February 1, 1943

CCF

Stanley Howard Knowles

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

Mr. S. H. KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):

I should like to ask the Minister of

The Address-Mr. Graydon

Labour if his attention has been called to the reports of large numbers of persons unemployed in the city of Winnipeg, many of whom have been laid off from plants engaged on war work. What steps are being taken by his department to deal with this serious situation?

Topic:   REPORTS AS TO UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE CITY OF WINNIPEG
Permalink
NAT

Richard Burpee Hanson

National Government

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

That is a matter for the order paper.

Topic:   REPORTS AS TO UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE CITY OF WINNIPEG
Permalink
LIB

Thomas Vien (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

I suggest that the hon. member place his question on the order paper.

Topic:   REPORTS AS TO UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE CITY OF WINNIPEG
Permalink
?

Thomas Miller Bell

Mr. COLD WELL:

May I suggest that to

these eight thousand people who are reported unemployed in Winnipeg the matter is urgent?

Hon. HUMPHREY' MITCHELL (Minister of Labour): The subject matter of my hon.

friend's question has received the consideration of the Department of labour for some time. It is true there are registered in Winnipeg some eight thousand unemployed men and women'-I speak from memory-of whom five thousand are women, largely made up,

I am informed as a result of the registration, of married women. It is also a fact that work has been continuously available in the Winnipeg district for able-bodied men, in the bush, in the mines and on the farms. Only this morning the regional superintendents of the unemployment insurance commission were in my department when the whole matter was discussed, and we are rapidly working out a solution. Since we tackled the problem, fifteen hundred women have been transferred1 to the east, and we expect to be able to transfer some of the men. My hon. friend, who comes from the city of Winnipeg, cannot but know of the difficult times we have had there in the past, particularly with single men. I think it is fair to say that many of these unemployed men are of a kind that you get in every country in the world, many of them near the unemployable class, which in itself presents a difficult problem.

With respect to the women, for some months past the armed forces have been recruiting many women for the navy, the army and the air force. That is an avenue of approach to employment at this time.

Not only in Winnipeg but in other large centres of population in this dominion, by the very nature of things there are the seasonal conditions with which we are confronted at the moment, causing what might be called pockets of unemployment. The Department of Labour is working in close cooperation with the Department of Munitions and Supply in an effort to place these people where they can be most useful.

Topic:   REPORTS AS TO UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE CITY OF WINNIPEG
Permalink

CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS

CONSTITUENCY OF STANSTEAD-INQUIRY AS TO REPORT OF PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS COMMITTEE


On the orders of the day:


IND

Joseph Sasseville Roy

Independent

Mr. J. S. ROY (Gaspe):

I should like to direct a question to the government. In consequence of a motion moved by the Prime Minister on July 30 last, the committee on privileges and elections was asked to fix a date for the election in the constituency of Stan-stead, Quebec. Has this committee reported on the matter, and if not, will the next committee be compelled to do so?

Right Hon, W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister): The committee to which the Stanstead election was referred did not make a report before the conclusion of the last session. The committee on privileges and elections will be reconstituted as soon as the debate on the address is concluded, and I purpose, as soon as it is reconstituted, to move to refer to it the matter of the Stanstead election, which comes under controverted elections.

Topic:   CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS
Subtopic:   CONSTITUENCY OF STANSTEAD-INQUIRY AS TO REPORT OF PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS COMMITTEE
Permalink

GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH

CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY


The house resumed from Friday, January 29, consideration of the motion of Mr. W. E. Harris (Grey-Bruce) for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.


NAT

Gordon Graydon (Leader of the Official Opposition)

National Government

Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):

Mr. Speaker, I am sure I shall have the sympathy of most hon. members of this house when they realize the trepidation with which the average member of parliament first of all makes his maiden speech in this house, and then-which does not happen to so many-makes his first speech as leader of the opposition. As I said on Friday, I approach this undertaking with great humility. It marks the commencement of a new task, in a new field, and under almost entirely new auspices.

In opening my remarks I shall do something which I had intended not to do, namely, extend congratulations to the mover (Mr. Harris) and the seconder (Mr. Halle) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Lest this should be taken as a precedent, may I say at once that having sat in the house for seven years, I think I can conscientiously condemn the practice of filling Hansard over a period of some two months, with congratulatory remarks to the two hon. members who

The Address-Mr. Graydon

have made their contribution in moving and seconding the address in reply. But I should like to make an exception on this occasion, because we had as mover and seconder two members of the armed forces, and I want not so much to congratulate them as to pay tribute to what they represent in our national life and what they mean to every one of us.

I have also a personal note to sound with respect to the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Harris), who was an old school chum of mine. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and I approach more mature years, we like to recall those who were our friends in the past.

I am sure I echo the thoughts of hon. members generally, when I say that there is another very good reason why .1 should mention these two hon. members. I should like to associate myself with the principle that we cannot do too much in these times to create and foster unity between the great French-speaking and English-speaking sections of our population. I have been as fortunate, I believe, as most hon. members throughout these years in having had many close friends in both groups in this house. I wish to pay tribute to both of them, and I do so on this occasion by saying a word of congratulation to the mover and seconder, although otherwise I would not have followed the practice which has been traditional.

I think if we are to add to the prestige of this chamber, a number of things similar to the customary congratulatory remarks which are merely traditional, which mean very little and which sometimes embarrass those to whom they are addressed, might very well be dispensed with. There is no better time than the present to start to sweep away some of the cobwebs of the past and clear out some of . the underbrush, particularly in a war-time session of parliament.

