November 14, 1940


Gordon Graydon

National Government


I will take the minister

up on that. He is always very good at figures although he did leave some important ones at home this afternoon. Perhaps these are some figures he has not seen. In the first two months exporters to Canada did pretty well; in January we bought over eight million pounds and in February nearly fifteen million. But we have not dried up the source because in the following months our imports were:


March 2,086,000

April 1,600.000

May 1,827,000

June 1,353,000

Even in September we have over 1,500,000 pounds of pork and pork products coming from the United States.


James Garfield Gardiner (Minister of National War Services; Minister of Agriculture)



It is all in the quota.


Gordon Graydon

National Government


That brings me to something the minister said this afternoon. Some mention was made of apples and other fresh fruits and vegetables. When the minister talked about the war being the cause of the troubles of our fruit and vegetable growers he went a long way to find a cause, for this is something which has been before this house for a good length of time, as he well knows. He had better make a trip to Washington before he loses the idea of travelling; it would be a good bit of business for him.


James Garfield Gardiner (Minister of National War Services; Minister of Agriculture)



I was just quoting the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation.

The Address-Mr. Graydon


Gordon Graydon

National Government


I understood he was one man the minister never quoted. We have this question of fresh fruits and vegetables in which the minister is so much interested;

I wish he had shown more interest earlier. This is the position with regard to fresh fruits and vegetables entering Canada from the United States in 1939, the year in which the war broke out. We brought in from the United States fresh fruits to a value of $13-5 millions, and fresh vegetables to the value of $5-4 millions, and certain other items bring the total close to $21 millions. We shall see what has happened this year.

The worst feature of this is that not only are we taking this market from the fruit and vegetable growers of Canada, but look at our foreign exchange position with regard to purchases of war materials. Everybody in Canada knows that this government needs every dollar it can get its hands on to buy materials to fight this war, and much of those materials come' from the United States. Yet up to the end of September, 1940, this government has allowed to come into this country nearly $12-5 millions of fresh fruits and over S5 millions of fresh vegetables-in line with what we imported in the same period of last year or preceding years.

Men who come from fruit and vegetable growing districts have pleaded for years with the government not to let the fruit and vegetable growers bear an unfair burden of the tariff arrangements between these countries. If ever there were a reason for doing something for these men and at the same time doing something vital for Canada, now is the time. I call upon the Minister of Agriculture and the government to help save our exchange position and at the same time remove this detriment to our fruit and vegetable growers. Let them act quickly, because action is long overdue. Whether they are right or wrong, there are among the farming population many people to whom I talk who believe that everything they sell is in a measure pegged in price. I have no objection to the pegging of the price of butter, as indicated in the newspapers yesterday, provided the pegging is going to take some of the profits from speculators in butter in Canada, but I do not think any of the consumers want to take the hide off the farmer in having the price of butter pegged. The farmer now says, " If you are going to peg all my prices you had better start to peg some of the high salaries being paid people in Ottawa in connection with our war effort," and that is only fair.

I only want to add that as far as Canada is concerned we in this country will have to go through a period of blood, sweat, toil and

tears, as the Prime Minister of Great Britain once said. I believe we shall have to make greater sacrifices than we have made so far.

I am sure the Canadian people will be glad to make those sacrifices, but in these times it is of the utmost importance that in a democracy such as this we have good leadership. I am going to ask the government to review the entire salary set-up, not only with regard to the war effort but in every other connection as well, in an endeavour to show the people that we are really serious in this business of beating Hitler and Mussolini. We in Canada no longer can expect to sit by and maintain the accepted standards of leisure, comfort and convenience. I think that day is hastening to a close. Let me warn the government that the world of yesterday will not be the world of to-morrow, so let us as a government, as a parliament and as a nation prepare for the changes which must come about. As the representatives of the Canadian people, for whom we speak, we pledge their support to the government so long as the government gives the right kind of leadership in carrying out Canada's part in this great empire effort.

I should like to conclude with the suggestion that parliament was called to meet this month principally for one purpose, namely, in order that the story of the government's war effort might be properly given to the Canadian people. There is only one subject in which the people of this country are interested now. They are not interested in whether it happened to be a Liberal, a Conservative, a member of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation or someone else who advanced some particular suggestion years ago. I want to tell the Minister of Agriculture that if he holds that belief he belongs to an antiquated political school.


James Garfield Gardiner (Minister of National War Services; Minister of Agriculture)



Then how does my hon. friend explain an amendment dealing with agriculture?


Gordon Graydon

National Government


I am sorry the minister has been so busy talking to his neighbours. I thought I had given a complete explanation in that regard, and it may be that even some of the more important subjects with which I have dealt have escaped his attention as well. This war effort is the only thing that counts. I tell the minister it does not make any difference whether one party or another survives in this country, so long as we win this war. That is the main thing. I would like to see the minister, with all his ability, drop his partisanship from now on and continue along the line of the last two parts of his speech. He was wonderful then, and I was glad to be a Canadian with him; but I was not so glad when I listened to


The Address-Mr. Gray don

the first portion of his speech, and I hope that sort of thing is never repeated in this house.

We were called here to discuss the war effort, and to find out what the government have been doing. We gave the government a blank cheque. Perhaps I should not be carrying out my undertaking if I said anything about blank cheques; the Minister of Agriculture and I have a truce in connection with this matter, so I shall not again in this house bring up anything in that connection. But the government did obtain a blank cheque from parliament and from the people of Canada last year, and from time to time that blank cheque has been extended. There have been conferred upon the governor in council powers such as were not dreamed of in the past, but many people in Canada because of this change are not acquainted with the development and progress of our war effort. For that reason it became important that this session should be devoted to a thorough airing of the entire war effort of this country. I was amazed that the first two or three days of this session were not given over wholly to a complete story of what has been done by the various ministers; that was what I expected and that was what the Canadian people expected. That is what the people want. I should like to serve notice on the government this afternoon, not only on my own behalf but also on behalf of the party to which I belong, that the sooner they bring down full reports of our war effort, the better the people will like it. More than that, Mr. Speaker, anything less than the speediest possible elucidation of the situation will not satisfy Canada.

I leave that thought with the government this afternoon in the sincere and earnest hope that a disclosure of our entire war effort will show that something worth while has been done to help the empire and in particular to help good old England in her hour of trial.


Frederick William Gershaw


Mr. F. W. GERSHAW (Medicine Hat):

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to tell the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) that we are glad to see him back in his place. We congratulate him upon his trip and we congratulate him upon his speech this afternoon. His words will bring fresh hope and courage to many of our Canadian producers. We will get good government only when we have a strong cabinet and a watchful opposition; but if the opposition claims the right to criticize every action taken by the government, surely the right of the government to reply should not be questioned.

Something has been said about Canada being soothed into a false sense of security.

[Mr. Graydon.1

As I meet people throughout this country I certainly do not get that impression. I believe the Canadian people have done a marvellous job of preparing for the great struggle in which we are engaged; and as the days go by, I am sure the ministers will explain fully what great strides have been made towards turning Canada from a peacetime economy into a warlike camp. I should like to pay tribute to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), because during the many years in which he has led a large party in this country he has had one great aim and ambition, to keep united the various races and interests in this dominion and to maintain good will with our immediate neighbours. Now that the great testing time has come, Canada goes into this war as a united country, and our neighbours are in sympathy with us. Not only is this fact recognized throughout the length and breadth of the dominion; the Prime Minister of Great Britain, than whom there has been no greater, said this in part in a cable to the Prime Minister of Canada:

I am glad to have this opportunity of thanking you personally for all you have done in the common cause, and especially in promoting harmony of sentiment throughout the new world. This deep understanding will be a great factor in . . . the rescue of Europe from a relapse into the dark ages.

With your gracious permission, Mr. Speaker, since hon. members are allowed wide latitude in this debate I should like to discuss some local problems, and also attempt to give the house some reasons, as I see them, why Canada is engaged in this great conflict.

As has been said here to-day, agriculture is the greatest industry in the country, because it provides our supplies of food. In the west we have 60,850,000 acres of improved farm lands, of which 38,320,000 acres are sown in different cereal crops and 17,850,000 acres are annually under summer-fallow, for moisture conservation and for the control and destruction of weeds. There is also in pasture and unbroken land an area of about

35,000,000 acres, used for the support of

3.900,000 cattle, 1,900,000 horses and 1,300,000 sheep.

Between the years 1929 and 1938, Canada experienced a series of crop failures owing to drought and soil drifting. The area involved corresponds closely with what is known as the Palliser triangle. In 1860 the British government sent to Canada a man named Palliser to make a survey of the western country. He carefully observed the nature of vegetation he found on the land, and marked out an area beginning in the western part of Manitoba, running northward and westward to Saskatoon and Battleford, and

The Address-Mr. Gershaw

then south and westward to the Rocky mountains, at a point just west of Lethbridge. The base of that triangle is the international boundary line. This area, he reported, would not support a farming population.

To-day this area corresponds generally with the area under the control of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. In 1937, one of the worst years, the average yield in the area was only 2-6 bushels an acre. In 1939, which was not so bad, by any means, the 300,000 farmers each received an average income of only $1,605.

I am sure hon. members will realize that this small amount would not go far toward paying for machinery and hired help, as well as providing other necessities of farm life.

