Mr. FAIR:

I have only forty minutes; the minister may read it later on.

Mr. GARDINER:

It would not mean the same thing if the hon. member read it all.

Mr. FAIR:

I might say to the minister

that he has denied it time after time. Anyone, however, who wishes to read it will find the whole quotation at page 2623 of Hansard for April 5, 1939.

Mr. GARDINER:

If the hon. member

read it all, it does not mean what he is now saying, but what he is going to read.

Mr. FAIR:

If I had plenty of time I would read the whole thing, but I have only forty minutes.

Then, on November 14, 1940, speaking again in connection with wheat he said:

It is generally admitted that 70 cents advance at Fort William, which nets the farmer about 50 cents a bushel, does not cover his total costs of production and therefore does not maintain him as a contented producer. If he is to receive more money, it must come from the sale price of wheat, or from the taxpayers of Canada, or from both.

Then again at page 2530 of Hansard for August 2, 1940, we find the following discussion between the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and the minister:

Mr. Coldwell: This is Professor Hope's

conclusion:

"Conservatively it would probably require with average yields a farm price for wheat of average grade of about 90 cents, with coarse grains in proportion to maintain a reasonable level of living and service the present debt on western farms. It would require somewhat more than this to restore the farming community to the condition of 1931."

This is the comment of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar:

The conclusion is quite obvious. It is clear that it will require not a Fort William price, but an average farm price of 90 cents a bushel to maintain even the standard of living we now have.

Mr. Gardiner: We all agree with that. Why discuss that at greater length?

I draw particular attention to this, because it has taken the minister only five years to admit it.

Mr. GARDINER:

The hon. member has read it so often I know it by heart.

Mr. FAIR:

The minister said:

We all agree with that. Why discuss that at greater length?

The man at the meeting had lost his reason; I believe the minister has done the same thing. We have been told that when a man loses his reason, he first seeks to destroy his very best friends. I believe that is true of the minister in the present instance. He has loved the farmer so much that he set out in 1935 to destroy him. He has sought to do so through the policies he has set out since that time-and I am referring particularly to his programme in connection with wheat.

When this government took office in 1935, the farmers were receiving an initial payment on their wheat of 874 cents a bushel. At the same time we had an advisory board composed of seven members. Because of the minister's love for the farmers, I would have expected him to make certain recommendations to the government. After a short time we find that by order in council the wheat board was put out of operation. That was a board set up under statutory authority, but by order in council it was declared inoperative unless the price of wheat went below 90 cents a bushel. In that way the farmers were deprived of the benefits they derived from the operations of the wheat board.

After a while we find that the price was cut down to 80 cents a bushel-again because of the minister's love for the farmers. Later on, it was cut down to 60 cents-but possibly because of an election in the offing it was raised again to 70 cents. Therefore the net result was that we had the government to thank for an increase of 10 cents a bushel in the price of wheat.

I do not agree with that policy, and I say that the government should do something drastic about it. The farmers are not protected in the prices of articles they have to buy. So far as I am aware, we are now paying higher prices for farm machinery than we have ever paid before. What is the government doing about the matter? A House of Commons committee investigated the price of farm machinery, and the Saskatchewan legislature carried out a further investigation. But nothing is being done about the matter. Therefore it is up to this government, having control over that industry, to do something about it.

I might make mention of a number of other points, but I fear I have not time to deal with them. There are many points to be considered in connection with the wheat problem.

The Address-Mr. Fair

I admit it is a serious question, but before any solution is reached, it will have to be attacked from an angle different from that from which it is being attacked to-day.

The minister is very good at figures, provided they are not checked. Because we had a surplus of wheat on November 14, he proceeded to look ahead five years, to cut down our yield, to raise the consumptive capacity of other countries, and as a result according to his figures he would have a shortage within five years. Had there been an increase in our carry-over, I am sure we would have had a drop of three or four cents a bushel in the price of wheat, had it not been pegged. I have seen that happen before. But because it is on the other side of the ledger we do not find any appreciable increase in the prices offered on the Winnipeg exchange.

Before I forget it, I should like once more to ask the government to follow the example set by the British government in connection with the Winnipeg exchange. This government is careful to do as the British government is doing in some respects. The action was taken by the British government shortly after the war started, and if it was good business for them, why in the name of common sense is it not good for Canada? Perhaps some of the friends of the exchange who happen to sit in the government might not enjoy things quite as well if the grain exchange were closed.

The farmers to-day no longer resemble the goose that laid the golden egg. Until they are more prosperous, there shall be no prosperity in Canada.

We have heard a great deal about unity, but in many instances I think it is just so much trash, as the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) said yesterday. I think we would be well advised to stay away from these nice phrases and get down to business.

I agree with the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) when he says that in order to solve the wheat problem it will be necessary for the four large wheat exporting countries, New Zealand, Australia, the United States and Canada, to get together and arrive at an agreement setting export quotas for each country. I do not contend that production should be restricted, because weather conditions may vary and we do not know when we may have a shortage of wheat. But restrictions on deliveries of wheat could easily be agreed upon, based upon previous years' experience. Should we have a long crop, then our farmers could store it on the farms; should we have a short crop, they would then have ample crop insurance.

The government should get away from the idea of telling us that there is no money with which to pay a decent price for wheat. At the present time we are spending for war purposes, for purposes of destruction, something like S3,000,000 a day, but we cannot find any money to subsidize wheat production, or the production of cheese and; bacon. I am not speaking now just for the farmer of western Canada because I realize that conditions all across the country are not at all satisfactory. Anyone who has listened1 to the different speeches delivered during the past three weeks will readily recognize that fact.

