Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):

I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Munitions and Supply based upon a press dispatch from Washington which appeared in an Ottawa paper this morning. The dispatch states that there has been set up in Washington a combined copper committee upon which apparently the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada are to have representation. Could the minister give the house the composition of this committee and the purposes for which it has been set up?

Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):

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

Mr. GREEN:

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

Mr. HOWE:

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

Mr. GREEN:

May we have an answer to-morrow?

Mr. HOWE:

I shall be glad to look into it.

Mr. SPEAKER:

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

The Address[DOT]-Mr. Mitchell

Hon. H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale):

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

Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of National Defence for Air):

That is a matter of policy, and I shall give my answer in due course.

Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):

Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to pay tribute to the mover (Mr. Harris) and the seconder (Mr. Halle) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. It is well in this day and age that that task should have been undertaken by two members of the armed forces. While we may talk of sacrifices on the home front, while we may talk of hard work within the confines of this dominion, let us ever remember that when a man voluntarily puts on a uniform to defend freedom as we understand it, it is an indication that he is prepared to give his life if necessary so that freedom may live.

Since the house last met there has been a tremendous expansion in the duties and functions of the Department of Labour. This expansion has developed to an enormous degree during the past year. Many added responsibilities have been placed upon the administration of this department, functions of a kind and character which in the days of peace were far removed from the activities of the Department of Labour. We have had the Japanese question, we have had training in its various aspects, and we have had the regu-

lations governing technical personnel. We have made arrangements with the universities to train students in specialized occupations in furtherance of our war effort. Activities having to do with social questions have received great impetus in the last twelve months, but in the time at my disposal, Mr. Speaker, I shall deal with only one or two major questions-wage stabilization and man-power.

Might I first make this observation. In the very nature of things when you get such a great expansion as we have had, the machinery is bound to creak occasionally. But I have always said to my own people that a problem with which you are faced can never be solved by making speeches. It has to be solved by administration, and it is far better to speak' after accomplishment of the task than before the task is attempted; otherwise the achievements may not measure up to the speeches that have been made.

In the changed status of the labour department I welcome constructive criticism. Criticism is the very essence of democracy, but I hope that criticism by hon. members of this house and by the people of this country will be of a constructive nature, because the policies which we are carrying out affect the everyday life of men and women in all classes of society. As we move into what I might call this regimentation-and by regimentation I mean, of course, that which is necessary in time of war-it is only natural that there will be criticism by those who have been used to the utmost amount of freedom of certain consequences when things do not appear to be moving as smoothly as they should be. From many quarters directly and indirectly the government's war-time labour policy has been under attack. This attack, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) so well said recently, stems from opposition to the government's wage control and price stabilization policy even by those who profess to agree that inflation must be avoided. These attacks and criticisms are nothing more than one of the incidental prices we have to pay for a policy which is fundamentally sound and which has commended itself to the people of Canada, and which in the short period of a little more than one year has, I say without equivocation, clearly justified itself.

May I say in reply to the hon. member- I forget his constituency just at the moment -who implied that because I was a trade unionist I was not a labour man, that I have spent all my life in the labour movement. I was fighting for social legislation when some people hardly knew that such a movement existed, and I have played some part

The Address-Mr. Mitchell

in the last thirty years in the establishment of what I consider some of the fundamental necessities in connection with social legislation for the working classes. I believe that the wage and price stabilization policy of the government is the greatest contribution that has been made since confederation to the benefit of the working classes of this country.

It is not my intention to burden the house with any repetition of explanations of the effects of inflation or of the influence of the price and wage stabilization policy in preventing inflation. No matter how thoroughly the government's policy may be grounded in economic theory, it rests also upon the bedrock of what seems to me to be plain everyday common sense. A series of increases in money wages would stimulate a series of further increases in prices and eventually lead to all the evil consequences of a runaway inflation. It is perhaps -worth while to remind the house that the government did not rush into this policy of stabilization at a moment's notice. It was foreshadowed in June, 1940. A further step was taken in December, 1940, when P.C. 7440 became applicable to war industry. Again, in June, 1941 and in October. 1941, the plan was developed in more detail and took final form. The plan was carefully -worked out and its adoption was an instance of courageous and sound government action. Criticism, however, is to be expected when you are dealing with such an exceedingly complex control affecting the lives of almost everybody in this dominion. After careful consideration the government decided that wages must not be allowed to decline, but on the other hand, steps must be taken to ensure that wages do not soar, because an unstable wage structure would render untenable a stabilized price level and would lead to inflation. Let us listen to what the Prime Minister of New Zealand had to say recently on the question of price control and wage stabilization. I quote:

It is my plain duty to tell you to-night that social security in this wider sense of the term is in danger. It is not in danger because it is opposed by any large part of the community, for I think I can now say that social security has become a national policy. It is in danger because the impact of war has let loose forces which, if they are not firmly checked, will throw our economic system into disorder.