Doctor Archibald, who has compiled most of the figures I have before me, points out further that various governments, and particularly the one now in office, have done a great deal to help those engaged in agriculture in that district, and throughout western Canada generally. For instance, 200,000,000 trees have been distributed. What has been learned in the light of recent discoveries seems to indicate that different methods of agriculture will bring better results, as climate and soil conditions are better understood. Then, 3,454 stock watering dams have been constructed, to provide water for live stock. In addition, 9,945 dug-outs and 833 irrigation projects have been completed. Marginal lands for some thirty community pastures, with an average acreage of 20,000 acres each, have been procured. Ninety per cent of the land has been covered by recent soil surveys. Development by experimental farms of early ripening wheat, such as marquis wheat, has in many instances saved crops from early frost damage. Reclamation stations and regrassing demonstrations have been established at about 600 points.

Then, in order to help the man who, through no fault of his own had experienced a crop failure, some 58,000 farmers were paid an acreage bonus, because they received such a small yield from their land. These payments have cost the government about $12,000,000, and about $2,000,000 of the amount has been collected by a tax of one per cent on all grains.

In addition, about 204 agricultural improvement associations were formed. I see great possibilities in these organizations, because men from certain districts with similar problems may gather together, pool their experience, work out policies and advise the government about their particular districts. They have rendered a great service in connection with the distribution of seed, and matters of that kind.

The wheat problem will be fully discussed during this session. I can say only that it is fortunate the government has stepped in to buy wheat. Otherwise there would be little or no market for it. While the farmers are receiving a price below the cost of production, yet I say it is a price better than could be obtained in any other way. Great help has been given the live stock industry through the trade treaties which have been made. If there is one policy which has worked out successfully, I would say it has been the trade policy of the government. We now have admission to the great markets in the United States. We have generous quotas, and the rates of duty are about half of what they were in previous days.

Many other things have been done to help the farmer. Yet, every hon. member coming from western Canada must be convinced that, so far as the farming industry is concerned, we are still almost in a state of crisis. If one drives through the country he will see buildings falling in ruin; he will see homes lacking furniture and ordinary comforts. In that country there are women and children who lack the clothing they should have. Reading material, and many of the useful things which tend to make life on the farm less wearisome and lonesome are lacking in those prairie homes. Recently I visited a district consisting of quite a number of people, and yet in that section there was not one radio. Children and adults are not living under those ideal circumstances where one finds equality of opportunity. The children are greatly handicapped because of the distance they have to go to school, and the work they must do. Adults have to endure [DOT] many hardships to make a living. I say, therefore, that there are things which the people in the west need, and need urgently.

We need more irrigation. There should not be one gallon of water allowed to trickle northward to the Arctic ocean, when it is badly needed in the drought stricken areas of the middle western part of Canada. There is an old Chinese saying that one picture is worth a thousand words. I am sure if some hon. members could see the results of irrigation schemes which have been completed, they would not hesitate to vote money for more schemes of a similar kind. In the spring time streams of water flow down from the sides of the mountains and the hills. But in the summer those streams dry up, and we have nothing left but the dusty, barren soil. In many instances dams can be constructed, and thereby great bodies of water can be saved and released when they are needed. In that way the farmers may keep beef cattle or milch cows for the benefit of

The Address-Mr. Gershaw

their children. They may plant gardens, and produce flowers and things of that sort, which would make their homes more homelike. No investment could give better results.

Then we need good roads. We have not a satisfactory trans-Canada highway at the present time. It is true that it has been gravelled, but in places the gravel is quite thin and the gumbo works up so that the gravel is down and the gumbo is up. The result is large lumps on the road, and the tourist from the United States comes once, but never again. He goes home and tells his neighbours not to come, and the result is that Canada loses considerable revenue. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) loses considerable exchange which he values so highly. I believe expenditures on roads would be money well spent. Good roads would attract more people to this country to help consume our surplus products and bring about a measure of prosperity.

It has been said that markets for our products, particularly wheat, are becoming hard to find. Such being the case, we should divert our efforts to the growing of crops that can be sold. Britain, a thickly populated country, produces something like 22 per cent of the sugar she consumes. The United States produces something like 25 per cent of its consumption, but Canada, a sparsely populated country, produces only 15 per cent. I believe the encouragement of this industry would help to do away with our great surpluses of wheat and bring about more prosperity. There are other things we need, such as social legislation to provide for the aged and the sick. There should be a more equitable relationship between the prices of those commodities we have to buy and what we receive for the products and services which we have to sell. If that is brought about, it will be much easier to balance the budget in the average home.

For the remainder of my time I should like to discuss that great issue which is to the fore in all countries of the world at the present time. Why is Canada fighting? We are fighting for self-preservation. For two hundred and fifty years Great Britain has known that her safety depended upon the sea lanes being kept open and the countries of Europe being prevented from coming under the domination of any one power. The sea lanes must be kept open in order that Great Britain may bring in the foodstuffs necessary for her great population. When Hitler showed by his repeated aggressions that his ambition was conquest, the very existence of Britain was endangered. What did Britain stand to lose? After a long, struggle through the centuries,

after many trials and errors, her people evolved a civilization based upon a Christian code, based upon honour, a civilization having the freedom of democracy. Why should all this be surrendered for a lower state of civilization? It has cost the people of Britain dearly to gain what they have. Governments have fallen, kings have been dethroned and beheaded, and much blood has been shed. We of the present day, as custodians of what has been won in the past, must not surrender these precious things.

We do not want a civilization under a dictatorship where our citizens would not be allowed to criticize the acts of the government. We do not want a civilization where of freedom there would be none, where opposition would not be tolerated for a moment or be punished by death or internment. The continent of Europe is under the control of dictators. There is not one public speaker on the platform or over the radio, there is not one editor who dares to express opinions different from those held by the dictators. We are fighting for our empire and for our liberties, but we are also fighting for something more. We are fighting to maintain Anglo-Saxon ideals; we are fighting to preserve a country where there is more and more of self-government, where there is a greater abundance of comfort and the good things of this world. We are fighting to preserve a civilization which has less of that monstrous doctrine that might is right.

Defeat means that we shall be a vassal state. We are fighting for our possessions, but that is the least of the things for which we are fighting. Sacrifices are not being made to preserve just our material wealth. We are fighting in the interests of mankind in general. We have a vision of a land fit for heroes. W'e are fighting for a better world where there will be no unprovoked aggression, where women and children will not be heartlessly bombed. I should like to compare the aspirations of the heads of the two chief combatants in this struggle. Hitler says that Germany will be mistress of the sphere, that she will hold that position by the power of her victorious sword. He says that Germans must show that they are bom to be masters. He says that their destiny is to master Europe. He might have said the rest of the world. It will be noticed that he proposes to govern by the sword. There are to be overlords and underlings.

I should like to compare that statement with one made by a British cabinet minister. He said that when the time comes we will liberate the nations of the world and build a

The Address-Mr. Sinclair

new order based on cooperation, tolerance and mutual good-will. Hitler makes everyone his servant; they all must serve his purpose. Mr. Churchill has told us that the public men of Great Britain are proud to be the servants of the people, that they would be ashamed to be their masters. During the last year or so the King and Queen of Great Britain and Canada and our sister nations have endeared themselves to our hearts. Mussolini travels in an armoured train which is heavily guarded. Hitler travels in one even more strongly protected and he hides away in a rock-bound shelter high up in a mountain fortress. The king and queen have visited the bombed areas of London absolutely unguarded in order to encourage and cheer the hearts of their humblest subjects.

The British people high and low are undaunted by the evil that has befallen them. There has been no grander spectacle in history. This has been one of the finest things that has developed in our civilization. We are fighting for an ideal. We are fighting for a way of life. We are fighting for a legacy which we are to hand on to the generations to follow, that we hope, will never experience the terrible things which have been experienced by this generation. The president of the Canadian legion expresses it in this way:

We must look to the future with ever increasing confidence and hope and faith. The month before us may seem dark but beyond that darkness a light shines. It is the light of freedom, of love of charity. When the hate and lust of our enemies have vanished for all time we shall emerge into a world better and brighter than it has ever been before.

In closing I should like to place on Hansard something that Mr. Churchill has said which I believe will appeal and has appealed to the people of Canada from shore to shore. It expresses something of the undaunted courage of the British people. Mr. Churchill said:

We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, on the seas and oceans. We shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air.

We shall defend our island whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches and the landing grounds, in the fields, in the streets and on the hills. We shall never surrender. And even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British fleet, will carry on its struggle until in God's good time the new world with all its power and might steps forth to the liberation and rescue of the old.

At six o'clock the house took recess.

After Recess

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


James Sinclair


Mr. JAMES SINCLAIR (Vancouver North):

Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak this

evening I must first thank those who made it possible for me to speak so early in this debate. I am quite aware that there are many who are quite senior members to me who would like to speak this evening, and since my leave has expired and I am returning to my post to-night I feel grateful to them for having yielded me this opportunity.

To-night I am speaking not so much as the member for Vancouver North, but as one who has had the good fortune to be accepted in one of the services. I regard it as good fortune because we who are private members have no more rights and no more exemptions than any other citizen of this country. So we can regard it as good fortune to be in an active service unit. It may be that some of my constituents feel that because I am in the service I cannot give to the affairs of my riding the time and consideration which they should have. I can reassure my constituents. Perhaps I have suffered some handicaps, but the minister and my colleagues among the private members have been more than kind in seeing that the affairs of my riding have not been neglected.

I regret exceedingly that I was not in the house last night to hear my hon. friend the member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. White) speak. Although we are both in active service I must say that there is little in his speech with which I can agree. That, probably, is a good sign of a democracy-that even in a service where men in the positions we hold may be expected, if they think at all, to think the same, we hold these diverse opinions.

