N.V.R.,
32 King St.,
Saint John, N.B.,
14 August, 1945.
Buckingham, Robert George,
Lieutenant, R.C.N.V.R.,
5452 Clanronald Ave.,
Montreal, P.Q.,
27 March, 1945.
Burke, Cornelius (2nd Bar),
Lieut. Cdr., R.C.N.V.R.,
3615 Cadboro, Bay Road,
Victoria, B.C.,
24 April, 1945.
Chenoweth, Ian Bryce,
Lieutenant, R.C.N.V.R.,
3 Redpath Row,
Montreal, P.Q.,
14 June, 1945.
Collins, John William,
Lieutenant, R.C.N.V.R.,
69 Woodrow Ave.,
Toronto, Ont.,
12	June, 1945.
Costain, Cecil Clifford,
A/Elect. Lieut. Cdr. (R), R.C.N.V.R., 102 Central Park Ave.,
Surtherland, Sask.,
1 May, 1945.
Denny, Leslie Penman,
Lieut. Cdr., R.C.N.R.,
Chester, N.S.,
24 July, 1945.
Foulds, Philip Steele,
Lieutenant, R.C.N.V.R.,
99 Crescent Road,
Toronto 5, Ont.,
17	April, 1945.
Gray, Robert Hampton (Missing), Lieutenant, R.C.N.V.R.,
815 Baker St.,
Nelson, B.C.,
21 August, 1945.
Gregory, George Frederick T.,
Lieutenant (a/s), R.C.N.V.R.,
44 Harris St.,
Brooklyn, Mass., U.S.A.,
24 July, 1945.
Harrison, William Edward,
Acting Lieut. Cdr., R.C.N.R.,
24 Tobin St.,
Halifax, N.S.,
14 June, 1945.
Hay, James MacMurray,
Lieutenant, R.C.N.V.R.,
276 Rockland Road,
Saint John, N.B.,
14 June, 1945.
Hayes, Godfrey Harry,
Lieutenant, R.C.N.,
Halifax, N.S.,
Awarded when R.N.R. prior to transfer.
Knox, Malcolm Campbell,
Lieutenant, R.C.N.V.R.,
5135 Hingston Ave.,
Montreal, P.Q.,
12 June, 1945.

Marston, Joseph Charles,
Lieutenant, R.C.N.R.,
% Mrs. H. West,
Lunenburg, N.S.,
3 July, 1945.
Misener, John Irwin Fisher, Lieutenant, R.C.N.V.R.,
286 Vidal St.,
Sarnia, Ont.,
14 August, 1945.
Nixon, Charles Patrick,
Acting Lieut. Cdr., R.C.N.
R.M.D. #3,
Victoria, B.C.,
14 June, 1945.
Pendeebury, Edward Lawrence, Lieutenant, R.C.N.V.R.,
Didsbury, Alta.,
27 March, 1945.
Quinn, Howard Lee,
Lieutenant Commander, R.C.N.V.R., 523 Trutch St.,
Victoria, B.C.,
14 August, 1945.
Sheppard. Donald John,
Lieut. (P), R.C.N.V.R.,
35 Weybourne Crescent,
Toronto, Ont.,
13	March, 1945.
Sherwood, Frederick Henry (1st Bar), Lieut. Cdr., R.C.N.V.R.,
Crescent Road, Rockcliffe Park, Ottawa, Ont.,
10	July, 1945.
Wright, James Peter,
Acting Lieutenant, R.C.N.V.R.,
728 Parkdale Ave.,
Ottawa, Ont.,
21 August, 1945.
Bar to G.M.-1
Rundle, George Henry Olaf, G.M., Lieutenant, R.C.N.R.,
119 Victoria St.,
Saint John, N.B.,
14	June, 1945.

[Stage Direction]
Balcom, Douglas Elmer,

[Stage Direction]
49i Dahlia St.,
Dartmouth, N.S.,
14 June, 1945.
Best, Bernard Alfred,
P.O. Telegraphist, R.C.N. (3531),
403 Gloucester St.,
Ottawa, Ont.,
14 June, 1945.
Branscombe, Bernard Leon,
Able Seaman, R.C.N.V.R. (V-18228), Box 790,
Picton. Ont.,
24 July, 1945.
Crotty, James Kay,

[Stage Direction]
309 Oxford St.,
Ingersoll, Ont.,
14 June, 1945.
[Stage Direction]
Awards for Gallantry-Naval Services
Elsey, George Allen,
Able Seaman, R.C.N.V.R. West Summerland, B.C., 24 July, 1945.
(V-36217),
Evans, James Edwin, C.P.O., R.C.N. (2390), 289 North St.,
Halifax, N.S.,
18	September, 1945.
Gray, David,
P.O. (H.S.D.), R.C.N.V.R. (V-23092), 459 Notre Dame St.,
Lachine, P.Q.,
14 June, 1945.
Haigh, Samuel,
Chief Stoker, R.C.N. (21231), 375 Charlotte St.,
Sydney, C.B., N.S.,
14 June, 1945.
Harrison, Herbert Leonard, Petty Officer, R.C.N. (3193), Orcadia, Sask.,
12 June, 1945.
Hemphill, Ralph Ambrose, Petty Officer, R.C.N. (3341), 6 Cedar St.,
Pictou, N.S.,
12 June, 1945.
Hoffner, Norman Vernon,
A/Ldg. Smn, R.C.N.V.R. (V-50442), Turner Valley, Alta.,
3 July, 1945.
Whittemore, Thomas William, E.R.A. 2/c, R.C.N.V.R. (V-17199), 40 Cherry St.,
Stratford, Ont.,
3 July, 1945.
AViggins, Donald William.
Petty Officer, R.C.N. (2770),
2668 Ryde St.,
Montreal, P.Q.,
19	June, 1945.