It should be unnecessary for me to tell you that if social security is not built on a stable currency it is built on sand. If the wage-earner is not sure that his wages will buy approximately the same amount of goods a month or a year hence as they buy to-day, there is no real social security.

72537-22}

The Social Security Act and the minimum wage are only oue side of social security in this country. The other side is the measures we have taken, particularly since the outbreak of war, to control the cost of living.

Let me remind you of some of those measures. In September, 1939, all prices were brought under control through the price tribunal. In September, 1941, 38 of the more important commodities entering into the cost of living were stabilized. Meat, bread, and butter, for instance, have not increased in price since the beginning of the war. But perhaps the most important factor in controlling our cost of living has been control of farm prices.

The government soon saw that these measures ought to be crystallized into a plan and in September, 1940, referred the whole matter to the most representative conference of economic interests ever held in this country. This economic stabilized conference unanimously urged the government:

"To stabilize prices, wages and costs so that the cost of the war is not thrown unfairly on one group to the benefit of another."

The government made this proposal its policy and appointed a committee to carry on the work thus begun. The present stabilization plan has emerged from this committee's day-to-day grappling with the practical problems involved.

So far, the result of this work is one of which we can be proud. In no country now at war has there been less economic dislocation through changes in the value of money. But the government has for some months been anxiously aware that its control measures are no longer adequate. Pressure by economic interests for increases in the prices of their products is becoming more and more insistent. Hitherto manufacturers and traders have been absorbing much of the increase in their costs but their profit margins are narrowing and the process cannot go on much longer. Effective price control is becoming difficult;

One would almost fancy that this speech had been made in this House of Commons.

and already the phenomenon of a black market with all its demoralizing consequences has begun to appear.

That is in New Zealand. Further, Mr. Fraser said: -

You may be thinking, why should wages be stabilized? Isn't everybody in this?

Those who listened to Mr. Fraser's speech can imagine his making that observation.

Yes, everybody is in this. Stabilization applies to all rates of remuneration including time and piece wages and overtime, allowances, fees, commissions, travelling expenses and directors' fees.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

What is the date of that speech?

Mr. MITCHELL:

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

The Address-Mr. Mitchell

engaged in this fight, in the English-speaking world, with the exception of Great Britain, think alike on this question. Some members of the house, I believe, will agree with me that that point of view expressed in the far-off dominion of New Zealand amply indicates some of the difficulties with which this government is confronted at the present time. I say sincerely that unless every class in the community rallies behind this stabilization of prices and wage control, I am fearful whether we shall be able to hold it.

After all, you cannot build a nation, a civilization or a political organization on unrest, and when the government of the country is striving in the manner in which it is striving to protect the wage standards that exist to-day, the wage standards of the working people of Canada, and I might add also to protect those in the income groups, that great defenceless body of Canadians who have no organization on one side or the other to protect them, these people are entitled to the support of all responsible men and women in the public life of the country.

In Canada we have provided machinery for the adjustment of existing wage inequities. The war labour boards have power, when wages are proven to be low in comparison with the wage rates generally prevailing for occupational classifications in a comparable locality, to have such wages raised t'o the prevailing level. Realizing that, in spite of price control, some continued increase in the cost of living might be unavoidable, provision was also made for the payment of a cost-of-living bonus if or when the cost-of-living index, prepared by the dominion bureau of statistics, showed an increase.

We are apt to quote what is called the basic rate of wages with no thought of the cost-of-living bonus. Let us take the railways for example. I take a rate of fifty cents by way of illustration. That is the basic rate, but in addition there is a nine cents an hour cost-of-living bonus. I suggest that when these things are placed before the public and it is pointed out that what is received by the individual is the basic rate of wages plus the cost-of-living bonus, a fairer picture is given than by simply implying that the basic rate is the only amount received' and that no allowance has been made through this policy for the increase in the cost of living since the outbreak of the present war. It is being said on many sides that wages are frozen. Let me say without equivocation that wages are not frozen, because there is that bonus provision where the cost of living increases.

fMr. Mitchell.]