The Prime Minister and members of the house generally will I think be interested to hear some declaration from me as temporary leader of this party in the house as to the policy of the official opposition in the house during this session. If I may say so, I do not think any hon. member will deny that throughout the years in which I have occupied a seat fls a private member here I have alwavs avoided narrow, old-fashioned, mean and petty partisan politics. At least I have tried *to do so. And I have no desire on this occasion or on any other to depart from that well-established personal principle. Today, when Canada is fighting for her very life,

is no time for stress to be laid upon any artificial divisions. Surely that is fundamental. Our duty, I think-certainly I conceive it to be mine-is to treat every man, whatever his political views may be, as a Canadian first, last and always. For I say to the Prime Minister in all sincerity: we must not forget that this government is our government, the government of the Canadian people, and that it is charged with exceptionally heavy and exacting responsibilities, particularly in time of war. The new Progressive Conservative party, which at the moment I am leading, will try earnestly during this session to avoid unnecessarily dogging the heels of the present incumbents of office while those incumbents are engaged in the serious business of winning the war. This nation and this empire have too much at stake for us to play any little games while the enemy threatens us all.

Lest anyone mistake declaration of our intentions for a blanket approval of misconceived policy, misguided administration, or inefficiency and waste in the carrying on of the war effort, I desire to make it clear that where we feel it is in the national interest to do so, and for that reason and on no lesser grounds, we shall criticize constructively and meet the policies of the administration in head-on collision. Of scarcely less importance than the government itself, is His Majesty's Loyal Opposition. My conception of the duty of that opposition during a time of war centres in an insistence upon clear and practical principles, effective and adequate measures designed to bring about a full-out effort to win the war, and a meticulous audit of governmental expenditures. If there be one thing above all others an opposition should endeavour to do, either in peace or in war, it is to ensure that every dollar collected from the taxpayers of Canada is expended without waste. That, we as an opposition shall try to do this session.

I have . tried, as I am sure all other hon. members in the chamber have tried, to maintain some ideals in public life. There may be some who will joke about ideals. There may be some who will lightly spurn the idea of men in public life having principles. Sometimes our ideals and principles may become clouded by the issues which confront us, but I really believe that every public man must have ideals and that they must be high ideals. One of the ideals which I think must permeate all of us, every man in public life and every party, is complete willingness to render service to our country and our people. Once the ideal is accepted, the opportunity to render the service will come just as surely as night

The Address-Mr. Graydon

follows day. I do not apologize for having some ideals in public life. If we are to have an effective democracy, one that is worth fighting for, we should not be ashamed to proclaim certain high ideals to the men and women throughout the country who are asking us to give leadership.

For a good many months in Canada, a new progressive and aggressive movement has been growing among the common or garden variety of people, like those of us here in this House of Commons. I do not want the Prime Minister to misunderstand any expressions I may use, but it is obvious that for some considerable time there has been in this country a lively dissatisfaction with certain aspects of the present administration. In all fairness to the Prime Minister and to the government I may go further and say that very often in war time a government may be condemned as much for its good deeds as for its bad deeds. Nevertheless the fact remains that the masses of our people have been trying to find a voice to express their protest against the present administration, other than through that which sponsors a socialistic state in Canada. I say that with no desire to reflect upon the personalities of those who sit to my left. In a young nation like this, where people desire to retain initiative and individuality, and crave freedom from too stringent government controls, it will be readily seen why a new movement should have taken root somewhere between the dissatisfaction that exists with respect to the government on the one hand, and the failure to act on the part of those who have been most vocal in their protests. The new Progressive Conservative movement, which began many months before Port Hope, found its voice at that conference last September. No doubt the proposals adopted at Port Hope were startling to many people in Canada holding old ideas. But they formed the basis of a new charter for the common people of the dominion. It was no old-line party manifesto. It was no ivy-covered political structure. Rather it was a spearhead, giving expression to a rapidly-growing public sentiment not confined to any single political party but drawing its adherents from all.

The choice of Hon. John Bracken, then premier of Manitoba, at the Winnipeg convention, was the natural result of this people's movement. The policy laid down by that convention at Winnipeg further exemplified the extent to which the demands of the common people were being appropriately met. The new movement led by Hon. John Bracken represents an honest attempt to find a satisfactory

solution of the major problems which face this country in a war-time period, and which will require solution when the war draws to its close. If there is one thought above another I should like to leave with the house this afternoon, it is this. Whether or not hon. members agree with the programme and policy which was approved at the Winnipeg convention, there can be no doubt of the sincerity of purpose of those who advance that programme at this time. We may be proved wrong; we may be proved right. But those considerations do not matter quite so much as the fact of our honesty in advancing and promoting this programme.

There will be some who will think in terms of political yesterdays, and who will facetiously raise some question respecting the double name of our party. We are not ashamed of the alliance indicated by our party name between the Progressives and Conservatives. More than that, may I say that for a long time I have not been, interested personally, nor do I think the people throughout the country are greatly interested, in artificial party labels. In the final analysis the new Progressive Conservative movement will be accepted or rejected by the people of Canada, not on the basis of the label it wears on the sleeve of its coat, but on the basis of the service it gives to the dominion and the ultimate results achieved.