[Stage Direction]
Badams, Harry,
Able Seaman, R.C.N.V.R. (V-9858), 146 Lansdowne Ave.,
Winnipeg, Man.,
14 June, 1945.
Chemist. Walter Stanley,
Stoker P.O., R.C.N.R. (A-726),
P.O. Box 33,
Liverpool, N.S.,
14 June, 1945.
Christopher, John Leonard, C.P.O., R.C.N.R. (A-1414), Hopewell Cape,
Albert County, N.B.,
14 June, 1945.
Fenn, George Patrick.
Acting Yeo. of Sigs, R.C.N.V.R. 39 Branstone Road,	[DOT]
Toronto 19.
14 June, 1945.
(V-7691),
Jackson, William Frederick,
Able Seaman, R.C.N.V.R. (V-78448), Argyle St., P.O. Box 102,
Yarmouth South, N.S.,
14 August, 1945.
Gilchrist, Harry Allan, E.R.A. 4/c, R.C.N.V.R. 1603-7th Ave.,
New Westminster, B.C., 3 July, 1945.
(V-57858),
Juehli, Andre Auguste,
Motor Mechanic, R.C.N.V.R. 8840-87 St.,
Edmonton, Alta.,
12 June, 1945.
(V-58735),
Jourdin, Arthur Andrew, Chief Stoker. R.C.N.V.R. 101-8th St. W„
Saskatoon. Sask.,
14 June, 1945.
(V-11231),
Simpson, Thomas Joseph,

[Stage Direction]
211 Gayeau St.,
Windsor, Ont.,
14 August, 1945.
Smith, Robert William,

[Stage Direction]
2229 Riverside Ave.,
Trail, B.C.,
14 August, 1945.
Stannard, Leslie Alfred,
A/Ldg. Smn., R.C.N.V.R. (V-9850), 124 Talbot Ave.,
Winnipeg. Man.,
3 July, 1945.
Thomson, Robert,
Petty Officer, R.C.N.V.R. (V-12534), R.R. #5, Box 18,
Edmonton, Alta.,
24 July, 1945.
Vanderhaegen, George,

[Stage Direction]
39 Fenwick St.,
Halifax. N.S.,
14 June, 1945.
McKye, Kenneth,	„	,
Elect. Art. 4/c, R.C.N.V.R. (V-60391), 36 Coleridge Ave.,
Toronto, Ont.,
26 March, 1945.
McVeigh, Hugh Patrick,
A/C.P.O.. R.C.N.R. (A-1068),
48 Allen St.. Halifax, N.S.,
14 June, 1945.
Pike Douglas William,

[Stage Direction]
35	Jacob St., Apt. 1,
Halifax, N.S.,
14 June, 1945.
Smith. Roy,
Chief Stoker, R.C.N.V.R. (V-9892), 1615 Aird Ave., Maisonneuve, Montreal, P.Q.,
14 June, 1945.
Smith, William,
Stoker 1, R.C.N.V.R. (V-24429),
478 New Chester Road,
Rock Ferry, Birkenhead,
Cheshire, England,
26 March, 1945.
S80	COMMONS
Awards for Gallantry-Naval Services
Smith, William Nelson,
C.M.M. 3/c, R.C.N.V.R. (V46528), 229-7th St. East,
Prince Albert, Sask.,
14 June, 1945.
Treller, Herbert,
Leading S.B.A., R.C.N.V.R. (V-517), 78 Noble Ave., Elmwood,
Winnipeg, Man.,
14 June, 1945,
Wells, John William,
Leading Seaman, R.C.N.R. (A-1084), 66 Portland St..
Dartmouth, N.S,
14 June, 1945.
M. in D.-Officers-75
Allan, John Alfred Roberts, D.S.C., Lieutenant Commander, R.C.N.V.R. 121 South Park St.,
Halifax, N.S.,
14 August, 1945.
Allin, George Edgar,
Lieutenant, R.C.N.V.R 11110 - 86 Ave.,
Edmonton, Alta.,
27 March, 1945.
Atkinson, William Henry Isaac, Lieutenant (P), R.C.N.V.R,
729 Wellington Ave,
Winnipeg, Man,
31 July, 1945.
Baird, John Douglas Boyd,
Surgeon Lieut, R.C.N.V.R,
11	Monktown Road,
St. John's, Newfoundland.
14 June, 1945.
Baker, Donald Richard,
Lieutenant, R.C.N.V.R,
34 Oxlebar St,
Charlottetown, P.E.I,
14 June, 1945.
Barbour, Wilfred Orvin Oakley, Lieutenant, R.C.N.R,
18 Harris St,
Halifax, N.S,
14 June, 1945.
Best, Donald Patterson,
Lieutenant, R.C.N.V.R,
439 Quinpoole Road,
Halifax, N.S,
14 June, 1945.
Booth, Bruce Ford,
Lieutenant (E), R.C.N.V.R,
91 Delaware Ave,
Toronto, Ont,
14 June, 1945.
Brook, Croft G. (2),
Lieutenant, R.C.N.V.R,
128 South Lake St,
Los Angeles, 4, California, U.S.A,
14 June, 1945.
3 July, 1945.
Brooks, Charles Edgar,
Lieutenant, R.C.N.
10 Trivoli Road, Crouch Rd,
London H 8, England,
27 March, 1945.