I submit that the government should take over all grain handling facilities. As has been pointed out, the grain companies are making large profits, particularly out of the storage of grain. The situation being as it is now, the farmers are compelled to put grain into the elevators and keep them full in order to obtain a little money with which to carry on. The government is spending millions at the present time to set up war industries and have them operated by people experienced in those particular lines of business, and there is no reason in the world why the same principle could not be applied to the storage of wheat. Wheat is just as vital, if not more so, to our war effort. The government should pay a price of not less than $1 a bushel for 2,000 bushels from each, farmer. If a farmer had less than that, he would receive this price for all his crop; if he had more, he would receive this price for 2.000 bushels and sell the remainder at world market prices. Today world, market prices are ruinous to the agricultural industry. Being ruinous to agriculture, they are ruinous to Canada.

There have been a number of complaints this year about the grading of grain. The question of cracked wheat has come up time and again. Under the present set-up, if No. 1 grain is three per cent or more cracked, the grade is reduced to No. 2. On certain occasions the farmers cannot prevent grain from being cracked and they are robbed of a grade, which means three cents a bushel in addition to dockage, which may amount to three per cent or more.

The question of tough and damp grain is an important one in my province. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) has done something to solve this problem, and I should like to give him credit for that. I think we would be giving him credit for many other things were it not for the fact that the rest of the government seem to be against his doing more. He cannot do just what he would like to do.

The Address-Mr. Ross (St. Paul's)

He knows the conditions and I think he, having lived in the west for a number of years, would do what was right if he were permitted to do so by his colleagues. As I said, tough and damp grain is causing quite a little worry to the people of my province. As I understand the regulations, when a man has delivered his quota of dry grain, in order to get cars in which to ship his tough grain he must sign that it is tough. Although the moisture content may be just above the dry line, he is deprived of the right to get straight grades for his grain. I believe this is why some farmers hold back their grain and take the chance of having it spoil.

Time and time again we have been told about the millions of dollars that have been spent in western Canada, and some seem to consider this as a kind of relief. If we take the figure of 90 cents a bushel at the farm, which was agreed, to by the Minister of Agriculture on August 2 of this year, as a basis, the Canadian wheat growers have contributed approximately S220.000.000 in losses on growing grain this year. This is the contribution which has been made to the railroad companies, the elevator companies, the banks, the mortgage companies and all other industry in Canada. This fact has not been brought out before, and I now bring it to the attention of those who seem to think that the government has been doing too much for the west. I ask them to go back to 1930, take the costs of production through the different years and compare them with the amounts received by the farmer. I believe the result will take away the smiles from their faces. They will see that western Canada has contributed far more to the Canadian economy than it has been given credit for.

I suggest to the government that they take heed of some of the financial programmes *which have been brought to their attention by this group. I suggest that they forget all about imaginary inflation, or go to the dictionary to find out just what it means. It seems that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) and his advisers have not yet learned the real meaning of inflation. The people should learn more about money because money controls the life of Canada to-day. In the past, shortage of money has retarded our war activities, and I believe' that the money managers are to blame to-day for the western farmer not being able to get an advance on his wheat on the farm. When I say that money controls the life of Canada, I think I am quite right. I have only two more words to say and I ask the government to investigate their meaning-they are "social credit."

Mr. D. G. ROSS (St. Paul's):

Mr. Speaker,

I must first congratulate the mover (Mr. Claxton) and the seconder (Mr. Jutras) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne upon the manner in which they performed their duty, and more especially must I commend them for the appeal they made for unity and their exhortation of the Canadian people for the utmost effort and sacrifice to win this war.

I must now pay tribute to the people of Great Britain for their courage and fortitude and determination to put down, in the words of Mr. Chamberlain, this evil man, this abortion of deceit. We shall certainly profit by their example.

I wish also to pay tribute to the women of Canada for the splendid way in which they have set to work in Canada's war effort, and more particularly I would pay a tribute to the Conservative Women's Association of my own riding of St. Paul's for the excellent work they are doing in connection with the Red Cross. They have been incorporated undei the War Charities Act and are working night and day in connection with this work.

The speech from the throne advises us that we have been summoned at this time in order that opportunity may be accorded for the fullest consideration and discussion of Canada's war effort and of national problems which war has served to intensify or create, and that we shall be fully advised of Canada's cooperation with the United Kingdom and of relations with the United States. The speech also told us that measures would be submitted to the house such as seem necessary to his excellency's advisers for the welfare of the country and for the prosecution of the war to the utmost of our strength.

Up to date no measures have been submitted to the house, and certainly there has not been the fullest opportunity accorded to examine and discuss Canada's war effort. To my mind the debate as it has progressed has been more or less futile, and we shall really not get anywhere until the house gets into committee of the whole and actual measures are before us.

The people of Canada want leadership at this time. They do not want any soothing syrup, but that is what they have been getting here. We came here to get the information which the public are demanding but which the government attempts to give to the people of Canada only by way of statements by the various ministers. Under this procedure it will be almost impossible to arrive at the full implication of the facts, and there can be no opportunity for constructive criticism

The Address-Mr. Ross (St. Paul's)

in this regard until we get into committee of the whole on definite measures brought down by the government.

Most of what has been accomplished by the present procedure could have been accomplished simply by the ministers handing their statements to the director of public information for dissemination to the members and the press. But now that we are here, I think all the ministers should make their statements. The Postmaster General (Mr. Mulock), the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Michaud), and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gibson) should each make a statement, because the house would like to know just what those ministers are doing, and then when we come back in perhaps two months' time we shall be able to cross-examine the ministers across the floor of the house.