' It has long been advocated that a strong opposition makes for a stronger government. Most people in Canada believe that the unmistakable strengthening of our party throughout the dominion has already achieved results which in extent are almost amazing. Within the period of a few days after the close of the Winnipeg convention, which called for better financial treatment of members of our armed forces and their dependents, the government effected changes which in the main were a reflection of the policy our party adopted,-and I congratulate the government upon that action. The call by our new leader, Mr. Bracken, for the adoption of a system of parliamentary under-secretaryships has met with some results, as indicated in the speech from the throne. It may be, of course, that the Prime Minister's answer will be that great minds think alike. But it is good to be the first great mind, the one that begins thinking ahead of the other one.

The emphasis laid in Winnipeg upon active social pioneering in Canada has also met with some response in the speech from the throne. That response may be feeble, but at least we have the honour of recognition. Measured from every other angle the Winnipeg con-

The Address-Mr. Graydon

vention was a successful war-time achievement, and one which has been beneficial to the whole of Canada.

I come now to another subject which is of grave importance to all of us. Since the last meeting of parliament the Canadian troops have gone into action in the much discussed Dieppe raid. Having no reason to constitute myself an arm-chair critic with respect to army strategy and tactics, I shall leave for others the privilege of discussing those matters. But this afternoon on behalf of the party I lead in the house I do wish to pay tribute to the courage, the valour and the bravery of our men under what to many of us, who perhaps do not understand military tactics, seemed almost insuperable difficulties.

Canada emerged from the last war heaped with honours won on the field of battle. Her first contest with the foe on land in this war has brought to one of our greatest Canadian soldiers, Lieutenant-Colonel Merritt of Vancouver, no less an award than the Victoria Cross itself. Many other officers and men received high awards and decorations for valour on that occasion. Dieppe at least displayed to the world that the same quality of Canadian soldiering abroad which added so much to the prestige and reputation of Canada in the last war, has been well maintained, preserved and promoted in this one. I pay that tribute to Canada and to her fighting men.

In recent days the news has come of the momentous meeting at Casablanca of Mr. Churchill and Mr. Roosevelt. I should like the Prime Minister in his address to make clear several important points arising from the Casablanca meeting. Perhaps if he has time this afternoon he will be good enough to answer these questions, because to my mind it is of the utmost importance that the public should know the answers. The questions are these:

(1) Was the Canadian government kept fully informed of the course of the discussions, and consulted with respect to the decisions reached?

(2) Is the Canadian government a party to the decisions arrived at, and does the government fully concur in those decisions?

(3) Was an invitation extended to the Prime Minister to attend this conference?

(4) Has the government advocated to any or all of the united nations the setting up of a supreme war council, in which all the allied nations shall be represented, so that there may be coordination of the efforts being put forth in this common cause?

I believe the Prime Minister will at once agree upon the necessity for such a council; or, if such a council is not possible-and there may be many reasons which it may not be proper to state as to why it is not possible- would the Prime Minister indicate whether there is any prospect of the setting up of an empire or imperial war council, so that a closer liaison may be maintained between the various members of the British commonwealth of nations?

It would seem to the public generally that closer coordination of the war effort throughout the world must be achieved by the united nations. It is a necessity which becomes more apparent every day. Such a supreme war council, or a master plan for the defeat of our enemies, would instil into and induce a great measure of courage among our people. And, Mr. Speaker, unity in war time would be followed by unity in peace time, a consideration which I suggest is of grave importance at this moment.

What is the position with respect to our own armed forces overseas? I would ask the Prime Minister to give an answer this afternoon to this question. I am going to warn the government at this stage that only in the rarest circumstances during this session, and only when we are dealing with the most confidential matters will the official opposition stand idly by and allow the government to hide behind five words which are well known throughout the country-"not in the public interest". I know that certain information the government has cannot be divulged because it might give comfort to the enemy. But in many instances where no comfort would have been given to the enemy by disclosure of the information sought, the government has nevertheless hidden behind those five words.

I know the Prime Minister will not feel badly if I say that throughout the country the words "not in the public interest" have become almost a joke. I heard a story the other day and I think perhaps it is true. A lady was giving evidence in one of our Ontario courts. When the crown attorney asked her how old she was-I am sure the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) would have known better than to do that-she replied, "I am just thirty years of age." He said, "You gave evidence in this court five years ago, and I have it on record you said then you were thirty years of age." She replied, "There is nothing wrong about that, because I am not one of those who say one thing to-day and another thing to-morrow." When he pressed the question and asked her point blank just what her age

The Address-Mr. Gray don

*was, she replied-evidently she was an omnivorous reader of Hansard-"It is not in the public interest to give the information."

We must be given all information that is not of a strictly confidential character. Let us understand that it is the public of Canada who are paying the shot, and they have a right to know what is going on and how their money is being spent. Therefore I ask the Prime Minister in his address this afternoon to give the public full information as to how our present military requirements are being met. Has our army sufficient men overseas, and have we sufficient reinforcements to maintain our military strength at what it should be? I want him to give the facts and the figures on that point. As the session progresses we shall expect to have unfolded a further manpower plan. The whole problem of manpower-I say this guardedly and advisedly- has never been tackled courageously by this administration since the war began. The Prime Minister has been good enough to accept many of our policies; he should1 not be disturbed if I ask him to accept another. Here is the policy that was adopted by the Progressive Conservative party at its convention in Winnipeg on December 11:

Recognizing that the world struggle in which Canada is engaged requires a total war effort, we believe in compulsory national selective service, and that all those selected to serve in the armed forces should be available for service wherever required. We believe in the effective total utilization and proper allocation for war, by compulsion where necessary, of all the resources of Canada, including agriculture, industry and finance,-

I ask some of my friends to my left to listen to that last word.