Campbell, Hugh Chisholm,
Lieutenant, R.C.N.V.R,
130 Beresford Ave,
Toronto, Ont,
26	March, 1945.
Carmichael, John Foggo,
Lieutenant, R.C.N.R,
379 Notre Dame Ave,
St. Lambert, P.Q,
14 June, 1945.
Carnell, Herbert Bruce,
Lieut. Cdr, R.C.N.V.R,
54 Braemor Ave,
Toronto 12, Ont,
27	March, 1945.
Deane, John,
A/EIect. Cdr, R.C.N.V.R,
8 Lynch St,
Halifax, N.S,
Awarded when R.N.V.R. prior to transfer.
Christopherson, Robert William,
Lieutenant, R.C.N.V.R,
2165 Rae St,
Regina, Sask,
3 July, 1945.
Clarke, Donald Walter,
Elect. Lieut. (R), R.C.N.V.R,
Box 2018,
Vermilion Alta,
24 July, 1945.
Cook, George Douglas,
Lieut. Cdr, R.C.N.V.R,
92 Binscarth Rd, Rosedale,
Toronto, Ont,
10 July, 1945.
De Lotbiniere, Edmond Joli,
Lieutenant, R.C.N.V.R,
Pointe Platon,
Lotbiniere County, P.Q,
14 June, 1945.
Denny, Thomas Grant,
Acting Commander, R.C.N.V.R,
32 Larch St,
Halifax, N.S,
14 June, 1945.
Dodd, Michael Thomas,
Chaplain (R.C.), R.C.N,
34 Willingdon Blvd, Kingsway,
Toronto, Ont,
24 July, 1945.
Edmundson, Joseph William,
Commissioned Engineer, R.C.N.R,
5910 Cote St. Luc Rd, Apt. 11,
N.D.G, Montreal, P.Q,
14 June, 1945.
Ellis, Frank Kinnear,
Lieutenant, R.C.N.V.R,
839 Sandwich St. E,
Windsor, Ont,
14 June, 1945.
Fallis, Allen Thomas,
Lieutenant, R.C.N.V.R,
Oarberry, Man.
14 June, 1945.
Farncomb, Harold,
Acting Lieut. Cdr. R.C.N.V.R,
268 Huron St, London, Ont.
14 June, 1945.
OCTOBER 9, 1945	881
Awards for Gallantry-Naval Services
Garriock, Robert Norn,
Lieutenant, R.C.N.Y.R.,
Pine Grove, P.O.,
AVoodbridge, Ont.,
3 July, 1945.
Godfrey, \Talentine Stuart,
Captain, R.C.N.,
1220 Transit Rd., Oak Bay,
Victoria, B.C.,
27 March, 1945.
Grant, Malcolm Seafield (deceased) Lieutenant, R.C.N.V.R., c/o Rt. Hon. L. P. Graham,
350 King St. AV„
Brockville, Ont.
14 June, 1945.
Hale, William Frederick (deceased), Lieutenant, R.C.N.V.R.,
187 Ash St.,
Winnipeg, Man.,
24 July, 1945.
Hardwick, James,
Lieutenant, R.C.N.V.R.,
1699 Graham Blvd.,
Mount Royal,
Montreal, P.Q.
14 August, 1945.
Hayes, William Prine,
Lieutenant, R.C.N.,
Drawer, 1130, Swift Current, Sask.,
10	July, 1945.
Heath, Kenneth, David,
Lieutenant, R.C.N.V.R.,
718 Mill St., Windsor, Ont.,
14 June, 1945.
Holland, Thomas Vincent, (deceased), Lieutenant, R.C.N.V.R.,
Souris, P.E.I.,
14 August, 1945.
Jarvis, Edward Gilbert,
Lieutenant, R.C.N.V.R.,
37 South Park St., Halifax, N.S.,
14 June, 1945.
Jess, Robert Edmond. D.S.C. (2), Acting Lieut. Cdr. (0), R.C.N.V.R.,
141 Cartier Ave„ Quebec, P.Q.,
31 July, 1945,-1 May, 1945.
Johnson, Kenneth Lome,
Lieutenant Commander, R.C.N.V.R.,
96 Pere Marquette St., Quebec, P.Q.,
26 March, 1945.
Kelly, Thomas Douglas,
Captain, R.C.N.R.,
1023 St. Charles St.,
Victoria, B.C.
Keys, John David,
Lieutenant, R.C.N.V.R.,
201 Brock Ave., North, Montreal, P.Q., 14 June, 1945.
Larson, Bertil Frederick.
Lieutenant (E), R.C.N.V.R.,
Box 264, Hanley, B.C.,
26 March, 1945.
Leslie, William Lawrie,
Surgeon Lieut., R.C.N.V.R.,
74 River Road,
Ottawa, Ont.,
24 July, 1945.
Logie, Donald,
Lieutenant, R.C.N.V.R.,
Hampton, Kings Co., N.B.,
24 July, 1945.
MacLaehlan, Campbell Martin, Lieutenant, R.C.N.V.R.,
Maple Leaf Milling Co.,
Dominion Bank Building,
24 April, 1945.
Mavety, George Alexander, Lieutenant, R.C.N.V.R.,
62 Baby Point Road,
Toronto, Ont.,
14 June, 1945.
Maynard, Murray Renouf, Lieutenant (E), R.C.N.V.R., Richmond Hill,
Toronto, Ont.,
24 April, 1945.
McClelland, John Gordon, Lieutenant, R.C.N.V.R.,
322 Russell Hill Road,
Toronto, Ont.,
14 June, 1945.
McEntyre, Peter Michael, Lieutenant, R.C.N.V.R.,
4099 Sherbrooke St. W., Westmount, P.Q.,
19 June, 1945.
McIntosh, Charles George, Lieutenant, R.C.N.R.,
757 Wilson St.,
Victoria, B.C.,
3 July, 1945.
McLernon, Leslie Raphael, DSC, Lieutenant, R.C.N.V.R.,
3003 Cedar Ave.,
Montreal, P.Q.,
12	June, 1945.
Morrison, John,
A/Lieut. Cdr. (E), R.C.N.R.,	.
3467 Point Grey Road,
Vancouver, B C.,
14 June, 1945.
Mylett, William George,
Lieutenant, R.C.N.V.R.,
7 Laurentian Ave.,
Quebec, P.Q.,
14 June, 1945.
Nash, Robert Arthur (deceased), Sub-Lieutenant, R.C.N.,
1115-14th A. Zone, 22,
Seattle, Washington,
18 September, 1945.
Ness, George Cairns,
Lieutenant (E), R.C.N.R.,
c/o Mrs. M. L. Flick, P.O. Box 321,
Victoria, B.C.,
14 June, 1945.
Patterson, Mervyn Alexander, Lieutenant, R.C.N.V.R.,
3431 Victoria Ave.,
Regina, Sask.,
14 June, 1945.
882	COMMONS
Awards for Gallantry-Naval Services
Pawson, Donald Hugh,
Lieutenant, R.C.N.V.R.,
31 Queen's Drive,
Weston, Ont.,
1	May, 1945.
Pottier, Charles Harris,
Sub Lieutenant, R.C.N.VR,
175 Haddon Ave. N.,
Hamilton, Ont.,
14 August, 1945.
Quick, Lewis Dennis,
Lieutenant, R.C.N.R.,
-Jo Mr. A. Feindal,
Bridgewater, N.S.,
'.4 June, 1945.
Robson, Thomas Beattie,
Lieutenant, R.C.N.V.R.,
2131 Niagara St.,
Windsor, Ont.,
14 June, 1945.
Schreiber, J. R. G.,
Lieut. Cdr., R.C.N.V.R.,
Room 5615, Chateau Frontenac,
Quebec, P.Q.,
7 August, 1945.
Sharpe, John Winston,
Skipper Lieutenant, R.C.N.R.,
17	Seaforth St.,
Halifax, N.S.,
14 June, 1945.
Sheppard, Frank Herman,
Sub Lieutenant, R.C.N.V.R.,
18184 Gerrard St. E.,
Toronto, Ont.,
14 June, 1945.
Smith, Robert Campbell, Lieutenant, R.C.N.Y.R., c/o Prov. Court House,
Vancouver, B.C.,
12 June, 1945.
Spershott, Walter Edgar,
Warrant Engineer, R.C.N.R.,
324 Maitland St.,
Victoria, B.C.,
14 June, 1945.
Steele, Richard Miles,
Lieutenant, R.C.N.V.R.,
Rothesay, N.B.,
14 June, 1945.
Steward, John Rawson Kennedy, Lieutenant, R.CjN.VR.,
Cowichan Bay,
Vancouver Island, B.C.,
14 June, 1945.
Storey, Donald William Green, Lieutenant, R.C.N.V.R.,
232 Cameron St.,
Moncton, N.B.,
14 June, 1945.
Stuart, Orme Gordon,
Lieutenant Commander, R.C.N.V.R., 1395 West 12th Ave.,
Vancouver, B.C.,
14 August, 1945.