In this complex situation the government, despite criticism of the administration, has accomplished a great deal in the correction of wage rate inequities, and to a much greater extent than is generally realized. Since the establishment of war labour boards a total of more than 18,000 cases have been dealt with. Of this number something over 14,000 have been authorized in full, approximately 2,600 in part, and approximately 1,550 have been denied. Of the cases authorized in full or in part, approximately 3,900 have been applications for the payment of cost-of-living bonus based on a rise in the adjusted cost-of-living index from a month prior to October, 1941. .

These applications have involved an estimate of 190,000 employees and represent increased compensation to the amount of approximately 81,765,000 a month. Similarly, of the cases granted in full or in part, 8,500 have been applications for increased wages involving 385,000 employees and an estimated increase of $3,250,000 a month in the wages bill. These approved adjustments in wage rates and cost-of-living bonus represent increased compensation to the workers in industry of $00,000,000 a year and show that the government's wage control policy is not, as so many have claimed1, a wage freezing policy.

I do not think that the path of the chairman of the national war labour board or the regional board or the members of the board is a bed of roses. When I indicate that 18,000 cases have been handled by these boards, and the number of cases that have been satisfactorily disposed of, this house and the country owe a debt of gratitude to the courage of the members of these boards, composed of representatives of employers and employee organizations. It does reflect the fact that when you get men of good will representing employers and employees, who can sit down together and adjudicate on the most difficult cases', dealing with the most difficult policies, a solution is possible provided there is the will to do it and an endeavour is made to assist the state in the grave emergency through which we are passing.

In this regard I would pay tribute to the provincial governments. As we all know, constitutionally wages and hours of labour come within the orbit, in peace time, of the provincial governments. In connection, with the application of the w'age stabilization policy, a minister of the crow-n in every case is the chairman of the regional w'ar labour board and the assistance rendered by them

The Address-Mr. Mitchell

in my judgment reflects the best in public life. It shows also that in the deeper things of life there can be real cooperation between the provincial administrations and the federal government in the furtherance of the war effort.

Let us now get the results of this policy in dollars and cents to the people involved. In the six months before October, 1941, the cost of living, when the pressure of short supplies of labour and commodities was very much less than it has been recently, rose only about 7 per cent. In the fifteen months since October, 1941, it has risen only 1-6 per cent. To state the comparison in another form, at a comparable stage in the last war, when our resources were much less strained, the cost of living had risen 43-3 per cent as against 16-2 per cent up to date in this war. This represents an increase in the real purchasing power of money compared with the last war of a fraction over 27 per cent. I have often given this definition of money: Money is not money unless it is hard to get. The value of money depends on what you can buy with it. That this policy has resulted in benefit to the working people and to all classes of society is clearly indicated and can be proved by the fact that the purchasing power of money is 27 per cent greater than it was during the same period of the last [DOT]war. It can hardly be questioned that the unrest and criticism which the policy is believed to have occasioned is much less than the unrest and criticism that would have resulted in the absence of any such policy, had the government stood idly by and permitted a further increase of 65 or 85 per cent in the cost of living with all the attendant injustices, and the certainty that these injustices would intensify with the passage of time. Such a rise in the cost of living would certainly not only injure the welfare of the wage-earning population of this dominion but would hamper our production programme by causing industrial unrest.

The wage policy, and the administration thereof, are easy to criticize, but let the critics beware that by their criticism they do not undermine the policy, and that in seeking to flee from the ills we know we do not find ourselves in the midst of much more serious trouble. Perhaps I might quote another opinion on this policy from our friends to the south. Hon. members may have read a news dispatch in the Montreal Gazette a day or two ago carrying a statement by Senator James Byrnes, the new economic stabilization director in the United States. I quote:

The economic director announced official opposition to all basic wage increases, and at the same time pledged all his efforts to retain price levels at their present mark.