No doubt a certain amount of useful information has been obtained and a great deal of constructive criticism has been offered. But one thing that worries us is that the government are not seeking the help of every member of the house. The idea that the government can do no wrong seems to be the ministry's main thought, and they get very touchy when they are criticized. They do not seem to understand that the members of the opposition criticize the government without thinking of politics at all. I suppose the government are so steeped in politics themselves in their war effort that they cannot conceive of anybody feeling otherwise, but I assure them that we as an opposition are just as fervent, in fact more fervent in our desire to forward the prosecution of the war than any member of the government or anybody else.

The government of the day have, however, decided to carry on Canada's war effort in this partisan manner, and on their shoulders must rest the responsibility and the blame for all the sins of omission of which they may be guilty, and we as an opposition must also measure up to our obligations as such. I predict that when the history of this government's partisan war effort is written and the facts come to light, it will not be the pretty picture that we are led to believe. If it should so happen that any serious reverses come or that the war is unduly prolonged, this government will go down in history as wilfully negligent in not utilizing to the full the services of every member of the house regardless of his political colour. The government are fighting a Liberal war and the public know it; that is one of the main reasons for the lack of confidence which the people of the country have in the government to-day.

The truth is that the government's great concern up to date has been political success,

success in partisan politics. It has corralled all sources of public information so far as the war is concerned and keeps them under its thumb just as rigidly as any dictator would. The press can get information only through the government, and the government can punish if the press offends.

I must give a clean bill of health to the radio corporation; nevertheless the radio is being used at the present time as an instrument of this administration, and it is being used ruthlessly and to the full to help the administration politically, day in and day out. That is a misuse of the radio. There are far better uses to which the radio can be put than that. Not only that, but the misuse of the radio in this way makes the public suspicious that we are not doing everything we can to fight the war, that, instead, we are only fighting political issues. This uneasiness and suspicion in the minds of the public is soothed by various reports of one kind or another which are given out from time to time by the director of public information. Certainly all is not as it should be, and it is the duty of every member of this house to use his prerogative and criticize. There is nothing like honest criticism to spur a government on to further effort, and as a matter of fact there should be no further effort possible. It ought to be a full-out effort that we are making now.

We have been told that the government have a long range programme and that they have been working night and day planning to put it into effect, but certain circumstances belie that statement. For example, since the beginning of the war we have had a camp at Camp Borden, and all this time we have known that there would be a tremendous number of men there. At the present time the number is between 16,000 and 17,000. About two weeks ago 239 men were in hospital, and there were no orderlies to look after them. Their food had to be prepared by only four men. The patients who were in bed had to get up and fetch their own food, or, if they were too sick to move, it was left to one of their comrades who was not so sick to get it for them.

The regimental doctors endeavoured to make some provision in their own lines for sick cases. But that was not what it should be under conditions of that kind. The doctors have had to fight all the time in order to get proper hospital accommodation at Camp Borden. The first result of their efforts was that a seventy-five bed hospital was provided. Why should they have had to fight for something which is so necessary? In a place like that, a good-sized hospital is necessary so that one can cope with contagious diseases by

The Address-Mr. Ross (St. Paul's)

ensuring proper segregation. I understand that at last a hospital of a thousand beds is to be built. But when one considers that it is usual to make arrangements on the basis of five per cent of sickness in a camp of this size, it does not look to me as though there had been any planning so far as that phase of the work is concerned. We have been at war fifteen months, yet only a short time ago was it decided to build this hospital.

Moreover, there are five ambulances up there, and they have travelled 150,000 miles taking to the city of Toronto those sick men who could not be accommodated at Camp Borden. Again, there is no operating room. Who ever heard of a town of 16,000 or 17,000 people not having hospital accommodation and a proper operating room? In cases of acute appendicitis and of fractures of various kinds, rest is essential, and yet it has been necessary to convey men suffering from these ailments all the way to Toronto before they could be medically treated. This does not look to me like planning. The record in these cases has been good, but that is due, no doubt, more to good luck and medical skill.

Another case of lack of planning has been brought by me to the attention of both the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) and the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie),, and I understand that something is being done about it, although much time has gone by. Take the case of a man in the Canadian active service force who becomes sick and is put in category E: that means he is discharged from the army. Until recently there was not administrative machinery to take care of that man and his family during his disability.

To cite an actual case, a man had to return to his home town and, with his family, go on relief in that town; not only that, he had to accept charity for medical attention. There was no planning there that. T can see. although I understand that some arrangement is being made to take care of conditions of that kind. Is the morale of the people being maintained when that sort of thing is going on? It certainly is not. It is quite true that the Department of National Defence refers a category E case of that kind to the Department of Pensions and National Health for treatment, but it cannot be denied that in many instances, during the course of the treatment, the soldier or officer has been informed that he has been discharged from the Canadian active service force as of a given date, and notwithstanding the fact that he requires prolonged treatment, he receives no pay and his family are destitute.

It must be expected that members of the Canadian active service force will require hospital treatment for disabilities which, to use the wording of the act, cannot be attributed to service as such; nevertheless these men should be retained on the army strength until such time as the treatment is completed, and then, if it is decided by medical authority that they are unable to meet the requirements of the existing medical standard, naturally they would be discharged from the force.

Let us not forget the experiences of the men who fought in the last war. It is only reasonable that care should be taken to prevent pensionable disabilities from increasing, as well as to reduce by proper treatment the amount of pensionable disability. Certainly it is in the public interest that this should be done. But I do not think any men who require treatment should be discharged from the army until such time as the pension commission has given a ruling. Why should men and their families suffer during that time from lack of income?