-as well as man-power, and that our aim should be at all times to bring about so far as human means can achieve it, an equality in sacrifice.

Others of our party will perhaps deal more fully with the question of man-power and our armed forces than I intend to1 do on this particular occasion. It can scarcely be gainsaid that the government's policy on man-power has failed. There has been no courageous, no determined and no effective plan for a. complete and scientific utilization of our man- and woman-power since the war started. There has been no master plan. There has been no coordination. Indeed, it seems to me from watching affairs in the house that industry, agriculture and the armed forces, instead of working in coordination, have actually been in competition with each other for the man- and woman-power available in Canada.

The selective service policy, while it was pretty long in promises, has been pretty short in performance. Its enforcement, especially

in recent days, has been weak and timorous. The lack of a master man-power plan in Canada has had a disastrous effect, and has contributed in no small degree-this is the sad part of it-to the weakening of our general war effort. The haphazard, hit-or-miss system which has been followed throughout these critical years has resulted in a drift from agriculture into war work, and enlistment in the armed forces, thus creating one of the most dangerous problems in connection with food with which Canada has ever been faced.

Actually there are many to-day in rural districts who believe that we will face an agricultural production crisis in Canada in the months that lie ahead. In war time the necessity becomes apparent of every man and woman in the dominion doing the job which will enable him or her to make the maximum contribution toward the winning of the war. In this connection the responsibility of leadership rests very largely upon the government of the day. The failure of the government to adopt and to provide an adequate plan for the effective use of Canada's man and woman power stands as a serious obstacle to a full national effort at this time. It is late, and much of the damage has been done, but there is still time to retrieve some of the losses. I plead earnestly with the government to deal with this matter immediately and with determination, The omission from the speech from the throne of any measures to meet this urgent national problem is hard to understand, because the crisis is here.

I should like to preface my remarks on the subject of labour with a strictly personal note. Labour and agriculture have been responsible for my election to the House of Commons on two successive occasions. I have, I believe, a clear perspective of the problems of the working man and his family. I believe it is essential to have a personal understanding of those -who comprise that great section of our population. I have been fortunate in having lived in a working man's district in my home town, and I still continue to do so. So that when I speak of labour I speak of it not in theoretical terms; I speak of the working man as a neighbour of mine. The working man is a loyal and constant friend of those whom he trusts, and he realizes very quickly and very well those he can trust. His lot has not been what it should have been through these years, and in my opinion he has not enlisted the degree of sympathy and understanding in public men and the public at large to which he is justly entitled. Those of us who have pleaded his cause through the years in parliament have done so in the full knowledge that if ever a

The Address-Mr. Graydon

section* of our population needed active champions in the legislative halls of Canada, it was the working man. Far too often his efforts to band together with his fellows for the purpose of seeking justice for himself and his family have been misrepresented and misunderstood. Never let me hear any intelligent body of public opinion say that labour in Canada is dangerous. I deny that. Labour has never been dangerous to any true democratic principles, and if I know labour it never will be.

Leading the opposition for the first time, it gives me no small amount of satisfaction to raise my voice in the House of Commons as a champion of labour; and more than that, it is not a new experience for me to do so. Nothing pleased me more than to see the stand taken by the Progressive Conservative party at the Winnipeg convention. If I may refer again to that-in the hope that the Prime Minister will be listening-this is what it says:

In order that free enterprise may be retained as the economic system best calculated to provide stability, prosperity and security and as a necessary part of that system that freedom of association and organization may be guaranteed to workers and in order that confidence may be restored between industry and labour and that sound labour relations may be established, this convention recommends:

I think I had better call this to the attention of my friends to the left.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
?

Ronald Stewart Moore

Mr. BLACK MORE:

Which ones?

Mr. GRAYDO'N: Well, as far as I know, all of you had better get under this umbrella. I want to point this out particularly to those who sometimes suggest that they are-which I deny -the special champions of labour:

1. Uniform labour relations shall be established throughout the dominion by dominion-provincial agreements, appropriate legislation, or by vesting jurisdiction in industrial labour matters in the dominion.

2. Collective bargaining is desirable and necessary in the interests of labour, industry and the social welfare of the people.

3. Workers shall have full freedom of association, organization and designation of representatives of their own choosing for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment and, when requested, employers shall be required to bargain collectively with their employees.

4. Well-defined machinery shall be established for the election and certification of the agency which is to be entitled to represent employees in collective bargaining negotiations, where there is a dispute as to the collective bargaining agency.

5. Discrimination against any employee or prospective employee on account of his activities in respect of any labour organization shall be prohibited.

6. The Department of Labour shall establish a comprehensive conciliation service for the prompt conciliation of disputes.

7. A national labour relations board with equal employer and employee representation and with a chairman appointed to represent the public interest shall be created, such board to be judicial in its functions and leading to the establishment of a well recognized labour jurisprudence.

. 8. Industrial disputes which cannot be conciliated or otherwise settled, shall be referred for decision and report to the national labour relations board whose hearings shall be public.

9. The national labour relations board upon complaint received or on its own volition shall have power to investigate any labour organization or employers' organization to ensure that its activities are not prejudicial to the interests of its members and do not interfere with the democratic right of men to work, and that they are not prejudicial to the national interest, and that coercion or domination of any labour organization or its members does not exist.