Trimble, William,
Lieutenant, R.C.U.VR.,
118 Inglewood Drive,
Toronto, Out.,
3 April, 1945.
Wallace, Matthew Howard,
Acting Lieut. Cdr. R.C.N.R.,
17 Craigmiller Ave.,
St. John's. Nfld.,
14 June, 1945.
Webb, George Fitzgerald,
Acting Lieut. Cdr. (E). R.C.N.V.R.,
20	Merith Ave., Carlisle,
Cumberland, England,
14 June, 1945.
Williams. Richard Sugden,
Acting Lieut. Cdr., R.C.N.V.R.,
22 Deer Park Crescent,
Toronto, Ont.,
14 June, 1945.
Winthrope, William James (deceased), Surgeon Lieutenant, R.C.N.VR.,
913 University Drive,
Saskatoon, Sask.,
11	September, 1945.
Wright. Austin Meade,
Lieutenant (E), R.C.N.V.R.,
2050 Mansfield St.,
Montreal, P.Q.,
27 March, 1945.
Young, Henry Esson,
Skipper Lieutenant, R.C.N.R.,
778 Island Road,
Victoria, B.C.,
14 June, 1945.
Zaphe, Gerald Gray,
Lieutenant. R.C.N.V.R.,
127 South Norah St.,
Fort William, Ont.,
14 June, 1945.
M in D. RATINGS-128
Bartram, Vincent James,
E.R.A. 3/e. R.C.N. (X-21544),
9617-109 Ave.,
Edmonton, Alta.,
3 July, 1945.
Bayford, George Charles,
Ldg. Signalman, R.C.N.V.R. (V-27292), 673 Strathmore Blvd.,
Toronto, Ont.
Becker. Allan,
A/Ldg. Smn.. R.C.N.V.R. (V-57912),
#32 Colonial Apts.,
Saskatoon, Sask.,
26 March, 1945.
Bell, Charles Edward,
Petty Officer, R.C.N.V.R. (V-10253),
737 Broadway Ave.,
Regina, Sask.,
14 June, 1945.
Bell, Clifford,
Petty Officer, R.C.N.V.R., (V-5316), 2060 Charlemagne St.,
Montreal, Que.,
14 June, 1945.
OCTOBER 9, 1945	883
Awards for Gallantry-Naval Services
Berryman, Jack Gardner (deceased), Leading Stoker, R.C.N.V.R. (V-16905), 31 West Ave.,
Hamilton, Ont.,
14 August, 1945.
Booth, Harry,
Able Seaman, R.C.N.V.R. (V-14423), 294 E. 4 Aye..
Vancouver, B.C.,
24 July, 1945.
Bowen, John,
Ldg. Smn., R.C.N.V.R. (V-22594),
150 Fairbarik Ave., Toronto, Ont.,
3 July, 1945.
Brooke, Eric,
Petty Officer, R.C.N. (4767,
216 Old Orchard Grove,
Toronto, Ont.,
14 August, 1945.
Brown, Daniel,
Stoker, P.O., R.C.N.R. (A-1761), Dalhousie, N.B.,
14 June, 1945.
Brown, Hugh,
C.P.O., R.CiN.R. (A-1990),
Carter St., Liverpool,
Queen's County, N.S.
14 June, 1945.
Buchan, John,