I think I can say, on behalf of other hon. members on our side who are in the sendee, that we feel strongly about the inference one would draw from the opening paragraph of the hon. member's speech, that he regarded it as a virtue not to have had a commission from this government. I should like to point out to the hon. member that the great majority of the men in the active service of Canada to-day are not professional soldiers; they are ordinary peace-loving citizens during times of peace. When we joined up we did so, not under a Liberal government or any other government, but as citizens entering the Canadian army. I should like to point out, too, that we private members who are fortunate enough to be in the service are not in it because we are in politics. I can assure

The Address-Mr. Sinclair

him, as can many other hon. members, that we are in it despite the fact that we are in politics, because the recruiting officers and the chiefs of staff of the three services have shown a real reluctance to have members of parliament in their ranks-perhaps an understandable reluctance based on a fear that w>e would take advantage of our position. Other members of this house have tried since the beginning of the war to enlist and would, I believe, have been in the service a long time ago had it not been for the fact that they were in politics.

The hon. member made some mention of "lightning promotions." The only promotion I know of among hon. members who have enlisted is the promotion recently given, and-I can say this from the bottom of my heart-most deservedly given to the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey), who is now at Trenton camp doing a wonderful job. That was no "lightning promotion"; it was to my mind a normal promotion somewhat overdue.

Perhaps I may be allowed in a kind way to say just one more thing to the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough. He said that his was not a political appointment from this government. He was appointed in August, 1930. Hon. members may recall that the government of the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett was elected in July, 1930.

The whole tenor of my speech will be a little different from that of my hon. friend, in that I do not think this house is the proper place in which to bring up a great number of quibbling little matters, for instance as to whether certain units of the non-permanent active militia went to camp with one, or two, army shirts. Surely one who has the rights of a member of parliament should bring these matters directly to the minister concerned-the one man who more than any other wants to see that the army is run as efficiently as possible and who will do everything in his power to that end.

There has been criticism of delay in supplying certain articles, such as socks and shirts, to the non-permanent active militia. But these men were not naked; all of them had clothes and shirts of their own. They, too, realized, I think, that we are in a war. Those who saw the terrible pictures which were shown early last week, by the courtesy of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon), of the German war effort and the way in which the Germans smashed through the Netherlands, will realize that whether or not the non-permanent active militia were all outfitted completely at the start does not matter very much. The thing

which matters is, whether our first line, the navy and the air force, is being properly equipped as fast as this country can equip it. Speaking for the only service I know, the air force, I can say in this house to-night that it is.

I do not intend to speak at length on the general plan or the success of the empire air training scheme. The activities of the air force generally have been widely discussed and have received abundant praise from independent military authorities in this country and in the United States, and, what is most important of all, from those authorities in the United Kingdom who are fighting the fight in the air and who should know whether or not this scheme, which is now becoming the back-bone of the defence of Britain, and what we hope will soon be the battle of Germany, is succeeding.

A great deal has been said about the wonderful organization of the air ministry in their development of this empire air training scheme. Sufficient credit will never be given to the minister, the deputy minister and the air staff in the tremendous task they have faced, one phase of which, for example, has been to enlarge a force which numbered a thousand a year ago in the active force to over thirty thousand at the present time.

I do not intend here to enumerate the fields and hangars and planes, or the instructors and the pilots turned out already. That has been done, that will be done by people more competent than I am to speak, but I will say that one thing has been overlooked. This scheme could not have succeeded as it has, and as it will, if it depended only upon the work of the minister, the deputy minister and the air staff. This plan has succeeded mainly because the rank and file of the air force, the aircraftmen, the non-commissioned officers, the warrant officers and the junior officers, have faith and confidence in the staff; and the reason why they have that confidence is that they know that the men heading this effort are no mere brass hats; the heads of the air force are men who fought in the last war, know what war is and will stand for no red tape. That, to my mind, after seeing a little of the force, in a very lowly rank, is the real reason why this government, why the minister and why his excellent organization have functioned so well. [DOT]

I do not intend to enlarge upon how well the empire air training scheme is progressing. I think it would be as wrong for me to say here to-night, in connection with the first classes that are turned out, how many pilots, how many observers and how many gunners are being sent overseas, as it was for another

The Address-Mr. Sinclair

man in another place to say recently how many British airmen were planning to make the hazardous trip across the submarine-infested ocean. I did not, however, come here to speak praise of the air force organization; it speaks for itself. I do, however, want to speak as a man in the service and as a member trying to represent these great numbers of voters who have left their ridings and are now living in barracks and camps and who deserve an active voice in this house. I am going to bring up two or three little points which to them are important.

The first is the matter of rentals in soldier towns. As hon. members know, in a great number of the air force and soldier camps the wives of the men, especially those without families, have tried to follow and stay near their men as long as possible. In the little villages alongside these encampments this has led to unwarranted profiteering. These women who want to stay with their men are naturally not very well off. The government has begun recently to control these rentals in the larger towns. May I ask them to extend that control as soon as possible to the little towns in the neighbourhood of air force and service camps, because to attempt to profiteer at the expense of these soldiers' families who want to be near their men as long as they can, seems the harshest of all sorts of profiteering.

There is also the matter of rentals in industrial centres which have boomed because of war activities. In these centres also there have been instances of rental profiteering. In North Vancouver and in the town of Powell River activity has increased, there has been a demand for space, and rentals have been rising. I received this morning a letter from a soldier's wife in Powell River who complained of her rent being raised, the inference being that these workers coming in can pay more and therefore she is being squeezed out. I hope the government will as soon as possible extend the rent control to these smaller centres.

Another matter about industrial war activity that I might mention in relation to my own riding is the problem of the shipyards in North Vancouver. These are the best shipyards on the Pacific coast, perhaps the best in Canada. There was considerable trouble a year ago with regard to awarding government contracts there because of the fact that labour costs in British Columbia are higher. We are proud of that in British Columbia, in that we have a higher standard of living than the rest of Canada, but that militated against our getting the contracts. I am glad to say that the minister did place contracts for mine-sweepers and corvettes, but these ships

have now been built and the shipyards are laying off their men. We have read rumours that cargo boats are to be built in the United States for the British government, and certain United States yards are getting ready for a shipbuilding programme. As our men are being laid off, there are agents in North Vancouver now attempting to induce our workers to go to Bremerton when their work in North Vancouver is finished. These shipyard workers I believe are just as important to the war activities of this country as are the riggers and fitters in the airport across the harbour, and must be kept employed here.

There is one question in the mind of every soldier, sailor and airman in Canada at the present time. Every night now when they pick up a newspaper they want to see what parliament has done about this matter of transportation on leave. There has been perhaps a good deal of nonsense talked by people who knew little about the matter, but whose hearts cry out for soldiers to get every concession the government can give them before they go overseas. One of the most popular misconceptions is that leave is one of the soldier's rights. The soldiers and airmen understand that leave is not a right, it is a privilege. If their conduct has been good and if the service at the time can spare them, certain leaves may be granted: in the air force, for example, thirty-six hours at the week-ends in which they are not on duty; forty-eight hours once a month, and two weeks once every six months. These leaves are not necessarily for the men to return to their homes; these men joined up to fight a war and certainly they do not expect to get home for every forty-eight hours' leave. Leaves are for relaxation and refreshment and to get away for a little while from army discipline. There is, however, to every man in the service one great attraction, that of home. In the kit box of the airman in the barracks are pictures of those he left behind. When they talk in the barracks, around the hangars, it is of their home towns and the friends there. When they think they are going overseas, it is only natural to desire to go home; that desire is very strong.

It was pointed out last night that the average soldier who has a home and a wife to whom he has assigned pay; in other words, the man who is anxious to go home, has for himself at the most 819 a month. That may be enough for a man at Petawawa whose home is in Ontario to get home, but it will not finance a trip from Vancouver back east or vice versa. I do not suggest for a moment that free transportation should be given to

The Address-Mr. Sinclair

soldiers on the short leaves, but I do think, and I believe the people of Canada think, and certainly the soldiers, sailors and airmen feel that the government might give them the bare cost of transportation on their semiannual two weeks' leave. In the Royal Air Force, in fact in all the services in the old country, that is done. Of course distances there are shorter, travel does not cost so much as here, with our great distances. But that argument can be used just as truly the other way. The smaller fares for those short distances can be more easily paid by the British soldier than the fares for the long distances that some of our soldiers have to travel. From my conversations with people coming across Canada recently I am convinced that the people feel that this thing should be granted no matter what the cost. We in this house are so used to appealing to the government for money that perhaps we tend to forget that it is not the government's own money, it is the money of the people of Canada which they have entrusted to the government to spend. I believe this is one thing which the people of Canada do wish for their soldiers, and this adds strength to our plea that at least on their long leaves some consideration be given to provide free transportation-not for officers, because they can provide their own, but for the men at $1.30 a day, soldiers, sailors and airmen.