10. Labour shall be accorded representation upon governmental boards and commissions

I shall say something further about that in a moment.

-which deal directly or indirectly with matters concerning the interests or welfare of workers.

11. Governmental encouragement and assistance should be given to the establishment of labour-management production committees in the interests of maximum war production and permanently sound labour relations.

12. Adequate holidays with pay shall be granted to employees where applicable.

The people of Canada of course have become uneasy over the restlessness of labour in certain industries; but too many of them are anxious to lay all the blame on labour. Let us be fair about that.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
CCF

Angus MacInnis

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

Mr. MacINNIS:

Hear, Hear.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
NAT

Gordon Graydon (Leader of the Official Opposition)

National Government

Mr. GRAYDON:

I am glad I have one supporter, at any rate, in that quarter of the house. .

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
CCF

Angus MacInnis

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

Mr. MacINNIS:

They are all here, not over there.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
NAT

Gordon Graydon (Leader of the Official Opposition)

National Government

Mr. GRAYDON:

Then they had better speak up now. In any freezing arrangement, injustices and inequalities may readily be extended rather than adjusted. It is the duty of this government-and with great deference I suggest that that duty is not being discharged -to see to it that the causes of restlessness, sometimes ending in concerted action, shall not be allowed to exist or continue. I call upon the government to alter its policy with regard to labour, and to adopt and carry through a rational labour policy which will ensure maximum production and give to labour its rightful position as one of the m,ajor partners in Canadian democracy.

I come now, sir, to another of our very important national activities, one which pre-

The Address-Mr. Gray don

sents many of our thorniest problems. There are many in rural Canada to-day who feel that Canadian agriculture is actually one of our war casualties. The surplus products, excluding wheat, which were so widely heralded in peace time have now become a thing of the past in many sections of rural Canada. Is it not, Mr. Speaker, a shocking thing to contemplate that in one of the world's greatest agricultural producing areas, ration cards should be used for butter, with some hint that rationing of beef is to follow? I think I need do no more than simply point out the fact. Is it not a shocking condition of affairs? Every butter ration coupon that is handed to a grocer to-day is mute but irrefutable evidence of faulty planning by our agricultural and our war-time prices boards. I suggest to the Prime Minister-I hope I am not making too many suggestions to him-that he drop into a few rural homes in Canada, talk to some of the farmers' wives and see what they say of a plan which requires not only consumers to have ration coupons before they can get their butter, but the farmers' wives as well.

I ask the Prime Minister to get the right point of view with respect to that. I am sure it must have escaped his attention; otherwise he would not have allowed a thing of this kind to be done. It is one of the most monumental examples of lack of government foresight that we have had in Canada for many .a long day.

Someone has said that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, but certainly rationing is the last refuge of governmental inefficiency. I should have thought that the *conditions existing in agriculture to-day would have so greatly concerned the government that the speech from the throne would at least have mentioned it. Apparently, however, his excellency has been wrongly advised in the only advice which his ministers have given him. They have told him-and this is our plan for agriculture; this is what we are going to do for the farmers-that they have begun to explore the situation. Well, exploration is a good thing, but you have to have something more than exploration for agriculture just now. The speech says that the government-

have already begun to explore the international agreements and domestic measures *which will help to secure adequate incomes for primary producers and full employment after *the war.

It will not be very good news to the farmers of Canada if this means that the war must cease before these injustices are remedied. The farmer has felt, at any rate n good many of them have told me, as they have told other members of this house, that ihe is the forgotten man in Canada's economy.

I am sorry that we are not remembering the

farmer, more particularly in the speech from the throne.

When prices were frozen for the purpose of avoiding a spiral of inflation in Canada during this war-time period, that policy actually froze, so far as agriculture is concerned, an inequality in national income, in a way which left agriculture no longer in a position to make its proper contribution to our war effort. We should regard the production of food in much the same way as we regard any other sort of production of war materials.

If it has been so regarded by the government, then agriculture has been treated differently from other types of war industries. From the beginning of the war until now, experienced labour on farms has gradually but surely disappeared. It is almost a thing of the past to get an experienced man for farm work.

I do not know where you will find such a man; certainly you will not find him where I come from, and I do not think you will find him in any other area in Canada. The ceiling price on wholesale farm products has operated in many instances towards a reduction in the production of necessary agricultural commodities in Canada. I do not think hon. members, particularly those who come from rural sections, need to look into dry statistics, to establish the fact that farmers in the aggregate are receiving a ridiculously low and inadequate share of the national income. As a matter of fact, over thirty per cent of the population- for that is what agriculture represents-has less than fifteen per cent of the national income diverted to it.

It is, I think, a mild statement that there is grave dissatisfaction in rural Canada at the moment. It is all very well to say that the prices of farm products have gone up. Of course they have gone up in some instances. But I say to the Prime Minister that it is not a healthy thing for the Canadian farmer to pick up his newspaper and see the striking difference between the price he receives for his cattle and his hogs and that which his American farmer cousin across the border is receiving in the Chicago and Buffalo markets.

Right now the government's programme is of course for greater production in some lines of agricultural commodities, but the farmer looks with grave concern upon that appeal. Last year we were unable to meet our agreement with Britain, in certain periods in any event, so far as bacon and eggs were concerned; and meat and butter are now providing a serious shortage problem in the domestic field. The farmers, through their organizations and individually, have from time to time, since the war began, called for a reasonably long-term agricultural production

The Address-Mr. Graydon

policy. How many times must it be pointed out to this government that the farmer cannot plan for to-morrow with only a policy laid down for to-day? That is putting it in bold terms.