The men who served in the last war fought to make Canada a place for heroes, not only heroes of war, but heroes of everyday life, to live in. We have always been able to find money enough to provide for railway deficits and for public works at election times. But when it came to the claims of the men who served overseas, of their dependants, and of their widows, it was always necessary to fight in order to get a little more for them. It was invariably pointed out how much such a measure would cost, how much more the people of Canada would have to pay. At the present time we are not thinking very much about what the people will have to pay; that is not the first consideration.

At this time men and women are fighting for Canada, and we must give them something more than lip-service. We need to remember those lines in Binyon's " Ode to the Fallen"; I think it might be well if every hon. member would realize their significance:

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:

Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.

At the going down of the sun and in the morning

We will remember them.

Let us see to it that we remember them. Let us not forget as we forgot last time.

I wish to touch for just a moment on the question of leave with transportation for the soldiers. The question will be a serious one this winter. Other hon. members have made

The Address-Mr. Ross (St. Paid's)

suggestions on this subject. Soldiers should be given leave periodically. It might be easier to give leave more frequently to those who are closer to their homes. I suggest that leave be awarded on a basis which will allow the soldier a period of five days at home. I do not wish to suggest how often leaves should be given, but a system of this kind would make for happier families and a more contented corps of men while these men are on this side of the water. Certainly they should have five days at home periodically and their fares should be paid there and back.

There is another matter to which I should like to refer, although it may seem a small one. All of us are able to get three hundred cigarettes for a dollar for the soldiers overseas, but some of these soldiers have no friends at home, or at any rate not many, who can send cigarettes to them. I have received several letters from them, and it seems odd to me that these soldiers cannot purchase overseas the cigarettes they require for the same price at which we can send them from here. Let me quote from a few letters:

The purchasing of smokes in this country is certainly beyond the buying power of the Canadian troops. The prices are as follows: Cigarettes, per package of 20, one shilling and sixpence; tobacco, one-sixteenth of a pound, one shilling and threepence.

For the boys who are fortunate enough to have friends or relations in Canada, this course is overcome to some extent. This position, however, only represents a small percentage of the troops. Could you not do something in parliament so that Canadian troops could purchase smokes at or near the price for which they can be purchased in Canada?

That is not unreasonable, and I am surprised that the government has not done something about it before. I quote from another letter:

Luxuries, smokes et cetera are expensive here, just about out of the regular sapper's reach for regular consumption, except on pay day or the day after.

_ Cigarettes at the present time are hardly in the category of luxuries. They are almost a necessity in the army. I commend this thought to the government, and I suggest that they see to it that the purchase of cigarettes be put within the reach of these soldiers.

We hear many stories about lack of equipment. I would be the last one to criticize the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) when he says that we will supply Britain first and do without, ourselves. This is right, but surely small quantities of equipment can be allotted to various units for training. One can hardly understand why there should be a shortage of clothing in Canada to-day in view of the statement of the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) in the House of Commons on July 30,

1940, at page 2118 of Hansard, where he is reported as having said that production of boots and shoes had been stepped up to

30,000 pairs a week and that production of battle dress was reaching 20,000 suits a week, blankets being produced at a rate of 30,000 a week, and so on. Then, again, on November 20, as reported at page 265 of Hansard of the present session, he gives production figures for battle dress blouses, trousers, blankets and so on. One can hardly understand, I say, why, if these figures are correct, there is a shortage for any of the troops in Canada at the present time.

The public must know more about what is being produced. I accept the minister's statement when he says, as reported at page 258 of Hansard, that a recent cable from the dominion's office in Great Britain stresses the importance of carefully guarding production figures for munitions and aeroplanes. I accept that statement as coming from the dominion's office, but I should like to know the origin of it and who instigated it. I cannot reconcile that cable with the information that comes over the radio from time to time. The other evening all hon. members heard, I have no doubt, the announcement that the United States bomb sights had been delivered to Great Britain and that arrangements had been made for the exchange of bombers, how many bombers and engines were moving from one place to another, and so on. A short time ago we were advised by radio of the exact number of aeroplanes delivered to Great Britain in a certain month from the United States.

We have been told by the minister, or rather a statement was made to the press as to how many tanks were being made and how many more will be made in the future; and then the Minister of Munitions tells us that 25-pounders will be made in a Quebec gun plant in October. I quote the Toronto Daily Star of August 22, wherein he is reported as having made a statement in that regard. As a matter of fact, more information can be obtained from United States papers than in this House of Commons. Let hon. members read any of them and they will see.

Of course the public are interested in knowing what we are going to produce, but what the public want to know is what we are producing and what we have delivered. Everything in the way of production seems to be in the future. All one has to do is to read the minister's statement to come to the conclusion that he is trying to do a great deal more than any one man can accomplish. The minister admits, or he admitted to me the other day, that he is working fifteen or

The Address-Mr. Ross (St. Paul's)

sixteen hours a day. There is no fact-blindness here as far as the minister is concerned; but if he thinks he can do all his jobs as efficiently as these jobs ought to be done in war time, he is certainly suffering from an acute case of fact-blindness. I know he is endeavouring to correct his mistakes from time to time, and he is served by a number of fine men. But in some of the others we have not the same confidence.

There is no doubt about it that the minister is a splendid administrator of the department that has control of broadcasting. I think he is a splendid man for that job, but he must have relief from some of the other jobs he has at the present time. The minister is also policy-maker and cabinet liaison for the most gigantic industrial programme ever undertaken in Canada. If anyone asked him who was the boss of this or that department, he would say, "I am ". He is trying to be the administrative head of that programme, actively conducting and controlling the biggest of all big businesses. What he should have is an outstanding business executive who will be given full power to deal in a non-partisan way with the coordination of this biggest of all big businesses-war supplies.