One other question relating to leave which I should like to bring up is the inequality of leave, especially in the air force, as far as this two weeks' leave is concerned. The air force was recruited, not as the army was, by localities; the air force is recruited on a national scale from Victoria to Halifax. The men pour into central pools and are then sent out to stations as they are needed, without regard to the localities from which they come. Yet, when their two weeks' leave is granted, if it can be granted, it is inequitable. For example, we have a number of large training centres in Ontario. The boys from British Columbia who get two weeks' leave have really five or six days' leave, by the time they travel home and back. If a man has the good fortune to be close to his home he gets twelve or fourteen days. I might go further and take the hon. member who spoke last night as an example. The government have ruled that we members are entitled only to the army leave that we get as ordinary soldiers. It may be a little hard on us, but as far as the feeling of the force is concerned it is an excellent thing that we get no special privileges. On the one hand a soldier member who lives in Ontario can get to the house for almost his whole

fourteen days' leave, but my colleague the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Chambers) or myself get at the most seven days. I feel that some consideration should be given to this matter by the Department of National Defence. Here again the Royal Air Force have taken this into consideration. In their most recent orders regarding leave they say:

Personnel proceeding on leave to and from the Orkney and Shetland islands are to be granted sufficient total leave to ensure that they have seven days at home.

I would respectfully suggest to the government that some such provision also be made for the long leaves of those who must travel great distances to get home.

There is one special plea I should like to make to-night for one very special group, the air crew's. Under the empire air training scheme these men graduate in classes, and they are given what is called a last leave of ten days in which to return to their homes. I think that expression "last leave" is fitting in this instance, because they know, as we do, that a great number of them will never return, and that is their last chance to see those whom they leave behind. Here again the same situation obtains; the British Columbia boy who has been trained at Trenton, for example, where so many of them finish, will have only two days of his last leave to spend a.t home. It is true that they receive half fare warrants on the trains. I suggest that this one special group, to which Winston Churchill must have referred when he used the expression that has become immortal that "never in history have so many owed so much to so few"; this special group who will be hurtling through the air in Hurricanes and Spitfires, be given half fare warrants not on the trains but on the trans-Canada planes, so that they may have at least eight of their ten days at home.

The air training scheme has become really an empire scheme within the last two months, with the arrival of the Australians and New Zealanders. We in Vancouver have had the pleasure of seeing these recruits pass through our city, and it can justly be said that they are the cream of the antipodes. They have come a long way; they get here after spending three weeks at sea. We all know that first impressions are the most lasting, yet these men are hurried through our city to their training centres. We all agree that speed is the main essential of this empire air training scheme, but the people of Vancouver would like to do something for these Australians and New Zealanders as they pass through, to show them how Canada feels about their arrival. The last contingent arrived in Vancouver at six o'clock in the evening, after a voyage lasting three weeks, and at seven-fifteen

The Address-Mr. Wright

they left for a station on the plains of Saskatchewan. I do not know whether the minister is the proper person to approach, or whether this should be said to the Australian authorities, but I should like to suggest that at least one day and one night be allowed between disembarkation and the trip to the prairies, in order that two things may be accomplished: first, that these men may be given a proper reception in the loveliest city of Canada and, second, that the people of Vancouver may have an opportunity to show these men, who have come so far to fight in the common cause, what they can do for them. Various service organizations in our city are only too willing to undertake in rotation the entertainment of each contingent as it arrives.

In closing I should like to say one thing to the minister and the government on behalf of the rank and file of the air force. They believe in this government; especially they believe in the minister and staff who are running the air force. That is why they do not mind going into camps that may be not quite finished, perhaps without water for a day or so, without public complaint. They grouse privately, but as we all know, soldiers always grouse. These men understand the driving necessity of expanding operations as quickly as possible. They are willing to overlook minor discomforts because they realize that this is a war. On behalf of these men, the riggers, the fitters, the engineers and the air crews, I say to this government and to the minister in particular, "Keep at it the way you are going".


Percy Ellis Wright

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. P. E. WRIGHT (Melfort):

Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate this evening I should like first to correct the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), who this afternoon in his usual style attempted to define the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation programme as state socialism, although of course he did not bother to define what he meant by state socialism. The minister knows better than that what is the programme of this party. He disagrees with that programme. That is his privilege, but that is no reason for misrepresenting it. As has been stated many times in this house, this party looks to the formation of a cooperative society in Canada under which the economic resources of the country will be used for the welfare of all its people. This is a noble aim, and the desirability of this objective is not to be diminished a bit by the slurs of the minister. As a matter of fact his recent visit to Great Britain proved the correctness of our policy. He did not go as a private individual from Canada to deal with private interests in Great Britain; he

fMr. Sinclair.]

went as a responsible government minister to negotiate with responsible government officials in that country, and it was the British government that decided what and how much to buy, and what not to buy. That decision was based not on profit or privilege but on a plan which took into account the needs of the people in their struggle against Hitler. The conditions of the war have persuaded the British government to put into effect the policies and controls advocated by the British labour party, which are the same as the policies advocated by the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation in Canada.

There are two classes of people who want to win this war, and for two different reasons. One class, the minority, want to win it in order to maintain the present system and the privileges which they enjoy under it. The other class, the majority, want to win this war in order to preserve that measure oi democracy we now enjoy, and on this basis to build a better and wider democracy in the economic as well as in the political field. The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation belongs to this latter class.

It is my intention, Mr. Speaker, to speak to-night principally on domestic matters, and I hope no hon. member will rise in his place and remind me that there is a war on. We in Saskatchewan realize that fact more, if possible, than the people in any other part of this country. During the last war we had the greatest enlistment, according to population, of any province, and I believe that is the case again to-day. Our main industry, the growing of wheat, is selling its production to the mother country at less than cost, and making a greater sacrifice than is being made by any other industry in Canada. Both capital and industry have stated in no uncertain terms that they will not engage in a one hundred per cent war effort until they receive what they deem to be a just return on their capital investment, and this principle has been acknowledged as fair by the government. Let me quote the words of the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) on this point, as contained in a news-letter issued recently:

... it is not in the public interest in a, time of crisis, that a contractor should be out of pocket in fulfilling a national need. Obviously, no good end is served by letting contracts on a financial basis which would cripple the contractor, and so limit the productive facilities of the dominion.

Surely when this principle is recognized by the government as being fair when applied to every other industry, it should obtain also in connection with agriculture. I think it ill becomes either hon. members or the public press to criticize the west or the agricultural industry when all they ask is equal treatment

The Address-Mr. Wright

at this or any other time. We in Canada realize that the war is the paramount issue to-day, and we all stand united behind the government in an effort to bring it to a speedy and successful conclusion. Last session we gave the government almost unlimited powers, but now many of us view with alarm the use to which the government is putting those powers, by transferring them to boards and controllers who are responsible only to the government and who have been appointed largely on the recommendation of the industries they control. We are willing to give the government unlimited powers in military matters, but when it comes to civil and domestic affairs we believe that parliament should be supreme. The government pays many of these men a dollar a year and their expenses. Industry supplies them, and after the war is over, industry is going to take care of them again. It is only plain common sense to realize that while nominally they work for the government, it is industry that controls them.

It is largely, however, with the question of wheat that I wish to deal to-night. For the last twelve years or more the government has been dealing with this matter, without as yet having come to any definite long-term policy. They have dealt with it from year to year as emergencies have arisen.

A number of years ago when it was proposed to set up an international committee of wheat experts to study the case, this government was not too enthusiastic. Nevertheless it is only by the setting up of some such committee, and by obtaining some definite relationship between supply and demand that we are ever going to be able permanently to solve our difficulties. We are faced to-day with a huge surplus of wheat. This afternoon the Minister of Agriculture gave us the figures. We have at least two full years' supply on hand. Statistics show that we shall not have this year's crop moved off the farms until next August. What about the nexf year? Are we again going to leave everything to the last minute, and at the last minute bring in a bill which does not deal with the situation in detail?

The day after I arrived home following the last session, a farmer drove into my yard and told me that on August 7 he had delivered a carload of barley to the elevator. On August 8 the elevator agent received notice that on August 6 a regulation had been passed placing a five-bushel quota on barley. It developed that in receiving the grain the agent had been outside the law, and rendered himself subject to a heavy fine. He immediately drove to the farmer's place and asked

[Mr. Wright.l

him to remove the grain, because he could not obtain a permit for shipping. As a result, the farmer came to see me, and to ask what he ought to do about the matter. I told him he had better wait for a while to see if the government would not do something about it. Finally, a few days after this incident, the regulation was changed and the farmer was permitted to ship his grain.

I delivered a quantity of last year's wheat to an elevator, in order to obtain harvesting expenses. The wheat was accepted, but when I came to get settlement for it I found that because I had already delivered the ' 5,000-bushel quota last year, the board would not accept it. It had to be sold on the open market. There were thousands more bushels of grain then on the open market than it would absorb. Therefore my year's quota was filled. I could neither deliver any more wheat, nor receive pay for that which I had delivered. Some four weeks later, the board decided to accept all such wheat, and I was paid for it. Yet to-day the board is prosecuting other farmers who delivered over the 5,000-bushel quota last fall. Why the difference?

Why do I relate these instances? I do so simply to show the utter confusion which existed last summer after some of these ill-conceived regulations were issued. We do not want that to happen again next year. I believe at this time the government should appoint a full-time minister of agriculture. It should appoint a special committee or a commission with power to call before it witnesses and marketing experts. The recommendations and suggestions made before such a commission should, if acceptable to the government, be incorporated in a bill passed through this House of Commons before March 15, 1941. This action is necessary, so that the west may know what the government will require of them before seeding operations are begun next spring.

It would appear at the present time that some reduction in the amount of wheat grown next year would be advisable. Any reduction in acreage, however, should be authorized only after consultation with the United Kingdom as to its requirements, and only when we are assured that we have at least two years' supply on hand. If such action is necessary, how best can it be carried out? Some people suggest that it can be done by economic pressure. They urge that if we let the price of wheat go down to 25 cents a bushel, instead of 50 cents as it is to-day, the farmer will stop growing it.