Subsidies have been paid; but in many instances they have not been paid in time or they have been too small. Because of that, pressure has been put upon the ceiling from time to time, and encouragement has almost been given to a black market.

Without making a blanket criticism of the wartime prices and trade board, which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) champions- he is watching me carefully and is noting every word I am saying on this subject-I think it is fair to say that its operations, so far as they affect farm products, have fallen far short of success. While the price ceiling programme has its advantages, a method of price control which results in shortages otherwise avoidable, endangers in my opinion the whole principle of the programme itself. The bald fact is that the farmers are belligerently dissatisfied with the present administration of the programme by the wartime prices and trade board. Having this well in mind, the government, in my opinion, would be well advised, and I strongly urge them, to set up without delay a food ministry in Canada. It would appear that only by this change of policy, for which there are examples in Great Britain and the United States, can there be any hope for a coordinated plan of production and distribution of farm products.

The wartime prices and trade board is not adequately equipped in its membership to handle efficiently these two problems, which automatically, if not officially, come within their jurisdiction-that is, production and distribution. It could never have been intended that the operation of the wartime prices and trade board should reach so far into the realm of production and distribution of the products of the farm. In my opinion, time must not be wasted in making this change if an abundance of food is to be produced for the varied requirements of a country at war. Looking further ahead, it seems to me that unless this problem of agricultural production is tackled now we are going to be faced with an even more serious problem than that of wartime shortages itself.

Our great leaders have said that when this war is over, we, with the other great producing countries of the world, will be under obligation to feed a war-torn hungry world to which peace will have come. If we do not develop our agricultural economy and production in such a manner as to enable us to do that, are we playing fair with the coun-

tries to whom we have given that guarantee?' We must have some plan for agriculture, and prepare it at once, which will meet the conditions which lie ahead. I believe I voice the opinion of a great majority of the farmers-of Canada when I say that the government has failed to provide adequate measures whereby Canadian agriculture can make its maximum war contribution and receive a fair share of the national income.

Before leaving agriculture I want to make another suggestion. I shall not enter into-any extended discussion this afternoon with respect to wheat; that can come later. But I do wish to mention a significant Canadian press dispatch which was carried in many of the papers this morning, emanating from the annual convention of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture at Calgary on Saturday last. It indicates that some improvement in the liaison between the agricultural organizations and the government is required. For that reason and for no other I read the following item:

Farm federation protests Ottawa's 1943 grain policy

Calgary, January 31.-Delegates to the annual convention of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture observed one minute's silence at their closing session Saturday in protest against the federal government's action in announcing its 1943 grain policy before consulting representatives of organized agriculture.

Main point of the announced wheat policy provides for the maximum delivery of fourteen bushels per authorized acre for the 1943-44 crop at a basic price of ninety cents a bushel.

The convention also sent protest telegrams to Prime Minister Mackenzie King, Agriculture Minister Gardiner and Mr. MacKinnon.

The wire said delegates regarded the action "as an indication of the government's intention completely to disregard the viewpoint of organized farm producers of Canada."

It said further that for the past two years directors and officers of the C.F.A. had met with the Prime Minister and government members immediately following their annual meeting. "This has provided an opportunity for farm representatives to bring before the government the considered opinion of organized agriculture from coast to coast dealing with its problems."

The telegram added:

"On previous occasions the Prime Minister and members of the government have stated that they welcome the presentation of our views. . . . We believe that at no time in the country's history has the need been greater for the closest possible cooperation between government and people.

"This will be .impossible to attain if government creates impression that it proposes to ignore reasonable representations of organized producers. .

"If the 1943 food goals as recently announced by Canadian government are to be met, some upward revision of the income from grain should be considered."

The Address-Mr. Graydon

Without going into the policy in detail or expressing an opinion on it at the moment, I raise the point for the purpose of showing what organized agriculture seems to think about the necessity for a closer liaison between the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Trade and Commerce and the organized activities of agriculture itself.

In dealing with the reference in the speech from the throne to national social insurance, I shall not have much to say at present except this: I was surprised to note that the policy with respect to national social insurance, one of the most important problems injected into the dominion political arena for many a day, has been given to a select committee of

Having regard to the situation that has arisen out of this reference in the speech from the throne I think a great national plan for Canada is essential, a plan which will guarantee to all our citizens freedom from fear and from want. The less time we take to reach that objective the better for all of us. Right now democracy is going through a severe testing time. Democracy must show that it can meet modern conditions by the use of modern remedies. There is no reason under the sun why this democratic state cannot be in the forefront of world reform, and show the other systems, sometimes so highly praised, not only that they are not as good as ours but that they fall far behind the results that democracy can and will produce. We shall not be satisfied in Canada until we have worked out, not merely as good a plan of social insurance for our people as exists

elsewhere, but the best there is in the whole world. Our citizens deserve it, and the government must recognize their deserts.

The Progressive Conservative party has taken a definite stand with respect to several points in connection with national social insurance. I should like to take a moment to read one or two of those points:

1. Every person able and willing to work must be assured 'of gainful occupation with sufficient means to maintain a home and family. The objective is full employment at fair wages under progressively improving standards. We oppose relief as a substitute for work.