[Stage Direction]
36	Shudell Ave.,
Toronto, Ont.,
14 June, 1945.
Chalmers, Arthur,
Able Seaman, R.C.N.V.R. (V-65929),
53 Massey St., Toronto, Ont.,
10 July, 1945.
Chapman, Lawrence Elswood,
A/C. P.O., R.C.N.V.R. (V-14462),
3392 Blenheim St.,
Vancouver, B.C.,
14 June, 1945.
Cherrett, James William,
Able Seaman, R.C.N.V.R. (V-64373), 728-6th Ave.,
Verdun, P.Q.,
3 July, 1945.
Clarke. Charles,
Chief M.M., R.C.N.V.R. (V-23747),
4334 St. Catharine St.,
Westmount, Que.,
14 June, 1945.
Cooper, James,
Chief Stoker, R.C.N. (21347),
1251 Pandora Ave.,
Victoria, B.C,
14 June, 1945.
Creamer, Cecil Ernest,
Able Seaman, R.C.N.V.R. (V-10842), Seamans, Sask.,
3 July, 1945.
Cunningham, Daniel,
A/C. P.O., R.C.N.V.R. (V-5525),
8 Lepage Ave.,
Dorval, Que.,
14 June, 1945.
Dalzell, Robert Gordon,
Able Seaman, R.C.N. (4141),
R.R. #1, Sillsville, Ont.,
18	September, 1945.
Davies, John Morley,
Petty Officer, R.C.N.V.R. (V-13724), 514-9th Ave., N/E,
Calgary, Alta.,
14 June, 1945.
Davies, Thomas Ernest,
E.R.A. 4/cl. R.C.N.V.R.. (V-11402), Duke of Kent St., Fairview,
Halifax, N.S,
14 June, 1945.
Davis, Allan Goss,
E.R.A. 3/cl. R.C.N.R. (A-3357),
912 St. Patrick St. ,
Victoria, B.C,
14 June, 1945.
DeCandido, Candido,
Petty Officer, R.C.N. (3523),
Box 592,
Drumheller, Alta,
14 June, 1945.
Duncan, James Alexander,
E.R.A. 3/cl. R.C.N.V.R. (V-3585),
324 Josephine Ave,
Windsor, Ont,
14 June, 1945.
Dupas, Rene Norman,
A/Able Seaman, R.C.N.V.R. (V-55774), Woodridge, Man,
26	March, 1945.
Edwards, Robert Pankhurst,

[Stage Direction]
600 George St,
Victoria, B.C,
14 June, 1945.
Elliott, Walter Alwin,
Chief Stoker, R.C.N. (21273),
525 Highland Ave,
Highland Park, Ontario,
14 June, 1945
Feener, Francis,

[Stage Direction]
Milton, Queen's County, N.S,
14 June, 1945.
Fraser, Walter Reginald,
L/S. B.A., R.C.N.V.R. (V-11946),
1143 Ave. K. South,
Saskatoon, Sask,
24 July, 1945.
Freeborn. James Douglas,
S.B.A., R.C.N.V.R. (V-34669), Chapleau, Ont,
14 June, 1945.
Funnel], James Ernest,
Stoker I (M), R.C.N.V.R. (V-36559), Lansdowne, Ont,
27	March, 1945.
Galloway, John Ross.
P.O. Cook (S), R.C.N.V.R. (V-17106), 22 Locust St,
St. Thomas, Ont,
27 March, 1945.
884	COMMONS
Awards for Gallantry-Naval Services___
Genova, Anthony,
Able Seaman, R.C.N.V.R. (V-37029), 1582 Bloor St. W.,
Toronto, Ont.,
14 June, 1945.
Gibson, Vernon Sylvester,
Stoker 1/c, R.C.N.V.R. (V-13729),
96 Cornwallis St.,
Halifax, N.S.,
24 July, 1945.
Gilder, William Arthur,
Ldg. Sig., R.C.N.V.R. (V-14205),
270 East 19th Ave.,
Vancouver, B.C.,
14 June, 1945.
Grimes, David Lloyd.
Petty Officer, R.C.N.V.R. (V-23126),
115 Blenheim PI.,
Westmount, P.Q.,
14 June, 1945.
Hammond, Victor Orchard,

[Stage Direction]
5672 Delorimier Ave.,
Montreal, P.Q.,
26 March, 1945.
Harnett, Jack Charles.
A/Stoker P.O., R.C.N.R. (A-3255),
5311 Sherbrooke St.,
Vancouver. B.C.,
14 June, 1945.
Hatfield, Roby Emmerson,
Ldg. Smn, R.C.N.R. (A-4522), Parrsboro, N.S.,
14 June, 1945.
Hebert, Paul,
A/Ldg. Smn., R.C.N.V.R (V-33358),
588 St. Joseph St.,
Laehine, P.Q.,
14 June, 1945.
Hickey, Edward John,
A/Ldg. Smn., R.C.N.V.R (V-22898),
192 Scarboro Rd.,
Toronto, Ont.,
14 June, 1945.
Halloway, Kenneth Robert,
Able Smn. (SD), R.C.N.V.R. (V-50663), 266 Colborne St. W„
Brantford, Ont.,
26 March, 1945.
Howes, Norman,
Chief Stoker, R.C.N. (X-21478),
1118 Avenue B, North,
Saskatoon, Sask.,
26 March, 1945.
Hughes, Edwin Thompson,
Petty Officer, R.C.N.V.R (V-16066),
374 E. Francis St.,
Fort William, Ont.,
14 June, 1945.
Hughes, John Harrington,
Able Seaman, R.C.N.R. (A-5920),
129 Latimer Ave.,
Toronto, Ont.,
3 July, 1945.
Irving, William Anderson,
Chief P.O., R.C.N.V.R (V-35192), 307-5th St. W.,
Calgary, Alta.,
14 June, 1945.