I come now to the thirty-day training scheme. To my mind, in the present set-up it is a colossal waste and nothing more or less than a political sop to the public. It has become necessary because of lack of leadership on the part of the government in the past. If the facts of what would be required of Canadians should Canada become involved in the war had been brought home to the public in days gone by, and if since the beginning of the war, in the words of the amendment moved by my leader (Mr. Hanson, York-Sunbury), the government had not continued to soothe the Canadian people regarding the war effort of the nation, thereby creating a false sense of security when a clear-cut call to action is desperately needed, I say that this scheme would not have been necessary. If the government had not done this but, instead, had faced realities, this proposed expenditure of $50,000,000 a year for this short-time training would not have been needed. There is no doubt that the thirty-day training scheme has done some good. A holiday always does a man good, when it is spent under goodi conditions, with good food and good discipline; but it is rather an expensive holiday as far as the country is concerned. Let us face the facts. The Minister of National War Services (Mr. Gardiner) said in the course of a radio speech:

. . . in one year from now a man will be

needed to use every gun, operate every plane and drive every truck made, and in the front line of battle.

Think that over. What confusion there must be in the inner circles of the cabinet concerning the major strategy to be followed in connection with this war! Certainly we see signs of the indecision and lack of leadership which has characterized this government ever since the outbreak of war. To reach this conclusion it is necessary only to read a few extracts from recent speeches. On November 12 the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) declared that the first duty of each part of the empire was its own local defence. Then he proceeded to say :

That is the policy we have pursued from the beginning, the policy that we are pursuing to-day, and the policy that we intend to pursue so long as we are responsible for the administration of Canada's war effort.

That is his policy, and he says nothing about preparing to man every gun, operate every plane and drive every truck in the front line of battle. Three days later the Minister of National Defence, enlarging on what had been done in Canada, said:

And let me remind my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson), who seemed to think that we were attaching too much importance to Canadian defence, that I stressed in July that our front line was the island fortress of the British isles. . . .

I can say to the house that those principles on which we were working then are the principles we are working on to-day. Any change has been only to emphasize more than ever the vital interest we feel in helping to hold and strengthen that front line on the English channel.

Certainly that seems to me a different policy from the one enunciated by the Prime Minister. A little later the Minister of National Defence went on to say:

The war committee of the cabinet has had the matter of the length of the training period under review repeatedly in connection with the man-power problem, and we are now considering the further step of lengthening the training period to four months and reducing the aggregate number of men to be called from civil occupations in the year. . . .

Such an extension of time and reduction in numbers ought to help to prevent undue disturbance in industry.

This seems to be a sort of half-way measure, but again it is a different policy. Now I come again to the statement of the Minister of National War Services, made over the radio on November 17, in which he took an opposite stand. He said:

I think it would be wise to stop much of this talk against military training for men who are making planes, munitions, arms and ships and remember that in one year from now a man will be needed to use every gun, operate every plane and drive every truck made, and in the front line of battle.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:

I must remind the hon. member that he has exhausted the time at his disposal.

Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):

Just a few minutes more, and I shall have finished.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:

I shall assume that the hon. member has unanimous consent.

Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):

We must have

some way of counteracting those foreign broadcasts. For that reason, if for no other, it is vital that as quickly as possible Canada should install a shortwave broadcasting station.

Let us consider another angle of the problem. What would be the result if anything happened to the British Broadcasting Corporation. They are now broadcasting to those countries to the south of us, but I am wondering what would happen if their programmes were either completely or partly shut off. It seems to me that as part of her war effort Canada might help Great Britain by erecting a station such as I have suggested. This should be done quickly. Under the frequency reservations provided by the Berne conventions, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation were allotted ten bands. I have the details here, but I shall not take time to place them before the house. With the exception of one which is not much good, through lack of use by us and encroachment or squatting by others, these have all been lost to Canada.

I am told on good authority, however, that we might use the 25 metre and 31 metre bands, and the use of those bands would permit us to reach practically any point in the world. The installation, with directional antennae, would cost about half a million dollars, if we act quickly. That is not very much money for something which is practically a necessity. The cost of installation is increasing; that is the trouble. I cannot urge this too strongly as a war measure of the first importance. Not only is it of importance to Canada, but it is a way whereby we may give assistance to Great Britain by providing her with a duplicate system.

I have only one more point to bring out-

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:

I understood the hon. member had leave to continue for only a few more minutes. He has now spoken for more than five minutes over his allotted time.

Mr. G. A. CRUICKSHANK (Fraser Valley):

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the

applause of hon. members of the opposition, because I realize it is for me. I was almost going to suggest that it was eleven o'clock, because I did not know whether or not the bands were going to be brought into play. I want to be brief, because I understand another hon. member is to follow me.

I am not going to be selfish in my praise and mention merely the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. On the contrary, I am going to praise all hon. members who have made speeches. I think most of them have

The Address-Mr. Cruickshank

been very good. Most have been constructive. If a member cannot be critical and at the same time constructive, I do not think he should be elected at all.

I was particularly interested in the observations of the hon. member (Mr. Ross, St. Paul's) who immediately preceded me, because he gave me something to talk about. He pointed out that this was not an ordinary session, but rather that it was a session of campaigning. From what he said I can well understand why he called it a campaign session, because he took special pains particularly to praise the war effort of the good ladies in his constituency who are working for the Red Cross. It is obvious that he is beginning his campaign already.

The hon. member who preceded me accused the Liberal party of playing politics. During my short term in the house I have come to the conclusion that each and every member in it, and particularly the lady member, is a good fellow, irrespective of party. I note the hon. member said that we are steeped in party politics, and that the party to which he belongs is as keen to win the war as we are. I wish I had time to tell him something about the partisan politics of the Liberal administration in British Columbia-because every appointee has been a Conservative.