I should like in that connection to read another statement from New Zealand, made by D. G. Sullivan, a member of the government there. He said:

We are now at the point when in bringing in an all-round policy of stabilization which. I repeat, is absolutely vital to-day, the stabilization of income cannot be balked by demands for concessions from any classes of the community. To peg everybody's income where it is might crystallize certain inequalities for the time being, but I would point out that if inflation were left to develop and run riot, the inequalities which would be created would be far more serious and far more unjust in their incidence upon the community. Thus, if stabilization brings about the fixing of wages or farm prices at their present levels, some sections of the community may feel that they are being made to contribute more towards stabilization than others. It may be only rough justice, but it will be far preferable to the complete injustice which inflation run amuck would bring about.

I thought I would dwell briefly on industrial relations. I need not comment further on the fact that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) took the opportunity to place on record in Hansard the recently adopted platform of his party. But I do welcome the chance to declare again that in substance the government welcomes the declaration of policy as to industrial relations. We are glad that they subscribe to the principles of collective bargaining, though there may be some question as to the method by which in the long run it can be made most effective. The position of the government is that the proper function of government is to clear the way for organized employers and employees to get together to engage in collective bargaining. A survey of the record will show that in the great majority of cases which have been taken to boards of conciliation in recent months about the right to bargain collectively through the trade unions the employers have accepted the recommendations of the boards. The figures show that trade union membership has increased more in the last two years than, in any other period since the last war. The number increased from 365,000 in 1940 to nearly 462,000 in 1941. The increase in 1942 for the three major organizations was over 55,000, despite the wage policy which is alleged to have made trade union organization or collective bargaining almost impossible.

The conciliation service of the Department of Labour has been strengthened in the last

The Address-Mr. Mitchell

eighteen months almost out of recognition. For the manning of that conciliation service we have called some of the outstanding trade unionists of this country into the government service. In addition we have under order in council 4020 the power to appoint commissioners. I feel that notwithstanding that industrial unrest does present itself at some times in this country, the machinery developed in the last eighteen months has been of tremendous assistance in the ironing out of difficulties arising between employers and employees. In this regard also we have actively cooperated with the provinces. In Ontario the conciliation officers of the provincial and federal governments operate as one unit. We also have close cooperation and a working understanding with the conciliation service in the labour department of the province of Quebec. And from all the provinces we have received that same cooperation.

There is a great deal of talk about the number of strikes that have taken place. I think anyone who has had experience in industrial relations will agree that where you have a tremendous expansion of labour organization it is sometimes slowly and with difficulty that the kind of leadership is thrown up that is required in order to have a stable labour organization. The price we are paying at the moment in some respects represents growing pains of the labour organizations. But I would say this in all sincerity; At this period in the last war I was not in Canada; I was at the war. As a young man I would not like to have thought that when I and others were risking our lives that freedom might live, strikes were taking place in Canada that might endanger the lives of those with whom I was associated. I know that patience is strained at times, but I have always had it in the back of my mind since the outbreak of this war that we on the home front should show a degree of patience beyond that expected from the men in the front line trenches. I leave that thought with hon. members. The statement of the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) indicates the necessity, I might say the supreme necessity, for continuous production in this country. Particularly is that so in connection with the production of ships. Nations have risen and fallen because of their power or lack of power to transport commodities across the ocean. It is the old tramp steamer, with its auxiliaries the aeroplane, the battleship, the cruiser and the destroyer, that make possible the fighting of

a successful war; and I hope that in the weeks to come nothing will happen in this dominion that might or could hamper the production of ships, particularly the tankers which are so necessary at the present time.

In the nine months of last year, from April 1 to December 31, the conciliation service participated in over three hundred disputes and succeeded in the great majority of cases in either preventing threatened strikes or bringing about satisfactory settlements in strikes already called. In that regard, while we do not see a great deal of the work undertaken by the conciliation branch of the department, which goes on twenty-four hours a day, three hundred and sixty-five days a year, when disputes are successfully settled, I suppose it is only natural that we should see it blazoned across the newspapers when occasionally a dispute gets off the track and a strike is called.