2. For the achievement of that objective-full employment at fair wages under progressively improving standards-and for the welfare and development of society, we strongly advocate the strengthening of the basic Canadian tradition of individual initiative and individual enterprise and opportunity, and the freeing of economic activities from bureaucratic controls. Government authority, however, should be maintained and exercised wherever necessary to protect primary producers, workers and consumers from exploitation through such abuses as price-fixing combines, monopolies and patent cartels.

To those ends we believe that government should seek to create conditions under which the maximum volume of employment and the maximum national income may be assured through the initiative and enterprise of the people themselves.

3. It is the duty of the state:

(a) to maintain at high level the income and standard of living of the individual citizen, whose interests must always be paramount.

(b) to maintain the principle of private initiative and enterprise.

(c) to initiate, undertake and control projects of public and national benefit in those fields in which private enterprise is precluded from serving or is unable to serve the public interest.

4. Consideration should be given to the problems of the workers-on-their-own who comprise a large percentage of the people of this country and who lack the benefit of organization to protect their interests-the small retail merchant, the man or woman in services of various kinds, such as the carter, truck-driver and taximan, the odd-jobber, the handyman and the salesman on commission. Recognition must be given to their enterprise and initiative and to their threatened security and a way found by properly constituted authority to protect their interests as essential workers, consumers and taxpayers.

5. (a) Youth should be educated, trained and given equal opportunity to equip themselves for life.

(b) Those of working age should be provided with ample opportunity for adult education.

6. We believe that the reconstruction of postwar Canadian economy must be based upon the following principle set forth in section 5 of the Atlantic Charter:

"Fifth: They desire to bring about the fullest collaboration between all nations in the economic field with the object of securing for all, improved labour standards, economic advancement and social security."

The Address*-Mr. Gray don

A social security programme, the adoption of which we advocated, would include in a unified system:

(a) Unemployment insurance;

(b) Adequate payments for the maintenance of unemployables;

(c) Retirement insurance;

(d) The payment of increased old age pensions, at a reduced age, until such time as the retirement insurance scheme becomes fully operative;

(e) Adequate pensions for the blind;

(f) Adequate mothers' and widows' allowances.

7. We advocate the appointment of a Minister of Social Security and Reconstruction, charged with the administration of social security in this country.

8. The state's share of the cost of the social security system should be borne by the dominion.

9. We recognize the obligation of government to make available to every citizen adequate medical, dental, nursing, hospital and pre-natal care, and to further advance public health and nutritional principles so that health may be safeguarded and preserved. This programme is to be financed under a contributory system supplemented by government assistance.

I think it would be of interest to the house and to the country also to have repeated here a paragraph from the nation-wide address of our leader, Hon. John Bracken, delivered on December 21, 1942; it is pertinent to the subject under discussion. Mr. Bracken said:

Every human being that is born into our society has a right to feel that he is welcome in it; that he has a share in Canada; that he is a member of the Canadian team, with a part to play in it, as a citizen in his Canada; that he will be expected to make the most he can of his own life and to make the maximum contribution he can to society; that he is entitled to a job and will receive a reward in relation to his enterprise, and that, in the event of old age, ill-health or other misfortune overtaking him, he will have the assurance of a reasonable standard of social and economic security.

All these minimum standards, however, guaranteed as they may be, are not sufficient. I believe on this occasion I should raise my voice on behalf of the industrial workers across Canada who have one thing very clearly in mind, and justly, I think; that is, if we as a country are able to keep the wheels of industry turning in order to destroy people and property, we must see to it that we keep the wheels of industry turning to provide goods which are not destructive in character, for the peace-time happiness of the people of the world. No matter who may be administering the government at the time, one thing is abundantly clear, namely, that the worker who is now employed must be kept employed when this war is over, making consumer goods instead of the destructive goods of war. Such

work will be just as necessary and just as urgent then as the work in which these men are now engaged. The worker must have the guarantee that the days of the dole, of relief and of national charity for him are over; that in a new plan our people will have work and will have wages, with good standards of living and happiness, under a democratic system, so that the war shall not have been fought in vain.

Something else must not be forgotten. There are hundreds of thousands of men and women in the armed forces of our dominion, both overseas and at home. Are we thinking of them? To-day these men and women are inarticulate so far as our public affairs are concerned. We do not hear much from the man who has donned a uniform, for very good reasons; but what is he thinking? When the war is over, his thoughts are going to crystallize into one or two very pertinent questions which will be asked of all of us. One of the questions he will ask when he takes off his uniform will be this: "While I was prepared to sacrifice life and limb if necessary for the maintenance and preservation of a democratic system which I thought worth while, what did you do at home which would measure up to a reasonable approach to equality of sacrifice?" Our plans must be so comprehensive and far-reaching that not one of these men, by virtue of having worn a uniform, shall, when he comes back, be in an inferior position, either financially or as to opportunity, than he would have been had he continued in civilian life. Rather he should be in a preferred position, and that must be part and parcel of our plan. If these objectives and many others are not attained, we may yet win the war and fail to win the peace. In the interests of a civilized state and in the interests of democracy it is important that the serious thought and consideration of the government, and of every person in this country, should be directed to what I think is this most worthy and most essential end.

I come now to a matter which has to do with those of us in this chamber; that is, the question of the position of parliament. The War Measures Act gives a somewhat new complexion in a war-time period to our parliamentary procedure. The enabling powers which the act confers upon the cabinet are, I take it, primarily intended for the purpose of meeting emergencies which may arise in the course of the war. Once the government has these powers, I fancy the temptation is great to use them more abundantly and more frequently than was originally contemplated. The result has been that while, theoretically, parliament is still

The Address-Mr. Graydon

in control-and I think no one will argue against that-for all practical purposes the position of parliament has deteriorated considerably from its peace-time position with respect to legislation. Few will argue against the enactment of the War Measures Act. I have heard no one question its enactment, but I have heard many question the use to which the measure has been put.