When the hon. member states that the war effort of his party is as keen as that of ours, I shall give him credit for his statement. In that connection I shall read the observations of a member who, although not the house leader of the Conservative party, is the organizer for that party in Canada. The Vancouver Province, the Conservative paper of British Columbia, quotes that gentleman in its issue of October 21. We of the Liberal party do not claim to possess all the patriotism there is in the world; we do not contend that we are the only people who want to win the war; we do not contend that we are the only people who can win the war, but possibly the present organizer of the Conservative party has a greater right than we. I intend to quote him.

Mr. MacNICOL:

Is he the organizer?

Mr. CRUICKSHANK:

I am promoting the hon. gentleman. I quote:

John R. MacNicol, president of the dominion Conservative association, took the federal government warmly to task Saturday.

And again:

Mr. MacNicol affirmed the Conservative party's central objective was to win the war. " And we're going to win it," he exclaimed, " because God is on our side."

That is from the Vancouver Province. I wonder who was on their side for the last

ten years. Reference has been made to lack of preparation for this war, but personally I do not think any government can be blamed for lack of preparation prior to a war. The people are to blame because they allow no government to prepare properly. There is one member in this house who can claim more credit than any other member. He does not happen to belong to the party to which I belong, but I want to congratulate the hon. member for Saskatoon City (Mr. Bence) upon sending into oblivion the worst detriment to Canada's war defence we ever had, the former hon. member who said, " not one dollar for national defence."

Certainly mistakes have been made in the past, and no doubt many will be made in the future. Do not think I am not going to criticize the government for some of the mistakes they have made. They had better not make them again in the future. In my opinion many of the mistakes that have been made could have been eliminated had more attention been paid to the elected members of parliament rather than to the so-called dollar-a-year men who are cluttering up the streets of Ottawa. That is about all they are doing. We have been elected, rightly or wrongly, by the popular vote. We should be taken more into the confidence of the government; our advice should be asked more often instead of the advice of some of these men who could not be elected in British Columbia to the office of pound-keeper. They are responsible to no one, and in many instances they are not responsible at all. I could quote what other members from British Columbia have said in this regard, especially the hon. member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. Mayhew) and the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid), but I shall not take up further time.

I think a member should criticize his own government, but he should do it in a fair manner. I do not intend to take up the time of the house by talking of someone who has not a pair of socks or has only two shirts. I was in the army for a number of years; I have been out of the army for a number of years, and I still have only two shirts.

I have another suggestion to make, one which may not be popular with private members. This house should be kept in almost continuous session. It would mean a financial loss to members from the far west to be kept here, but we asked to be elected to represent the people during war time and we should be ready to stay here. In this connection, I should like to quote two people. It has been quite popular this session to quote a gentleman who is probably the

The Address-Mr. Cruickshank

greatest living statesman, present company excepted. I refer to the Prime Minister of Great Britain. Many other members have quoted Mr. Churchill, and I should like to quote his opinion on the continuous sitting of parliament even when it is not known when a bomb may drop into the chamber. This is what he said:

I urge the House of Commons not to lose sight of its democratic duty of giving guidance to the nation and, if necessary, correction to the executive.

In other words, the Prime Minister of Great Britain is asking the members to offer guidance to the executive council. He continues:

To-day, in inaugurating this new session of parliament, we proclaim the faith and sincerity of our resolve to keep vital and active, even in the midst of our struggle for life, even under fire of the enemy, those parliamentary institutions which have served us so well . . . and which have proved themselves the most flexible instruments for securing progress, carrying forward at the same time the traditions and glories of the past which, in this solemn moment of world history, are at once our proudest assertion of British freedom and the expression of our unconquerable national will.

The Prime Minister of Great Britain contends that the House of Commons there should be in almost constant session. I should now like to quote the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King). I got a little applause from my left when I quoted the last gentleman and I may not get so much from that direction this time. In my opinion the Prime Minister is the one and only man in public life in Canada to-day who can continue to keep this country unified under present conditions. I give that as my own opinion, but it is the opinion of one representing a constituency which came back into the Liberal fold in the last election for the first time in fifteen years.

Mr. MacNICOL:

That is a long time.

Mr. CRUICKSHANK:

I will be here

for a long time; do not worry about that. This is what the Prime Minister said, as reported on page 43 of Hansard:

We face a future unknown and unpredictable. We cannot tell what calamities may strike us before the present year is ended or what perils may be upon us in 1941 or 1942. Failure to view the situation as a whole, and to take account of all conceivable possibilities, might be fraught with the gravest dangers. There must be no surrender to the insistent clamour of those who refuse to look beyond the problems of the moment.

I ask hon. members to notice his words as reported on page 43:

I have sometimes felt that, forced as we are to deal with questions arising from day to day, we lose a certain perspective of the trend of events.

That is the reason why I say that this house should be kept more or less in constant session, irrespective of whether it pleases us as private members. That is a Liberal principle, at least the one upon which I was brought up, that we must have parliamentary rule at all times.

Personally I think the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) has made excellent progress so far. As I said before, I am not concerned about mistakes which have been made in the past provided they are not repeated in the future. I think I can say quite modestly that I know something about war, having served through the last one. My sympathies are certainly with the present enlisted men. But I do not think the Department of National Defence has made sufficient use of officers and non-commissioned officers who served in the last war, for training purposes at the present time. I think the government has made a tremendous mistake, and I sincerely hope the Minister of National Defence will see that this is corrected.