Irwin, Thomas Washington,
A/Ldg. Smn., R.C.N.V.R. (V-9588),
148 Sinclair St.,
Dartmouth, N.S.,
24 July, 1945.
James, Henry,
Petty Officer, R.C.N. (2846),
53 Berlin St.,
Halifax, N.S.,
14 June, 1045.
Kern, James Hollywell,
E.R.A. 3/cl., R.CN.V.R. (V-37467),
380 Frood Rd.,
Sudbury, Ont.,
14 June, 1945.
Kimball, Warner,
Telegraphist, R.C.N.V.R. (V-58411),
1875 Robson St.,
Vancouver, B.C.,
26	March, 1945.
Kowbel, Morris (deceased),
Able Seaman A.A. II, R.C.N. (4648), Blucher, Sask.,
14 June, 1945.
Kuhn, Gordon Wilfred,
Ldg. Cook, R.C.N.V.R. (V-26386),
Lower Sackville,
Halifax County, N.S.,
14 June, 1945.
Laine, Joseph Donat Hector,
Ldg. S. A., R.C.N.V.R. (V-3156),
3040 Desaulles St.,
St. Hyacinthe, P.Q.,
14 June, 1945.
Lavergne, Gaston Rodolph,
A/Ldg. Smn., R.C.N. (3968),
48 Daly Avenue,
Ottawa, Ont.,
27	March, 1945.
Lighthall, Augustus E. (deceased),
Chief Petty Officer, R.C.N. (2404),
Globe Hotel,
Picton, Ont.,
14 June, 1945.
Lipsit, Donald Chalmers,
Stoker P.O., R.C.N.V.R. (V-16494), Coleman, Alta.
14 June, 1945.
Little, Charles,
E.R.A. 3/cl. R.C.N.V.R. (V-9809),
1225 June St.,
Esquimalt, B.C.,
14 June, 1945.
Lockwood, John,
Stoker P.O., R.C.N.R. (A-2866),
19 Glanton Rd., North Shields, Northumberland, England,
14 June, 1945.
Mann, Clement Cecil Wallace,

[Stage Direction]
145 Ontario St.,
Victoria, B.C.,
10 July, 1945.
Martin, Lloyd Angus,
A/Ldg. Stoker (M) R.C.N.V.R. (V-1603), Hopefield, P.E.I.,
14 June, 1945.
OCTOBER 9, 1945	885
Awards for Gallantry-Naval Services
.Martin, Maxwell McCready,
Petty Officer, R.C.N.Y.R. (V-7694), 14 Blevins Place,
Toronto, Ont.,
26 March, 1945.
Miller, Robert Beverley,
Supply P.O., R.C.N.V.R. (V-17997), 462 Wellington St.,
London, Ont.,
14 June, 1945.
Matthews, Albert Edwin,
Petty Officer, R.C.N.R. (A-1286),
233 North St.,
Halifax, N.S.,
3 July, 1945.
McConnell, Mariner Leroy,
A/Ldg. Smn., R.C.N.Y.R. (V-31289), L'Etang, N.B.,
2	July, 1945.
McCrate, Thomas Joseph,
E.R.A. 3/cl., R.C.N.R. (A-1450), 9374 Barrington St.,
Halifax, N.S.,
14 June, 1945.
McEachern, Donald Duncan,
A/Ldg. Stoker, R.C.N.V.R. (V-26027), Millerton, N.B.,
27 March, 1945.
McHugh. Charles Wilson,
E.R.A. 3/cl., R.C.N.V.R. (V-22019), 28 Daniels Ave.,
Etobicoke, Ont.,
14 June, 1945.
Mclnnes, William Stuart, Signalman, R.C.N.V.R. (\ -17594), 509 Ontario St.,
London, Ont.,
11	September, 1945.
McIntyre, Keith,
C.E.R.A., R.C.N.V.R. (V-24876), 303 Canada Bldg.,
Prince Albert, Sask.,
14 June, 1945.
McKinney, Joseph Gordon Lyle, Chief P.O., R.C.N.V.R. (V-7353), 178 Alice St.,
Oshawa, Ont.,
26 March, 1945.
McLaren, William E..
E.R.A. 3/cl., R.C.N.R. (A-5292), 120 Willow Ave.,
Toronto, Ont.,
14 June, 1945.
McMahon, Jack Alsenas,
Ldg. Smn., R.C.N. (3894),
11	Jail Lane,
Liverpool, N.S.,
12	June, 1945.
Mitchell, Gordon Campbell,
A/P.O., R.C.N. (4564),
140 Lewis Ave.,
Chilliwack, B.C.,
14 June, 1945.
Moe, Karl,
C.E.R.A. (Now A/Wt. Engr. R.C.N.R.), Huvikvein, Sandefjord, Norway,
14 June, 1945.
Moore, Richard John,
Yeo. of Signals, R.C.N.V.R. (V-8314),
31 Genesse St.,
Hamilton, Ont.,
14 June, 1945.
Mosher, Stanley Burrell,