It has been my opinion that it is right and proper that the government should have extraordinary powers in an extraordinary period. But let us examine the manner in which legislation is to-day enacted. Only a comparatively small trickle is ever offered for the attention of parliament. Practically all of the major legislative changes in the past three and a half years have been brought about by order in council, sometimes when parliament was sitting, and sometimes when parliament was adjourned or prorogued.

The cabinet, however, has gone much further. It has allowed its boards, controllers and administrators to do a little legislating on their own, as well. With the situation we have to-day where, I ask, is the boasted supremacy of parliament? Theoretically, it is supreme, yes; but is it in practice? I ask every hon. member to examine the position. As a private member I had difficulty myself in trying to keep up with the legislation. How many hon. members have the time either to read or to digest the great numbers of books and gazettes containing war orders and regulations? I venture to say that if I were to take a poll of the cabinet I would find that even they are not entirely conversant with all the legislation that has gone through. How then do they expect private members in parliament to- be in a superior position?

We must watch most carefully {hat this trend does not increase. I know the Prime Minister has been most anxious to avoid the growth of certain customs and practices throughout Canada, but this is one custom or practice on which he had better keep an eye, himself. While perhaps in some instances there may be justification for a situation of this kind, we must watch that it does not get out of hand.

If legislation is to be passed by other than the people's representatives in parliament, then it seems only fair that great sections of our population-groups, if you like-should have adequate representation upon these new boards and new bodies which are to pass our laws.

Let us look at the cabinet. I draw the attention of the house to its personnel. Let us look them over. We find that nineteen 72537-3

men hold portfolios. Bearing in mind that labour and agriculture are two of our most important classes of citizens, let us see how they are represented in the cabinet which sits across the way. Well, the closest approach to a farmer among these nineteen men is, of course, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). I have heard it said that he was a much better school-teacher and politician than he was a farmer, even in his palmiest days. I hasten to add that I cannot subscribe to that extreme view.

Then, turning to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell), who, by the way, laughs at the moment at my reference to the Minister of Agriculture, we can say that the only representative of labour among the nineteen members of the cabinet is a man who was once closely identified with labour.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

Humphrey Mitchell (Minister of Labour)

Liberal

Mr. MITCHELL:

And still is.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
NAT

Gordon Graydon (Leader of the Official Opposition)

National Government

Mr. GRAYDON:

It appears there is one

man in the house who says he is-and that happens to be the Minister of Labour himself. We know that in recent years he was an employee of the present government and, if one were to listen to at least some branches of organized labour, it would seem that he does not voice the views of labour quite as accurately as perhaps he should. I have such high personal regard for both of the gentlemen I have mentioned that I hesitate to go further in my criticism. I call the attention of the house to this condition only to emphasize the fact that in war time and through the medium of the War Measures Act we have here a group of men who are doing much of our legislating. They are doing extensive legislating for farmers and working men across Canada. Is it any wonder there is much restlessness among these two groups, when they see the inadequate representation in the cabinet, or representation much less than that to which they are entitled? I do not make these observations with the thought of casting any reflection upon other members of the cabinet. This is entirely a question of occupational differences. I must point out, however, that unless this condition is changed, unless more responsibility is given to those who actually represent the people, and so long as this inadequate representation of these two great sections in our community continues, we are going to pay a big price, a dear one, in the days ahead.

I shall not discuss in detail the various boards and public corporations, but I might be permitted to refer to two examples in order to show what is happening. Since the wartime prices and trade board is perhaps best known, I shall deal first with it. This

The Address-Mr. Graydon

board functions actively under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley). It is a board consisting of ten members, including a chairman. Occupationally they run all the way from a leading banker to a former university professor who, I might add, is perhaps the nearest approach to an agricultural representative on the board. So far as I can see, however, labour is not represented. I ask this question: who comprise the great consumer population in Canada if it is not the working men and their families? Because production, distribution and1 consumption are to a great extent controlled by the board in a fashion which affects the everyday lives of these two great classes in the community, surely from an occupational point of view there should be a different set-up on the wartime prices and trade board. There are some excellent men on the board; I shall not make a single comment about any one of them. But I do urge that from the occupational point of view much is left to be desired, if the board is to hold the confidence of the producers-yes, and of the consumers in our country. .

I now come to an organization which is the subject of discussion of people throughout the country and sometimes of hon. members. I refer to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Here is a body which ministers, or should minister, to the needs of the people I have mentioned. The majority of its listeners are to be found in those areas where working men and their families abound, and in the rural areas of the dominion. It is controlled by a board of governors, the personnel of which includes, first of all, its chairman who is a trust officer. Its vicechairman is a motion-picture man. There are on the board two men of the church as well as an authoress and, I believe, three lawyers. During last session the radio broadcasting committee brought down a report to this house, in which report the board of governors was censured. I believe the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. McCann) will corroborate me in this. They were not censured as much as I should have liked to see them censured. I think they should have been asked to resign. However, everyone did not see as I did, and the result was that they were not specifically asked to resign. Even at that, I think the hint should have been good enough.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
NAT

Karl Kenneth Homuth

National Government

Mr. HOMUTH:

Not with salaries like

that.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink

February 1, 1943