Second, I do not think the government is paying enough attention to the value of highways as a part of our national defence effort. Each month I receive a book containing details of contracts1 worth millions and millions of dollars which have been awarded in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. In my opinion a few million dollars should be spent on what I believe is a most necessary defence measure, that of having a trans-Canada highway. On the Pacific coast, and I know something about it, we are served by two railways and no roads. If a certain country went to war with us, those two railroads would be put out of action within twenty minutes. Would it not be wise for the government of the day, as a national defence measure, to use some of these millions to build the Agassiz-Haig road and to complete the Princeton highway. Hon. members can make up their minds that if war was declared on Canada, our two railways could be put out of action by any twenty-year old boy within twenty minutes. Then there would be no way to get supplies to the defence works that have been built on the Pacific coast. I think not the slightest attention has been paid to that fact by the government.

My hon. friend who preceded me apparently does not think very much of the thirty-day training plan. I think the camps have done wonderful work and I am proud of the way in which the boys have been trained out in my riding. True, they are not soldiers, and nobody ever suggested that one could make a soldier in thirty days. I had the privilege and pleasure of serving with some boys not

The Address-Mr. Cruickshank

of my own unit but from Toronto, and one could not make a soldier out of them in four years.

One suggestion I would make to the government in this connection is that we are going to lose all the benefit of this thirty-day training if we do not make greater provision for the boys continuing their training in the non-permanent militia units or in active service units. I urge the Minister of National Defence to create more militia units and more active service units. We cannot turn loose these young men who have had thirty days' training and expect them to retain all they have learnt and to retain their interest in the army. In my district there is no opportunity whatsoever for an old soldier or a young boy to join either the militia or the army. This government must accept responsibility for that, and it is a grave responsibility. Therefore I strongly urge the Minister of National Defence to create more active service and non-active service units so that these boys can continue their training.

I want to say a word about the discontent that is growing among the soldiers in Canada. There is nothing that breeds discontent more among soldiers than the fact that they are not on active service. Perhaps when they get into the front line they will wish they were not on active service. At all events a soldier in camp is apt to become discontented, and nothing is more likely to breed discontent among the soldiers than the fact that we are saying to them: We cannot afford to give you a free pass on the train to go home and see your family. In my opinion that is ridiculous. We own one of the railroads, and the other railroad presumes that it owns Canada. It is time we should show it that it does not, and I strongly urge upon the government that now is the time to Show the boys that we really appreciate their efforts-.

The hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce) and the member who preceded me criticized the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Gardiner) for allegedly suggesting that a factory manager might have to be changed if he could not get the action required in connection with some of the boys taking their training in camp. I am tired of hearing about these poor boys in the factories. Many of them are making more money than they ever made in their lives before, while the boys who have joined up are getting $1.30 a day to protect the boys in the factories. I would suggest to the hon. member for Parkdale that if we taxed some of those immense war industries in his riding and the city of Toronto which are making more money than

they ever made before, we could easily find the money for free transportation for our soldiers.

Unquestionably someone fell down with regard to the huts at Nanaimo. I understand that this mistake has been rectified, but it should never have been permitted to happen. We produce in British Columbia 53 per cent of Canada's lumber production, and we have the largest -coal -mines -in the Dominion of Canada. Yet we have more unemployment in British Columbia than in any other province. Whoever it was that was responsible for the blunder in connection with the huts at Nanaimo should have been not only fired but interned.

The time to prepare for the return of the soldiers of this war is to-day, not -to-morrow. We all know that tremendous mistakes were made after the last war by both parties; I do not say intentionally, but we ought to take steps now to see that those mistakes are not repeated. I think the private members of the house should be called in -to serve on committees where they could give the benefit of their experience in deciding what should be done to look after the boys when they come back, because I warn this house and the government that the conditions which have existed for the last twenty years will never be permitted- to exist in the twenty years following the present war.

Moreover, I think it is high time that the government took into consideration this mere pittance of $20 a month that we are giving as a pension to the aged. That amount should be increased. Surely if $20 a month were required to feed an aged person before the war, it ought to be obvious that with war prices, the sum of $20 is not sufficient to-day. A man or woman seventy years of age cannot use that money to advantage in the next world, so let us give them an increase now at a reduced age limit.

I wish to speak for a moment or two now of the junior employees of the civil service, and I can safely do so because there are no civil servants in my riding, I think I am the only person in the riding who has a government job. The federal government is expected to set an example to the employers of Canada, and we as members of the federal house are supposed to set an example to the provincial houses and to municipal governments in our treatment of our employees. Yet in the civil service there are junior employees in the city of Ottawa receiving $55 a month on which they are trying to live away from home. We expect them to live as decent Canadians on $55 a month. We should be ashamed of ourselves, and as a private member I am ashamed of myself. I

The Address-Mr. Cruickshank

take my breakfast in a little restaurant- I live in a room because every apartment is taken by these one-dollar-a-year men who clutter up the city-and in that little restaurant I see these girls, junior employees in the civil service, making a breakfast of a cup of coffee and a cigarette because that is all they can afford; and at supper I see them having a bottle of coca-cola and a cigarette because they are getting only $55 a month to live on. This government has nothing to be proud of in that fact, and I am not particularly proud of having to go back to my constituents and say that as a government we are paying $55 a month to boys and girls to live on. I hope the government will tell some of their $30,000 a year treasury officials that a girl cannot live on $55 a month.

I come from a rural riding, and I should like to speak for a minute on rural conditions in my riding. We have received absolutely no benefit from war expenditures. Like the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Turgeon), I am not complaining particularly about war industries not being located in my riding, for it is not particularly suited to the establishment of such industries, although during the last war factory after factory in British Columbia were turning out munitions; but to the best of my knowledge we have not a solitary one turning out munitions for this war. I read in the paper to-day that somebody had suggested in the house that these ships which were being built on the lakes should be sent down to the St. Lawrence before they were frozen in. so that they might be completed and delivered. We have shipyards on the Pacific coast which are working at only half their capacity, and it never freezes there. Let the government give us orders for some of these ships it wants built, and we will build them.