Past experience does not prove this to be so; rather it has proved the contrary. In 1932 and 1933, when wheat was at its lowest

* The Address-Mr. Wright

level in 400 years, there was no decrease in acreage. This is what often happens: I, as a farmer, may have certain commitments to meet. Let us say that I may have a $400 payment on my land, a $100 payment for taxes, and a $500 payment for machinery. Wheat is my main cash crop. I know that at the present 50-cent price I must raise 2,000 bushels in order to meet those payments. But if wheat were only 25 cents a bushel, those payments would remain the same. Immediately I look round to see whether I can raise 4,000 bushels. It may be that I have some raw land which I could break up; it may be that I have some grass land which could be utilized. In short, I will do anything to raise more wheat so that I may meet my obligations.

That is what has been happening in the west. The lower the price of wheat, the more wheat the farmers are going to raise, so that they may meet their debts. Therefore, any proposed reduction in acreage, if it is to be successful, must be accomplished by a better price for what is grown, or a reduction in farmers' debts. A blanket reduction in acreage would admittedly be unfair. The man who is maintaining his family on a small acreage should not be asked to reduce that acreage to the same extent as the large operator might have to reduce. Some fair plan can and should be worked out, if it is decided that a reduction in acreage is advisable.

We believe that at this time the government should make a full statement respecting the 1939 crop. Last year when we asked what the board had received for the crop, we were told that it was not in the public interest to disclose that information. When we wanted to know the amounts remaining to be sold, we were told again that it was not in the public interest to give out that information. But the only information which was of value to the enemy was disclosed by the government, to save its own face; I refer to the information to the effect that 170.000,000 bushels of wheat which had been purchased still remained in Canada. The disclosure of that information made it clear that the enemy would still have a chance of sinking that amount of wheat. To-day the Germans are not interested in what Great Britain is paying for wheat, or indeed in whether or not she has paid for it. The enemy is interested in the measures taken to ship the wheat. Germany is not fighting this war with dollars and cents; she is fighting it with tanks, aeroplanes, guns and men; and the sooner we realize that fact in Canada, and begin to do likewise, the better for all of us.

There is no legitimate reason why the government should not give a detailed statement of the 1939 crop, to date, and thereby

let the west know if it is going to get the ten cents a bushel promised on the eve of the last election by the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Gardiner). Perhaps he is saving that money to pay on the eve of the next election. On what they have handled the pools have made a five-eent payment over the board price. The line elevators have made a smaller payment, and we feel that the government should make a complete statement at as early a date as possible.

We believe that through the wheat board the government should take full control of all grain handling facilities in Canada, and for the duration of the war operate them at cost. There is no doubt that money is going to be made-and plenty of it-in the storage of the grain on hand. Why should private individuals or companies be permitted to make a profit out of a situation which has developed because of the war? Why should they make those profits at the expense of the growers and consumers of grain, or out of the pockets of the taxpayers?

In paying storage to the farmer as well as to the elevator companies, the government took a step in the right direction. In failing, however, to give the farmers an advance on grain so stored, they have again deliberately played into the hands of the grain trade. To-day the companies may construct all the storage space they like. Immediately it is constructed, they notify the board that so much more space is available. The quota is raised and, in order to obtain a little cash, the farmer takes grain out of his own storage and turns it over to the storage operated by a company. The refusal of the government to make an advance on grain stored on the farm is equivalent to a guarantee to the elevator companies that all their available space will be kept filled as long as there is a bushel of wheat left on the farm. On the other hand, an advance would have meant that the farmer could have received enough to meet his immediate obligations. He could have left the grain on the farm until the spring, and received the full benefit of the act.

We contend that the government should change the basis of paying for wheat. Instead of the price being 70 cents a bushel f.o.b. Fort William, the same price should be paid for the same quality wheat, no matter where the farmer resides. It costs as much or more to grow a bushel of wheat in the Peace River district than it does in Winnipeg, and it does not seem fair that the government should bonus the growers in one section of the country more than those in another section. This principle has been established already- Vancouver was made a port of delivery along with Fort William. Growers in certain parts

The Address-Mr. Wright

of Alberta receive at the present time more for their grain than growers in Saskatchewan, although their grain is shipped to Fort William. I understand that the 'board pays the difference out of the general fund. We contend that payments for wheat should be the same to all farmers, that the basis of payment should be f.o.b. the local point.

There is also the matter of domestic freight rates. These have been under discussion at various times during the past few years, and it seems that this would be an opportune time to have something definite done. It costs about 30 cents a bushel for barley and 24 cents a bushel for oats to ship from the average shipping point in the west to the Ottawa valley. This is more than is paid to the farmer in the west for his grain. These rates are almost prohibitive, and a reduction would contribute to the benefit of the shipper as well as of the consumer in eastern Canada. With prices of dairy products being fixed by the government, feeders in eastern Canada cannot afford to pay this tariff. Hog raisers in eastern Canada were scarcely breaking even before, and with the lower prices to be received under the new agreement, it will be even more difficult for them to get along.

When the Minister of Agriculture announced his wheat legislation two years ago, he stated that he was introducing it in order to keep the small farmer on the land and to make the family farm possible. I can assure him that after two years' operation, this legislation is having exactly the opposite effect. The small farmer is going broke to-day with the spread that exists between what he receives for his grain and what he has to pay for what he buys. Only the farmer with a large acreage, with modern equipment and good land, can produce wheat at 50 cents a bushel and live.

In the constituency of Melfort is the Carrot river valley, probably the finest farming area in western Canada. Some of my friends from the Roset,own area or from the Soo line may dispute this statement, but the fact remains that for the last twenty years we have had the most consistent production of good crops of almost any area in Canada. But round the fringe of this area lies an area of marginal land. Under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act the government placed settlers from the dried-out areas upon homesteads in this section. Seventy-five per cent of the farms in it are either quarter or half sections, the family-size farm. Three weeks ago I was in one of these areas in order to hold a meeting and I arrived in a village or hamlet at about seven o'clock. The storekeeper told me he had a case which he wanted to bring to my attention, to see if something could be done about it.

He took me down to the edge of the village to a little log shack with a tar-paper roof about twelve feet square. We rapped at the door, but there was no answer. We went in and found an old lantern hanging on the wall. There was a rough board bunk in one comer filled -with hay, a rough board table, two blocks of wood serving as chairs, and an old tin heater. In the bunk was an old man rolled up in a gray blanket. We tried to wake him up in order to get some information, but he seemed to be past the point of being able to take care of himself. I asked the storekeeper about him, and he told me that as far as he could find out this man had come to Canada in 1901 and had homesteaded in the district in 1911. In 1920 he had lost his homestead and from then on had worked for lumber companies and different farmers in the district. Some five years before he had become unable to work and had used up what little capital he had in order to keep himself alive. Two years before, the municipality had endeavoured to get him an old age pension, but they were unable to establish his age. The municipality granted him a pension of $5 a month. He had been paying $1 a month as rent for the shack and what wood he required, and had been living on the other $4. About a year ago, he reached the state where he could hardly take care of himself and was finally spending about twenty hours a day in his bunk. He would get up, stagger over to the store to buy a loaf of bread and a piece of bologna, and then go back to his shack.

The storekeeper wanted to know if I could do something about the matter. The next day I reported the case to the mounted police, but they told me that there was nothing they could do, that the responsibility rested upon the municipality. I told them that if I had a dog or a horse which I was starving to death and this was reported by a neighbour, they would have me arrested for cruelty to animals. I told them that someone was responsible for this old man and that it was their duty to see that this responsibility was assumed. They said that the only thing they could do would be to telephone to the municipality, and they got in touch with the reeve, the clerk and the local health officer. Two days later I happened to be back in that municipality and I went to see the reeve. He told me that he had known of this case for some time, but it was not the only one in the municipality. He said that there were twelve other cases, some of them in worse condition.

He told me that the municipality was broke, that there were thousands of dollars of uncollected taxes. This year the crop had

The Address-Mr. Wright

been frozen and hardly any taxes are being collected. He told me that they would like to place this man in a hospital, but that they owed the hospital thousands of dollars. The hospital was receiving only emergency cases for immediate operation. Apparently there is no place in Saskatchewan to which such a case can be sent. There are two private homes, but their charge is SI per day, which the municipality could not pay. Apparently this man will have to freeze to death.

The next week I was in the district between Prince Albert and Nipawin. This district extends for one hundred miles on the north side of the Saskatchewan river, approximately one-half being in the constituency of Prince Albert, represented by the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). I visited the town of Smeaton, which is about half way between Prince Albert and Nipawin. While there, I met a deputation of citizens who had just been to interview the doctor in an effort to have him remain in the district. He had told them that he had some $3,500 or $3,600 in bills which he had not been able to collect, so he figured he would have to move out. I found that he was the only doctor in the one hundred miles between Prince Albert and Nipawin. In the four towns of Snowden, Smeaton, Shipman and Weirdale there are some 1,100 householders, representing a population of about 5,500. When this doctor pulls out, it will mean that these people will be from forty to fifty miles from medical attention.