I should like to bring to the attention of the house the number of man-days lost last year in connection with industrial disputes. During the calendar year 1942 the time lost by strikes and lockouts was 455,964 man-days. Serious as that is, however, its importance should not be over-exaggerated. In the comparable year of the last war, 1917, the time lost amounts to 1,123,515 man-days, or about two and a half times as much as in 1942. If allowance is made for the increase in the number of wage earners as compared with 1917, the time lost in that year can be conservatively estimated as being proportionately five times greater than that lost in 1942. The time lost in 1942 was about twenty per cent more than the annual average for the last ten-year period. In 1942, however, the number of industrial employees exceeded the annual average during that ten-year average by 47 per cent. In perspective, therefore, especially having reference to the total number employed in industry, the loss through strikes last year proved to be very much less than in any comparable period during the last war, and not substantially more than in any recent year. The figures further are considerably increased by the fact that two strikes caused about one-third of the total time lost in 1942. So that the total loss of 455,964 man-days which took place in 1942 represented 159 days per thousand of the wage-earning population, and we have this very interesting comparison, that in 1917, the corresponding year of the first great war, the time loss of 1,123,515 working days represented 638 days per thousand

The Address-Mr. Rowe

of the wage-earning population, or more than four times the number per thousand of wage earners.

Recently I was in Great Britain, Mr. Speaker, and at this time I should like to pay a tribute to the people of those tight islands. I think any of us who have visited Great Britain recently have come away amazed at the spirit and fortitude of the British people. Of course it is often said that they are urged forward under the compelling force of the blitz and Dunkirk, but I think it goes further than that. It reflects in the deepest and truest sense the character of the British people, the character of the people who have given the world the greatest system of government, as we understand it, in the history of mankind. Those people are conscious of the fundamental issues involved in this great conflict. While I was in Manchester I thought I would take a walk early one morning and see the Free Trade hall, where so many historic political debates have taken place, debates which in some instances have changed the course of the history of mankind. But there was no Free Trade hall; it had disappeared. In spite of that, the spirit of the people of what we called in the old days the Manchester school is just as resolute and forceful as it was in the days of peace. And what impressed me perhaps most of all was the degree of cooperation between all classes of society. Of course they have that fringe which exists in every country, a fringe on the right and the left, whom no one can satisfy and who I guess never will be satisfied. But one saw the cooperation in industry; one saw the hours of work, the application of the industrial workers of Great Britain and particularly, may I say the part played by the women of Great Britain in this titanic conflict. When the story of this war is told the contribution made by the women of Great Britain in my judgment will stand out in bold relief and will ring down through the pages of history. They have undertaken work which I thought women would never undertake. They have entered into industries and avocations in which many of us had never dreamed of seeing women, and we must not forget that in many instances transportation is difficult, with great distances between the work and the home. Many of them work under artificial light, and except for their day off at the end of the week many never see the sun.

Then there is the food, which, while the supplies appear to be ample, I must say is

pretty plain. I think the success of the rationing system in Great Britain has been due to the fact that everyone is treated alike. Strangely enough the Minister of Food, Lord Woolton. is one of the most popular members of the government., and I believe that popularity largely rests upon the fact that in the rationing of foodstuffs and other things necessary to the lives of the people of those islands there has been absolute equality of treatment, which is just as it should be. That was the view I took recently when there was a shortage of butter in Canada. I said, "Well, if there is no butter, let us all go without it, but everyone in this dominion should share fairly in what there is." As long as a policy of this kind is pursued we do not need to worry about the people of Canada on- the food front. As long as, in the view of the government, regulation is necessary, if everyone is treated equally I am sure the Canadian people will measure up to their responsibilities and cooperate wholeheartedly in any policy we may think it necessary to launch.

Hon. W. E. ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):

Mr. Speaker, I, too, must join those who have congratulated the mover (Mr. Harris) and the seconder (Mr. Halle) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, and agree, without too much repetition, with what previous speakers have said as to its being most fitting that men who are serving in our armed forces should be selected for that honourable task.

I have listened with interest to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell), realizing that he is struggling with a great problem. I could not help thinking, however, that while we may have little doubt as to his personal standing as a labour man in Canada, he seemed to be struggling on account of a lack of any national man-power plan or government policy. I listened as did other hon. members to his references respecting the value of the labourer's dollar. That is an important problem. He told us the number of man-hours lost by strikes in the past year. Again, however, he did not reveal any over-all, sound national man-power policy and, I regret to say, I saw in his remarks no hope of solution of that problem. I compliment him, however, upon his efforts, despite his handicap brought about by the confusion which has developed through a lack of policy on the part of the government.

The Address-Mr. Rowe