With regard to milk, it may surprise some hon. members to know what the price was in September, 1939. In my riding milk is paid for on a butter-fat basis, and prices are set by pooling the price return of fluid milk, canned milk and butter and cheese. The price in September, 1939, was 35 cents a pound butter-fat; in September, 1940, it was 37 cents-up only 2 cents. That is after one year of war. I hope some of these great industrialists in the east will listen to that. But the price of bran in November, 1939, was $27 a ton, and in November, 1940, it was $29, or up $2. Is the dairy farmer getting anything on that?

For grade A large eggs, in August, 1939, we got 26 cents a dozen; in August, 1940, the price was two cents down, while the laying mash cost 10 cents per hundred pounds more. We are sending lumber by

the thousands of cars monthly to be shipped from the Atlantic coast, and the cars come back empty. The farmers of the prairies have millions upon millions of bushels of wheat which they cannot sell; yet we, as a "race" or some other classification, have the stupidity to let those cars come back empty instead of taking the grain out to the Pacific coast to be used. We could profitably produce another $5,000,000 worth of eggs. I want the house to remember this. Last year we exported only $90,000 worth of eggs from British Columbia. We could produce profitably for export $5,000,000 worth of eggs for Great Britain if we got a reasonable rate on our grain.

I recently heard an hon. member from Ontario, I believe it was the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser), remark that the west was getting all the grease at the expense of Ontario. Possibly the west is getting the grease, but I want to point out to that hon. member that the industrial centres in Ontario have been getting the gravy for the last fifty years. I do not wish to depreciate in any way the efforts of the wheat grower to secure justice in this house, but there are also farmers in the maritimes and in British Columbia who should have equal consideration. I hope that the prairie farmers get their just dues.

We are making a new effort in my particular district. I am glad that the minister concerned is here. I am sorry that the Minister of Agriculture and of National War Services (Mr. Gardiner) is absent from the house at the moment-not that I want to have any argument with him, because I notice that a number of my hon. friends on the left have tried that. We are endeavouring in my riding to establish bulb-growing. Those who are familiar with the subject know that it takes from five to twenty-five years to become established in the bulb industry, and some of the bulbs may cost $100 or $150; that is your initial stock; the bulb has to be divided and re-divided, and you gradually build up until you get an acreage large enough to enable you to ship bulbs. That may take from five to twenty-five years, according to the amount of capital.

As I have said, we are trying to establish that industry in British Columbia. In no way will it compete with farmers elsewhere. There never was a time, when, owing to world conditions, it was so practicable as at present to establish ourselves in this line. While our farmers are establishing themselves, striving to gain an existence and to become independent, they depend to a great extent on the sale of cut flowers. This

The Address-Mr. Cruickshank

year they got the magnificent sum of 4 cents a dozen for cut daffodils, out of which they have to pay for cultivating, cutting, packing and freight. I hope the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) is taking this in, because he is going to have a long interview with me the day after the house rises, when he will not be so busy. The farmer gets 4 cents a dozen, and what have we done? We have allowed him an exemption up to $500 from sales tax on cut flowers and bulbs, and if he sells $501 worth the 8 per cent tax is applied and he must pay $40.08 sales tax. I know that this war has to be paid for, and I understand that the primary reason why hon. members are here is to find ways and means of winning the war and paying for it. But I suggest that it is not sound economy, it is not to the best interests of Canada, to force men who may become established in this line into the industrial centres by taxing them to pay for the war effort, when there are other ways of doing it.

There is one thing I want to suggest before I close. I do not know how much time I have, but I do not believe anyone else wants the next five minutes, so I will go on. We have in British Columbia a tremendous number of unemployed. We are not reaping any of the benefits of war industry. There is one way whereby the government could aid us, provided we have the resources we are reported to have in the Turner valley. I understand

I have never heard it contradicted by reliable authority, and I am speaking not of these dollar-a-year men, but of independent, reliable men-that we have enormous quantities of gas and oil in the Turner valley. At the present moment one thing Hitler is worried about in connection with his war effort is his supply of oil, and every hon. member knows that the greatest worry the British government has to-day is to protect its oil supplies. If we have the oil in the Turner valley, in my opinion now is the time, not after the war reaches our shores, to pipe it to the Pacific coast. We have the men; we are preparing at the coast for the time when the oil will be there; and we have the material.

One other item before I close, and I want the minister to bear this also in mind. I am sorry that he is sitting in the back row, but I hope that he can hear me. We talk about conserving exchange, and I listened with a great deal of interest to a discussion by two hon. members on foreign exchange. I admit that I do not know anything about the subject, but I do know a little about common sense. In the city of Toronto to-day is a lady whose husband is serving in the bombing

section of the Royal Air Force-serving in our defence. About two weeks from now that lady will have a baby, yet her husband cannot send any part of his cheque out here to pay for her keep. Did one ever imagine anything so ridiculous? The reason is the foreign exchange regulations. I could cite a dozen other cases. Surely the minister does not know what is going on. If he does, does he think it is fair that a man who this very night is flying a plane to defend us, cannot send part of his pay to his wife, and that at such a time she has to depend on charity? A man working for a Canadian firm in London whose wife is in Toronto cannot pay her a portion of his wages owing to the rules governing foreign exchange. These are facts. I am perfectly sure the minister did not know them or they would not be allowed to exist.

Mr. ILSLEY:

The Canadian government does not stop a remittance of that kind.

Mr. CRUICKSHANK:

I am glad to have the minister's explanation. But I am sorry to say that no later than last Sunday this lady in Toronto could not get her money. I can give her name.