I know the Prime Minister is a kind-hearted man. According to a recent newspaper report he takes his dog for a walk every day. While he is doing that, I should like him to remember that this winter there will be hundreds of mothers in his constituency who will have to drive forty to fifty miles in open sleighs in order to get their children to the nearest doctor. There will be other hundreds of mothers who will be giving birth to children without proper medical attention. This is the direct responsibility of this government because it is the economic policies introduced by this government which have brought about the present condition of the people of Saskatchewan. This afternoon the Minister of Agriculture referred to the 50-cent wheat policy, but I submit that the condition of these people is the direct result of that policy. Districts in western Canada of marginal or near-marginal land are broke as a direct result of the action of this government in protecting other industries while the farmer has to take the world price for what he has to sell.

I am not one of those who believe that the government can be Santa Claus to any class of people or any section at the expense

of any other section, but I believe that it is the duty of the government to see that the national income is so distributed that all parts of the country and all classes of our people are able to obtain their fair share and enough of the national income to purchase the medical services, educational services and social services to which all self-respecting Canadian citizens are entitled. I urge any member of this house who may think that these conditions obtain to-day to read the report of the Sirois commission or look at the payments of income tax in the Toronto and Montreal districts and compare them with income tax payments in the three western provinces, and he will soon be disillusioned.

Take, for instance, the district extending from Montreal to Windsor. It is a small portion of the whole dominion but enjoys one-half of the national income. Is it any wonder that we in other parts of Canada object? Furthermore, into this area are being crowded over 75 per cent of our new war industries. Why not give the rest of Canada an even break? Are all the private members on the government side of the house satisfied with these conditions? If not, why do they not raise their voices in protest?

One way in which the government could assist the small farmer in the west at this time and establish a more equal distribution of income is by means of the processing tax, and it could be done at no extra cost to the government. We believe that the processing tax should be raised to 50 cents a bushel. Adequate steps should be taken by the wartime prices and trade board to see that no undue rise in the price of flour or bread resulted. The money so collected should be placed in a special fund and paid to the farmer as a bonus on the first 1,000 bushels of wheat raised on each farm. It should be paid to the actual farmer, not the mortgage company, or the absentee landlord such as the present Minister of Agriculture.

Before the adjournment of parliament in August, we asked that the government declare this an emergency year so that areas with a yield, of twelve bushels or less to the acre might come under the acreage bonus scheme, and we again urge upon the government the necessity of such action being taken.

I should like to draw the attention of the government to a special condition obtaining in northeastern Saskatchewan, on account of the frost experienced there during every month last summer. Many of the settlers there have no gardens, not even potatoes.

The Address-Mr. Wright

They have a yield of from ten to twenty-five bushels of frozen wheat to the acre. I believe that in this andl similar instances where grain is frozen, any township with a yield of less than twenty bushels to the acre of frozen wheat should be included under the acreage bonus scheme; that is, twenty, fifteen and ten bushels to the acre should be the basis of participation instead of, as at present, twelve, eight and four bushels. Twenty bushels of frozen wheat is worth less to the farmer than twelve bushels of No. 1 wheat, and it costs more to harvest.

Finally, I believe that if the government will give all classes of our people and all sections of the country an equal opportunity, it will have no difficulty in floating their war loans, in obtaining recruits, and no difficulty at all in having a body of satisfied labour which will contribute 100 per cent of its energies to our war effort. But if the government fails to give equality of opportunity to all classes of our people and to all sections of this country, we are bound to have trouble.


James Arthur Ross

National Government

Mr. J. A. ROSS (Souris):

The Address-Mr. Ross (Souris)

Later in his address he states:

Our present efforts must therefore concentrate on two things. We must utilize to the full all the skill, ingenuity and facilities we now possess to advance the fundamental training of all ranks now in our army in the science and art of their profession. We must also intensify our efforts towards the complete provision of the armament required by those men before they are called upon to meet the enemy in battle.

He also says, referring to the initial training period:

Firstly, the short training period enabled a larger number of young Canadians to gain a proper conception of their national obligations within a given time. Secondly, our limited supply of modern weapons made it impracticable just now to carry the individual training of these young men beyond the basic stage, and a month or six weeks of instruction was sufficient for that limited syllabus. These factors, though important at this time, are not of enduring importance and, as my minister stated the other day, consideration is being given to possible alterations in the training schedule.

It has been suggested by other speakers, and I wish to support the proposal, that the minister should extend the period of training to at least three or four months; thereby we as a nation will receive a great deal more in return for the expenditure which is required for this particular scheme. I want to make it quite plain that I am heartily in favour of the idea of a training period, but that I believe that the thirty-day system does not begin to do the job and that it is most extravagant.

I desire also to add a few remarks to those of several previous speakers concerning this matter of free transportation, especially on the occasions of the Christmas leave and the furlough of our soldiers at this time and in this country. I feel sure there was a misunderstanding yesterday when the minister was understood to have made the statement that we did not receive free transportation during the last war. I believe that the minister misapprehended what was said by a previous speaker, because he will recollect, no doubt, as well as I do, that while we were on service in Great Britain in the last war we were granted free transportation.

I want to point out that, in contrast to the last great war, when the first line of battle was in the countries of France and Belgium and the second or defensive line was in Great Britain, to-day our first line is in the British isles and our secondary line of defence is in this country, which is thus in somewhat the same situation as was Great Britain at that time. In that respect the picture is changed. Moreover, it can be said, without any breach of confidence, that the distribution of our troops in Canada to-day is vastly different

from that of the various centres or of the army throughout Canada during the last war. Very many of our young people serving in the forces in various parts of this country to-day are at a great distance from their homes. Figures have been given by previous speakers as to the limited funds which many of these chaps, not commissioned officers, have at their disposal; and I personally know of hundreds of young people who, unless they are granted free transportation along with the Christmas leave to which they are entitled, will not be able to join their families at Christmas this year. Therefore, despite the fact that the Minister of National Defence stated that they would have to pay a oneway fare, I sincerely trust that he will reconsider that statement and will see that these many thousands of young men who have offered their all for this country, under very different conditions from those of the last war, are allowed to return home at Christmas time, or when they receive their furlough, wdth free transportation. I am sure that with the minister's past experience he wall reconsider that matter and that they will be granted that transportation free of cost.

There is another matter which has been mentioned by previous speakers. The Prime Minister announced very suddenly on the opening day that the various provincial governments would be summoned to Ottawa during January to consider the report of the Sirois commission. I would make an appeal, as suggested by my leader, that the Prime Minister go a little further. I well remember that, when this commission was being set up, it was intended to take evidence only from provincial governments. I am glad to say that this was enlarged in the instructions to the commission and that they heard representations from many fine bodies throughout this country; I have in mind particularly municipal unions and other organized bodies that did much toward the upbuilding of this country. I am happy to think that the representations of these bodies have been embodied in that report for the government's consideration, and trust that they will be implemented. I hope that the Prime Minister and the government will consider seriously inviting some of the heads of these other organizations to confer with them at that time. I know it would be a stupendous task; they could not invite all organizations who might want to be heard, but this is a most important undertaking and the consequences will be far-reaching. I am glad that this conference is going to take place, because this matter is most essential in the carrying on

The Address-Mr. Ross (Souris)

of our war effort, and we from western Canada especially are pleased that it is to take effect at this time.

As to the agreement which the Minister of Agriculture brought back from the old land, I must confess that I as a westerner was much disappointed. He told of his success in being elected in western Canada and belittled certain hon. members in connection with his election last March. It might be recalled that during that campaign there appeared a report in the press throughout western Canada to the effect that the Minister of Agriculture, along with this government, was pursuing a "middle-of-the-road" war policy. I know that he has since denied that statement, and I accept the denial, but the report was carried in the press during the election campaign without denial and it probably had some bearing on the result of that election. Moreover, despite his assertion this afternoon, he did not have a majority of electors in his constituency support him. Be that as it may, I should like to see the minister, who has a great deal of driving force, campaign in any rural riding in my province to-day, armed with these agreements which he stated had been made for the benefit of agriculture, and I venture to say that the result would be vastly different from that of March 26 last. I cannot speak so well as to his own province, but I judge the outcome would be the same in any riding in Saskatchewan, or, in fact, anywhere in .the prairies at this time. It was stated this afternoon that the producers could not be informed exactly what they would receive for these products at the present time. I am confident, however, that the packers of this country will not be working for nothing, that they will be well taken care of.

We have at present in Canada a situation where fish is going to waste in the Magdalen islands, fruit rotting in British Columbia, and we have on the prairies millions of bushels of wheat which cannot be disposed of. Surely that is not a condition to make our producers so happy as the minister suggested this afternoon they should be. Approximately half the population .of this country are directly dependent on the success of agriculture for their living, and agriculture is in a very sad plight at this time.

This evening a previous speaker referred to the methods of handling the wheat crop. I am sure no one will boast of the results of our discussions last summer on the methods of handling wheat, discussions which ran on into the days when harvesting had commenced in western Canada. An advisory committee was finally set up, on which the producers were supposed to have a majority representation. I noticed, in looking over the personnel of that

committee, the name of a man for whom I have great respect, Mr. D. G. McKenzie, listed as a producer. I do not have to remind any agriculturist that Mr. McKenzie is vicepresident of the United Grain Growers Elevator company. He is a grain trader, and his company is very well looked after, as is the grain trade as a whole in my opinion. The grain trade in this country have never enjoyed better days than they have during the last year or two through the agreement with the wheat board under this government.

I might give some examples of the favouritism which has taken place in the handling of this quota business this year.