[Stage Direction]
19	Elm St.,
Windsor, N.S.,
26 March, 1945.
Mountain, William T. (deceased),
Able Seaman, R.C.N.V.R. (V-31164),
1119-9th St. East,
Calgary, Alta.,
14 August, 1945.
Mulvaney, John Francis,
A/Ldg. Tel., R.C.N.V.R. (V-27140),
643 Glebeholme Blvd.,
Toronto, Ont.,
14 June, 1945.
Munro, George Henry,
Motor Mechanic, R.C.N.V.R. (V-63528), 210-3rd Ave., N.E.,
Dauphin, Man.,
24 July, 1945.
Newton, John,
C.P.O. Cook (S), R.C.N. (40512), Starling Road,
Strathmore, P.Q.,
14 June, 1945.
Nikorak, Harry,
Ldg. Cook (S), R.C.N.V.R. (V-32944), 404 Aves South,
Saskatoon, Sask.,
14 August, 1945.
McPhee, Daniel Anthony,
E.R.A. 2/cl., R.C.N.V.R. (V-25562), Reserve Mines,
Cape Breton, N.S.,
24 July, 1945.
Oberson, Donald Warner,
Tel. (SO), R.C.N.V.R. (V-52614), 3993 West 23rd Ave.,
Vancouver, B.C.,
14 June, 1945.
Mears, John James Lawrence, Stoker I. R.C.N.V.R. (V-44723), R.R. No. 2,
Billings Bridge, Ont.,
24 July, 1945.
Miller, Murray Beasley,

[Stage Direction]
63-2nd Avenue E.,
Swift Current, Sask.,
14 June, 1945.
Ouellette, Rodger J.,
Petty Officer, R.C.N.V.R. (V-19149), River Canard, Ont.,
14 June, 1945.
Pardo. Thomas Alton,
Able Seaman, R.C.N.V.R. (V-4745), 29 Melville St.,
Hamilton, Ont.,
12	June, 1945.
886	COMMONS
Awards for Gallantry-Naval Services
Pearce, George Henry Charles,

[Stage Direction]
671 King Edward Ave.,
Ottawa, Ont.,
14 June, 1945.
Perrett, Herbert John,
Stoker P.O., R.C.N.R. (A-2076),
Franklin St., Imperoyal P.O.,
Woodside, N.S.,
14 June, 1945.
Petrie. Willy,
Ldg. Coder, R.CjNW.R. (V-4262),
279 Murray St.,
Ottawa, Ont.,
26 March, 1945.
Phillips, Donald Raymond,
Able Smn. (LTO), R.C.N.R. (A-2734), 12450 Notre Dame St.,
Pointe Aux Trembles, Montreal, P.Q.,
14 June, 1945.
Porter, Leslie Oliver,

[Stage Direction]
11 Weir St.,
Hamilton, Ont.,
14 June, 1945.
Porter, Robert Tait,
A/P.O., R.C.N.V.R. (Y-7348),
63 Pittrodrie Place,
Aberdeen, Scotland,
14 June, 1945.
Redhead, William Owen,
Petty Officer, R.C.N.V.R. (V-10279),
2234 Elphingstone St.,
Regina, Sask.,
14 August, 1945.
Ripley, Allyn Morgan,
Ldg. Smn., R.C.N.R. (A-2852),
Perth Road Post Office,
Perth, Ont.,
14 June, 1945.
Ritchie, Andrew,
A/Stoker P.O.. R.C.N.R. (A-3262),
197 Clifton Ave.,
Neward, N.J.. U.S.A,
14 June, 1945.
Rutherford, Norman Reginald,
Able Smn.. R.C.N.V.R. (V-11590),
622 Ave. G.. South,
Saskatoon, Sask.,
14 June. 1945.
Sartain, Fred,
Elect. Art. 2/c, R.C.N.V.R. (V-37436),
3	Mareve Ave.,
Hamilton Beach. Ont.,
14 August, 1945.
Scott, Albert Ringland,
Able Seaman, R.C.N.V.R. (V-27482),
43 Westmoreland Ave.,
Toronto. Ont.,
3 July, 1945.
Scott, Lawrence Duncan.
Acting Able Smn., R.C.N.V.R. (V-10747), 1202 Elliott St.,
Regina, Sask.,
14 June, 1945.

Scott, William Charles,
Stoker P.O., R.C.N.V.R. (V-36929), P.O. Box 55,
Rawdon, Que.,
14 June, 1945.
Selzer, Charles Rupert,
Petty Officer, R.C.N.V.R. (V-10404), Quinton, Sask..
14 June, 1945.
Seymour, Edward Philip,
Stoker P.O., R.C.N.R. (A-1254), Purvis St.,
North Sydney, C.B., N.S.,
3 July, 1945.
Sibley, George,
Able Smn., R.C.N.R., (A-1392), Foundry St.,
North Sydney, NjS.,
14 June, 1945.
Simon, Hugh Edward,
Able Seaman, R.C.N.V.R. (V-42624),
37	Market St.,
Paris, Ont.,
14 August, 1945.
Simons, William Arthur,
Ldg. Tel., R.C.N.V.R. (V-26082),
Ritz Hotel,
Victoria, B.C.,
14 June, 1945.
Simpson. Stanley,
A/C.P.O., R.C.N.V.R. (V-23025),
717 Robie St.,
Halifax, N.S.,
14 June, 1945.
Sinclair, Peter Deas,
Ldg. Steward, R.C.N.V.R. (V-22763),
33	Hartwood Road, Southport, Lancaster, England,
14 June, 1945.
Smith, Percy,
Petty Officer, R.C.N. (2821),
1340 Hamilton St.,
Regina, Sask.,
14 June, 1945.
Snelgrove, Donald Edward,

[Stage Direction]
34	Canon St.,
Saint John, N.B.,
14 June, 1945.
Snobelen, Samuel Baird,
Able Seaman, R.C.N.V.R. (V-50344), R.R. l 3,
Chatham, Ont.,
3 July, 1945.
Steele, Norbert Joseph,
Petty Officer, R.C.N. (3588),
Newport, P.E.I.,
26 March, 1945.
Styles, George Morley,
A/Ldg. Stoker, R.C.N.V.R. (V-33381), Morrisburg. Ont.,
3 July, 1945.
Talbot, Roland Laurie,

[Stage Direction]
Suite 120, Sales Block,
Jasper Ave., Edmonton, Alta.,
14 June, 1945.
OCTOBER 9, 1945	887
Awards for Gallantry-Naval Services
Thomas, George Henry,
Chief Stoker, R.C.N. (X-41065),
2347 Logan St.,
Montreal, Que.,
14 June, 1945.
Thomas, William Frederick,

[Stage Direction]
1810 West 36th Ave.,
Vancouver, B.C.,
14 August, 1945.
Tibert. Ray Johnson,
Acting Ldg. Smn. R.C.N.V.R. (V-41712), Central Grove, N.S.,
14 June, 1945.
Tiner, Ralph Sydney,
Chief P.O., R.C.N.R. (A-2853),
803-2nd Ave., Verdun, Que.,
14 June, 1945.
Wagg, Frank,
C.P.O., RjC.N.R. (A-5386),
Gore Bay, Ont.,
14 June, 1945.
Warnoek, Frank William,
Chief Stoker, R.C.N.R. (A-2497),
Zurich, Ont.,
14 August, 1945.
Watling. Cedric Stanley.
C.P.O. Elect., R.C.N. (X-41094), Kapuskasing, Ont.,
14 June, 1945.
Webber, Robert,

[Stage Direction]
2817 Quebec St.,
Vancouver, B.C.,
14 June, 1945.
Whistlecraft, Donald William,
Ldg. Stores Asst., R.C.N.V.R. (V-38406), 27 Hughes St.,
St. Thomas, Ont.,
24 July, 1945.
Williams. Bruce Edward A.B., R.C.N.V.R. (V-72477),
171 St. Clair Ave East,
Toronto, Ont.,
26 March, 1945.
Wood, Dean Nelson.
Petty Officer, R.C.N.R. (A-1074),
R.R. 6, Charlottetown, P.E.I.,
14 June, 1945.
Young, Leonard Erwin,
Stoker, R.C.N.V.R. (V-55462),
3663 Broadway West,
Vancouver, B.C.,
24 July, 1945.
Yvon. Alfred Jules,
A/E.R.A. 4/cl. R.C.N.V.R. (V-51263), 1127 Laurier St. West,
Montreal, P.Q.,
26 March, 1945.
Bronze Star Medal (U.S.A.)-1 Strina, R. L.,
Lieutenant Commander, R.C.N.V.R., Canadian Bank of Commerce,
Robson Branch, Vancouver, B.C.,
17 April, 1945.
Croix de Guerre (France)-3
MacKay, H. D.,
Acting Commander, R.C.N.R.,
11 Merkel Place,
Halifax, N.S.,
31 August, 1945.
Schreiber, J. R. G.,
Lieut. Cdr.. R.C.N.V.R.,
Room 5615,
Chateau Frontenac,
Quebec, P.Q.,
22 March, 1945.
Maitland, John Douglas (D.S.C. and Bar),
Lieut. Cdr., R.C.N.V.R.,
1264 Balfour Ave.,
Vancouver, B.C.,
11 January, 1945.
King Haakon VII's Commemoration Medal (Norwegian)-1
Connolly, William Ernest.
Signalman. R.C.N.V.R. (V-40271),
18 Locke St. N., Hamilton, Ont.,
3 August, 1942.
Order of Patriotic War First Class (U.S.S.R.)-1
Senior, Charles Arthur Robin,
Lieutenant, R.C.N.V.R.,
Ottawa, Ont.,
December, 1942.
John Bracken: Before the committee rises I should like to ask a question. At some point early in the discussion in committee will the Minister of National Defence give a break-down of expenditures under the following headings: War expenditures-these would include commitments of the past- demobilization expenditures, and what one might call expenditures for defence in the future. I should personally like to have such information.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I should be very happy to do what I can to meet the wishes of the leader of the opposition on that point. As he probably knows, for the last four or five years our practice has been, in connection with these war estimates, to consider the estimates of the different services under twelve or thirteen primary headings such as civil salaries, pay and allowances, travel, transportation and freight and the like. The details have, in fact, been prepared on that basis.
I shall be ready to give any information or break-down that I can; but I am afraid that at this date it would be difficult, if not impossible, from a practical point of view completely to rearrange the estimates. However, I shall be happy to do what I can to break them down under the suggested headings. I must repeat, however, that I am
Demobilization-Naval Services

afraid it would be difficult to make a complete rearrangement of the way in which they are presented. I had more or less assumed that the committee would be ready to consider them in the form in which they were presented at the last three or four sessions. I realize, of course, that circumstances are somewhat different to-day, but they have become so quite recently, with the result that the accounting staffs have not been able to make any change in their method of presentation. I may say that these estimates I am going to bring before the house have already been revised three or four times since they were first prepared last March. Frankly I would hesitate to impose too great a burden upon our accounting staffs, which are already pretty heavily burdened. However, I shall try to meet my hon. friend in any way I can.


John Bracken: I was asking that the Minister of National Defence or indeed the minister of any other department revise the set-up of the estimates. I am not asking that at all. But I think the government, in its own interests, ought to let the house and the country know what proportion of these total expenditures amounting to $3,650 million would be chargeable to commitments with respect to the war; what proportion would be chargeable to demobilization and what proportion to the future defence plan for the three services. If that information cannot be given, then it cannot be given. But I was wondering if at least the totals under these headings could be given for each of the three services. I am not suggesting that at this stage the minister should try to set up his estimates in a different form. I wonder if he understands what I am asking for.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Probably as we go along
in the consideration of the estimates we shall be able to follow what my hon. friend has in mind. I believe that under the primary headings to which he has referred I can give what amount would stand as carryover from previous commitments. We will follow the practice of distributing to each member of the house an itemized break-down of the total, and if a further break-down of that is needed I will try to provide it.
Progress reported.
It being five minutes after eleven o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Wednesday, October 10, 1945.