I know of one shipping point in my riding where there are three different grain companies operating, of which the United Grain Growers is one. When the quota was raised from five to eight bushels, despite the fact that many producers in that community were not able to deliver one bushel of wheat, quite a controversy took place there. Finally an order came through from the wheat board to the United Grain Growers' buyer to ship out immediately 29.000 bushels of wheat, or approximately twenty cars. Two opposition elevator companies were not allowed one car at that time. I do not need to point out what controversy arose following that situation. That is an example of what has taken place this fall. I could give many other examples; the handling of this quota business this fall has been most unsatisfactory, and the producers have, not majority representation on that advisory committee as suggested. Mr. McKenzie is human just as you, sir, or I; after all, if we are working for our company, we ore going to do our best to see that it produces returns, and he is rightly doing so, but the producer is neglected.

I wish to support the view expressed by other speakers that at this time we are justly entitled to a full-time Minister of Agriculture. As I have said, nearly half the people of Canada are directly dependent upon agriculture for their livelihood, yet they are entirely neglected by this government, because the present incumbent of that office is also acting as Minister of National War Services, and that alone if properly done is a real job for any man, no matter how much previous experience he may have had or how good his qualifications for the job.


Richard Burpee Hanson (Leader of the Official Opposition)

National Government

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

He does not do it; Mr. Davis does.


James Arthur Ross

National Government

Mr. ROSS (Souris):

I want to add my voice to those who, on behalf of agriculture, have bespoken the appointment of a fulltime Minister of Agriculture. Following that, a plan must be worked out before seeding

The Address-Mr. Ross (Souris)

time next spring for the handling of next year's crop. Let us avoid1 what happened last summer. I plead with the government as a whole and especially with the new Minister of Agriculture, whoever he may be, and the wheat committee, to bring into being before next seeding time a definite policy, so that the farmers of the west may be guided in their operations. I sincerely trust that this may be done.

I am going to suggest to the government also that earnest thought be given to a plan which might have a far-reaching effect. For some years I have thought that we must work out a soil conservation programme in western Canada. This has been done with success in other countries. I know some will object to the cost involved in any such programme, but let me state in general terms what I have in mind. Supposing you took the total cultivated area of the prairies and paid the producers $5 an acre for summerfallowing one-third of that area. That may seem to involve a tremendous amount of money, but I suggest that the cost would not be any greater than the amount paid under the acreage bonus and the guaranteed price, and certainly there would be a great improvement in farming methods. When I speak of the acreage bonus scheme, I want it understood that I am whole-heartedly in favour of some system of crop insurance, but the acreage bonus scheme has brought about a tendency towards a poorer system of farming. I do not think there can be any argument as to that; it does not tend to develop up-to-date methods. Under the conservation scheme I suggest, with one-third of the cultivated acreage in wheat, one-third in foddier crops and one-third in summer-fallow at $5 an acre, ultimately farming methods in the west will be placed on a much sounder basis and the cost would be no greater than that of the plans now in effect.

I am sorry the Minister of Agriculture is not in his place. However, I see the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) here. He is vitally concerned in this matter, and I trust that he will give serious consideration to the points I have suggested. I do not wish to take up any more of the time of the house this evening, but I did wish to make an urgent plea that a plan for handling next year's crop be drawn up and made known well in advance of seeding, so that the farmers may make definite plans for the whole season's operations of 1941.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor


Mr. DANIEL McIVOR (Fort William):

Mr. Speaker, as far as possible I intend to follow the example set by the speech from the throne; I shall try to be brief and intelligent. First, I should like to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in his choice of hon. members both last year and this year to move and second the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Last year both the mover and the seconder belonged to this corner of the chamber; this year the seconder sits in this part of the house. So, when the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) speaks of "we on this side of the house," he is speaking of members of at least average intelligence.

I had not intended speaking at this time, and would not have done so but for the references that have been made to the land that gave me birth. I was not born in Canada, but I was bom. The country that gave me birth is a great country and I am proud of it, but to me it was not the greatest country on earth or I would have stayed there. When Venerable Archdeacon Scott and the leader of the opposition spoke of Ireland, it made me stop and wonder, but in what they said I could see at least one very fine thought. Both the reverend gentleman, for whom I have profound respect, and the leader of the opposition, who has plenty of sense, must have seen something great in our Prime Minister, or they would not have suggested that he attempt the almost impossible task of causing Mr. de Valera to agree with England.

When I think of Ireland I think of the land that has given the British empire its greatest soldiers: Lord Wellington, General Roberts, Lord Kitchener, General French and many others. So I believe that when everything is weighed in the balance, neither the north nor the south of Ireland will be found wanting. I am sure, however, that the Prime Minister has sense enough not to try to tell Mr. de Valera what is his duty and how he should do it. There are three great "eras" in Ireland, as someone has said: the stone era, the middle era, and de Valera. The first two refer to the whole of Ireland; the last, only to part of it. I would remind hon. members that before conscription was adopted in England, the north of Ireland had enlisted one hundred per cent, and that perhaps the greatest shipyard and dock in the British empire is at Belfast. No part of the British empire is more loyal than that part of Ireland from which I come, and of which I am proud, I expect that before this war is over, all Ireland will be supporting our cause, fighting for freedom for which Ireland has always struggled.

The Address-Mr. Mclvor

I should also like to congratulate the government on the way in wmch they put across national registration. I think the leader of the opposition realized the magnitude of that task when he said that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), if he could put it across successfully, would be one of Canadas great men. The hon. gentleman has not stated that the registration was not successful, so by his silence he has agreed that notwithstanding what has been said about him, the Minister of Agriculture is one of Canada's great men. That was a great task. Last session, when we were told by the minister and by Mr. Justice Davis what was to be done, we wondered how it would be possible to put it across. The minister showed his greatness in being able to get other people to cooperate with him. Members of all parties cooperated and put across this national registration in such a splendid way that even in this house we have not heard any criticism of the manner in which that work was done. I am sure most hon. members were volunteer workers in connection with the national registration. I know that some cities in western Canada paid all expenses, even down to expenses for stationery. Again I say these facts show that the man in control of the registration was not lacking in ability to get things done.

I appreciate, too, the government's action in connection with the control of prices and profits. In the city of Fort William we expected to obtain a contract for the manufacture of shells, but we were informed that we could not get it because another contractor had made a lower bid than we could make, that, too, when from the sister city of Port Arthur comes the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe).

We know, too, that rents have been controlled. I join with the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) in saying that the government would do well to look carefully into the question of rentals. Obviously, soldiers like to maintain their homes as long as possible. In Fort William the question of rentals is an important one, and some unfortunate circumstances have been disclosed.

Those of us who have stopped to remember what we had to pay for sugar during the last war, and compare that price with what we have to pay to-day, will immediately say thanks to the government for the board which has been set up to prevent unfair profits.

May I mention, in passing, that I have been most grateful for the press releases which have reached me regularly. I have read them almost as consistently as I read the Old Book, and I believe I have derived a good deal of benefit from my reading. Sometimes I read them twice, because I am a little dull. So long as those press releases are available,

it is not necessary for me to listen to cabinet ministers in the house who tell about what is being done.

Since I have come to the house I have heard criticism of the non-permanent force, and the one month's training to which it has been subjected. Again I may have to admit dullness, but I must point out that any man who has been an athlete knows that he can get into training in one month. I visited the camp at Fort William, and I must say that in no more than two days after the boys were called in they had developed to a point which surprised me. I know they took the drill and everything connected with it just as ducks take to water. Those boys are a credit to Canada. Some of the parents of the boys who have gone to the camp have said to me, "You can thank the government for at least the thirty days training."

May I at this point thank the government for increasing the pay of private soldiers from $1.10 to $1.30. I expect, as do other members, to be in a position to thank the government for giving the soldiers in the lower ranks free transportation during the Christmas holidays and during the leaves to which the hon. member for Vancouver North referred.

In Fort William we have some problems of our own. I hope the government will not cancel their housing scheme, and that they have not made plans to curtail it. I say that because one of our greatest problems in Fort William and Port Arthur is that of housing. During the years of depression people could not build houses, and the result is that we now have a great scarcity. Possibly we should not talk about ourselves, but if we do not, nobody else will. I feel, however, that I must take this opportunity to congratulate the Canadian Car and Foundry company of Fort William. Sometimes we gain the impression that a big corporation has not a heart, but I believe that cannot be said about the one of which I am now speaking. The company in question had a factory in Fort William which had been idle for a long time, and on which taxes amounting to about $25,000 were levied each year. I received word that the plant would open its doors, provided the city would for a certain period of time permit a reduction in taxation. It was stated that if the taxation was not reduced, the plant would be demolished.

What happened? Fort William adopted the wise procedure and permitted the reduction of taxation in 1937. That was at a time when there were rumblings of war, of course, but also at a time when money was very scarce. The company experienced the difficulty of not being able to obtain the right to make modem aeroplanes. But they went into business and built forty aeroplanes of


The Address-Mr. Mclvor

the Grumman type, one which is now obsolete. I believe they still have some of those machines. They experienced a difficulty, not through any fault of the dominion government, but because those who controlled the rights to make the later models were pledged either to France or to England. Later, the plant obtained the right to build the Hurricane machine, and we are proud of the way in which the plant is turning out the work. At this time they are employing almost 3,000 men, and one could walk through their plant and not be noticed. We are proud that no notice is taken, because we realize that the men are intent on their work and are not interested in what is taking place around them.

The city of Fort William in Canada is cooperating with a city bearing a similar name in Scotland. I am not Scotch, but because of my name some people think I am. I have one drop of Scotch in me, and one drop is enough. Fort William in Canada is cooperating with Fort William in Scotland for the purchase of an aeroplane of the Spitfire type. The Canadian city is acting in a most unselfish way by permitting the city in Scotland to choose the plane to be presented to the government in England. Of course I should prefer to see it presented to the dominion government, but I realize we are all one family, and if it goes to England it will be just as useful. I make these observations in the hope that they may serve as a cue for some other towns or cities in Canada the names of which have their origin in the old land.

This year I have deeply appreciated the work of the opposition groups. I hope they will tear into the government and attempt to show what has been done. I say that because when they lay open the deeds of this government, it always looks better after than it did before. We realize, of course, that hon, members in the opposition groups are capable men.

This afternoon in listening to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) I felt a sense of pride, and my mind was carried back to the days when we played on the same football team and he was in shape to score on the opponent's goal. I must say he found the goal to-day, so far as I was concerned, because I was delighted with the description he gave of the work his department is doing. Anyone who wishes to assume the office of minister of agriculture in Canada will have to go some, if he intends to excel the efforts of the present minister. His picture of London is firsthand information which comes to us from a man of intelligence, a picture which told

a clear story, and we were deeply impressed. We in Canada are apt to feel that we are not at war. We have better times than ever. But we should get at our job in such a way as to say to old England, we are with you and will be with you until the last.

I appreciate the tribute which was paid to the late Mr. Chamberlain by the Prime Minister and the other leaders on this side of the house. It is said that Mr. Chamberlain failed because he practised Christianity. But he did not fail. It is true that he held out one cheek and then held out the other, but we must not forget the words of the great leader who said that there comes a time when you cannot cast your pearls before swine. Another thing we appreciate is the cooperation on the part of our Prime Minister with England and the United States in providing common bases for our ships and aeroplanes.

Hon. members will probably expect me to deal more with the real side of life than with the economic and military, than with the machine guns, aeroplanes and ships. We all heard the broadcast by our king when he asked for a national day of prayer. I am sure that the men and women of Canada were sincere in their petition that the cause of the allies be victorious. We were fighting a cause which was not narrow nationalism, but for the good of the whole world. After that day of prayer had passed, we had the fall of Dunkirk and the miraculous evacuation of our soldiers from France. Why was it that Hitler was blinded and did not see his opportunity to attack England, which no doubt he could have done more easily at that time than at any time afterwards? Then I think of Roumania. What aeroplanes or shells could have caused . the recent devastation in Roumania? To me it is nothing short of an act of providence, and we should give thanks.

I appreciated the words of the Prime Minister when he said:

What is necessary then to win the present conflict? It is to put on the whole armour of God.

I think also of the words of an outstanding statement from the same Old Book which said that we should train the boy in the way he should go and then when he is older he will not depart from that way. I think we all were proud of our Prime Minister when he said in his closing remarks:

In equal measure, however, we must strive throughout the struggle itself, and more than ever when the evil dragon of nazism is slain, to see that never again, in our own or in any other land, shall the gods of material power, of worldly possessions and of special privilege

The Address-Mr. Brunelle

be permitted to exercise their sway. Never again must we allow any man or any group of men to subjugate by fear and to crush by the power of might the spirit and the lives of honest and humble men.

If we put forth our best efforts, I know we will win this war and then there will be peace and good-will among men.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle


Mr. H. E. BRUNELLE (Champlain):

Mr. Speaker, I should first like to congratulate the hon. members who moved and seconded the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I particularly want to congratulate the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Claxton) upon the kind words he had for the people of my race and the tribute he paid to their loyalty. In a few moments I intend to refer to this particular subject. The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) said some nice things about the Irish and the loyalty of the people of Ireland. The other day the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) referred to the loyalty of our people. These references must be contagious, for I intend to say something about the loyalty of the people of my province.

I have listened with great interest to the criticism of hon. members who sit to my left. One who was not aware of what Canada is doing in the present war, one who was being informed only by the speeches of the opposition, could not avoid getting the impression that this country is almost indifferent to the present world situation, or was doing too little in comparison with what it should or could do. The millions of dollars being spent daily, the amazing military activities that we see about us, the men in uniform who are evident wherever we happen to look, the enormous *quantities of munitions produced at such a rate and of such a quality that people from other countries cannot avoid being surprised and express their admiration, all seem to be insufficient or unknown to some of our own people. Be that as it may, it is pleasant to know that facts speak louder than words.

The mass of our people are satisfied with our war effort. In this regard my opinion is different from that of the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) who spoke this evening. One reassuring aspect of our war effort is that peace and harmony are being maintained among our people at a time when enormous sacrifices in men and money are being made. Some people seem to think that any war *effort to help to settle the world's turmoil should be accompanied by turmoil and *trouble at home. Apparently Canada is doing more in the present war than she did from 1914 to 1918, and yet we are enjoying peace. There is general approval of this policy, *whereas in 1914 there was dissatisfaction to

an extent that threatened the destruction of our national unity. This is a fact which speaks louder than all the loud criticism of the opposition. In my opinion the first duty and responsibility of a government when legislating to meet a great emergency is to maintain harmony among the people. If we consider the composition of our population, the present government and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) deserve the highest praise for piloting the ship of state with so much success during these troubled days.

Let us all refrain from generalities. Let us know exactly what is being done in connection with our various activities. I do not profess to be able to describe the whole accomplishment of the government. In order to be accurate I judge of that accomplishment by a few of our war enterprises of which I know personally.

I refer in particular to the establishment of the elementary flying school in the city of Cap de la Madeleine which lies within my constituency. The contract for the building of the school was let late this summer. The land had to be acquired and levelled and made ready for a flying school. Ten large buildings had to be put up and made comfortable for accommodating instructors, pupils and officers. Yet within two months the whole work had been practically completed and the school has had about fifty pupils in training now for nearly one month. I do not hesitate to say that if the government is proceeding with the same celerity and efficiency in other spheres as it did in the case of the flying school at Cap de la Madeleine, it is doing all that it is humanly possible to do, and the *criticism and complaints and charges of inefficiency made by the opposition are unwarranted and unfair. Such charges are not conducive to a good understanding among the Canadian people who are ready and willing to make the greatest of sacrifices.

Preparations for home defence could not have been undertaken more promptly and more effectively in a country like Canada that was unprepared for war. At any rate our country was not supposed to be any better prepared for war than France, Belgium and Great Britain, and yet since the outbreak of war we have proceeded just as fast in our war effort as any of those countries. About 95 per cent of the development work on airports required to train our pilots under the British commonwealth air training plan has been completed in less than half the time it was scheduled to take. Labourers, engineers and contractors are working night and day.

Our military legislation, on the other hand, has been just as wise and effective as our

The Address-Mr. Brunelle

material preparations. To ask more, to ask, for instance, for same form of conscription such as we had in 1917, would be to ask for unnecessary and dangerous legislation of ill repute.

When the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson), who I am sorry is not in his seat, stated in a speech at Charlottetown that Canada was not doing her share and that conscription for overseas service alone would show the full measure of our effort, he was mistaken. Those were about his words. In fact, we need material more than men, and above all whatever we do must be compatible with the reasonable disposition of all classes of our people and must be of such a nature as to maintain peace and harmony within our own land. We all want to win this war in order that we may have peace in the world, but I think we must maintain harmony at home first.

And now, sir, I must reluctantly speak of loyalty myself. We are all loyal and anxious to win this war. The leader of the opposition, with his loyalist descent, is as good as but no better than the rest of us. I hope that is not showing him any disrespect. But I think it is time that we should cease to question a person's loyalty, that we should cease to suspect or qualify the loyalty of any portion of our population. We should take it for granted that we are all loyal to the crown, as in fact we all are.

Furthermore, when the leader of the opposition stated at Charlottetown that " the people of Quebec, if properly guided, are just as loyal to the British crown as any other section of our people," he expressed an insult to myself, to my people and to my province. There is no " if " about our loyalty. Under all circumstances, Mr. Speaker, we were, we are and we shall be loyal, and our loyalty is no more subject to a condition than the loyalty of the leader of the opposition or of those who think as he does. Our school children in Quebec sing " God save the King " without any compulsion. They sing it with sincerity, ardour and enthusiasm. When one has done his duty, he should be satisfied and not worry about what others will do, about whether they will do their duty as well as he does his. Those who publicly proclaim their loyalty, sincerity and other virtues, are not in these troublous days much different from those who, as reported in the Holy Book, thanked the Lord that they were better than the rest of the world.

The Prime Minister and his government have shown vision and wisdom in their legislation. Our conscription law, for instance, for home defence, has the hearty approval of all. Every detail of that law is suitable and most

acceptable. Our young men are examined by their own family doctor, and that gives them confidence. There are no exemptions, and that adds to their confidence because the rich as well as the poor, the influential as well as the unknown, must all comply equally with the law.

In conclusion, sir, may I say that the electors of my constituency for some time before and during the last great war were represented in this house by a most brilliant nationalist, and they heard from him declamations and declarations as to war legislation. My electors had the unique privilege of hearing both sides of the question expounded to them by that same man, and I say to this house that my electors who have had some experience of war legislation are not complaining to-day that this government is not going fast enough or is not going far enough in its war measures. They highly admire the sincerity, wisdom and pure patriotism of the Prime Minister of Canada.

On motion of Mr. Ralston the debate was adj ourned.

On motion of Mr. Crerar the house adjourned at 10 p.m.

Friday, November 15, 1940.


November 14, 1940