EUROPEAN WAR


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I desire to lay upon the table of the house emergency orders in council which have been recently passed:
No. 2512, respecting trading with the enemy and treatment of enemy property.
No. 2580, respecting the appointment of Mr. Oswald Mayrand as a member of the censorship coordination committee.
No. 2581, respecting the franking of correspondence for the censorship coordination committee.
No. 2584, in respect to members of the public service who join the defence forces.
No. 2586, further trading with the enemy regulations.
No. 2590, respecting aircraft registration.



PROCEDURE IN ISSUANCE OF PROCLAMATION DECLARING EXISTENCE OF STATE OF WAR WITH GERMAN REICH

William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to take
advantage of the earliest moment possible to give to the house a statement of what has taken place since we adjourned on Saturday evening last.
On the orders of the day on Saturday I made the following statement:
I should like to make clear to the house the procedure which the government have in mind as to giving effect to the decision of parliament regarding Canadian participation in the war.
The adoption of the address in reply to the speech from the throne will be considered as approving not only the speech from the throne but approving the government's policy which I set out yesterday of immediate participation in the war.
If the address in reply to the speech from the throne is approved the government will

Proposed Legislation
therefore immediately take steps for the issue of a formal proclamation declaring the existence of a state of war between Canada and the German Reich.
On Saturday afternoon a telegram was sent to the Canadian High Commissioner in London requesting him to hold himself in readiness to make a submission to the king.
The address in reply to the speech from the throne was adopted by the House of Commons on Saturday evening just prior to the adjournment of the house ait 10.25. It had previously been adopted by the Senate.
The cabinet met immediately after the adjournment of the house, and a report was made to council recommending that on the advice of the King's Privy Council for Canada a petition should be submitted to His Majesty the King with a view to the authorization ' by him of the issue of a proclamation forthwith to be published in the Canada Gazette to the following effect:
Declaring that a state of war with the German Reich exists and has existed in Canada as and from the tenth day of September, 1939.
The committee of the privy council concurred in the recommendation and it received the approval of His Excellency the Governor General.
The Canadian High Commissioner was immediately instructed by telegram to submit to His Majesty the petition of the King's Privy Council for Canada that His Majesty would approve the issuing of a proclamation in his name embodying the declaration set forth in the order in council. It was added that a formal submission in writing would follow.
At 11.15 a.m. on September 10, that is yesterday, the Secretary of State for External Affairs was informed by the high commissioner that His Majesty had given his approval to the submission. A special issue of the Canada Gazette was published at 12.40 noon containing the proclamation as duly signed.



ANNOUNCEMENT RESPECTING FURTHER PROPOSED LEGISLATION

William Lyon Mackenzie King: On Saturday evening, prior to adjournment, I promised the house that I would take the earliest opportunity to make an announcement with regard to the further legislation to be brought down by the government. The measures to which the house will be asked to give consideration are as follows:
A bill to amend the Combines Investigation Act will be introduced by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers). Notice of the introduction of this bill appears on the order paper now before the house.
A resolution in respect to the war appropriation bill will be introduced by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ilsley). As hon. members are aware, it has not been possible for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ralston) to take a seat in this house at the present time. The Minister of National Revenue has been acting as Minister of Finance for some time past, and he will present to the house the different measures that would have been presented by the Minister of Finance himself had it been possible for the minister himself to be present. As hon. members are aware, the resolution preceding the war appropriation bill appears on to-day's order paper. As announced at the time of adj oumment on Saturday, the house will be asked immediately to pass the war appropriation bill through its several stages.
A bill to incorporate the Canadian Patriotic Fund, introduced at the afternoon sitting on Saturday, will be presented to the house for second reading by the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Power), and passed through its remaining stages.
The Minister of Labour will ask the house to pass through its remaining stages the bill to amend the Combines Investigation Act he is introducing to-day.
When these measures have been disposed of the Minister of National Revenue, acting for the Minister of Finance, will introduce the minister's budget. The house will resolve itself into committee of ways and means to consider the budget, which will be brought down by the Minister of National Revenue.
A bill to provide for the regulation of war charities will be introduced by the acting Secretary of State (Mr. Lapointe).
A bill respecting a department of munitions and supply will be introduced by myself, as Prime Minister, and related to this measure will be a bill to amend the Salaries Act.
It is possible that it may be necessary or advisable to introduce one or two other measures before parliament prorogues. I should like therefore to reserve to myself this right and shall endeavour to notify the house of any such intended legislation at the earliest moment.
In reference to the legislation which is being presented to the house, may I conclude with this statement. For over a week Great Britain and France, and for a longer time Poland, at a sacrifice of human life which has been hourly increasing, have been striving with all their power to resist further aggression on the part of a ruthless foe who is seeking not only to destroy those countries, but to occasion chaos throughout the world. Now that it
Combines Investigation Act

has been, formally proclaimed that a state of war also exists between Canada and Germany, I hope I shall not be accused of trying to limit any hon. member's freedom of discussion, or any other freedom, if I venture to ask that the government be given, as speedily as may be possible, the authority it requires to proceed in the most expeditious and effective manner with the organization of Canada's war effort.


Mr. MANION:: Are we on the orders of
the day?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No. My hon. friend will notice that the orders of the day do not come until later-not until after a consideration of the resolution respecting the war appropriation bill. I took advantage of the order for motions to make a public statement, but I would say to my hon. friend and to other hon. members of the house that I hope they will feel free to do as I have done and proceed immediately if they have anything they wish to say that otherwise they might have intended to say on the orders of the day.



SIR HERBERT MARLER


Robert James Manion: I wished to ask the Prime Minister
(Mr. Mackenzie King) just one question, which he need not answer unless he wishes to do so. The story is abroad that Sir Herbert Marler has resigned. Is the Prime Minister in a position to make a statement in that connection?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In reply to my hon.
friend I regret very deeply to have to inform the house that Sir Herbert Marler has been critically ill for some time. A week or two ago, it was hoped that his health might be restored, but unfortunately thus far it does not seem to have improved. Upon Sir Herbert Marler's behalf, Lady Marler tendered his resignation to me, and I have accepted it. Immediate steps are being taken for the appointment of a successor to Washington. I am not at liberty at the moment to say whom the government intend to appoint, as it is essential to have his majesty's approval of the recommendation before any appointment is made.


Robert James Manion: Perhaps I might be permitted to utter just one sentence. I have known Sir Herbert Marler for many years; I think he came into this house in the same

year that I entered it. I want to say that I personally, and I think our whole party, had a very high opinion of him, and that we are terribly sorry the condition of his health has required his resignation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thank my hon. friend for what he has just said. It adds to the pathos of the situation that in view of his illness Sir Herbert has not been informed of the fact that Canada is at war or that his resignation has been accepted. On behalf of the government I should like to say, following what my hon. friend has said, that I doubt if there are any Canadians who have given their time and service to their country more wholeheartedly than Sir Herbert Marler has done in the positions he has held, as a member of this house, as a minister of the crown, as our representative in Japan and as the representative of Canada at Washington.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 3, to amend the Combines Investigation Act.
He said: The purpose of this bill is to strengthen the existing procedure for the investigation and prosecution of alleged combines. It provides for the amendment of two sections of the present act and the repeal of two other sections.
One proposed amendment will provide that the attorney general to whom a case is submitted for the institution of prosecution proceedings shall have available the documents which were produced as evidence in the investigation of the alleged combine. Another provision of the bill would enable the trial of a person at the same time or upon the same evidence for alleged offences under the Combines Investigation Act and the related provisions of section 498 of the criminal code. A third amendment would permit an investigation to proceed whenever the commissioner under the act was in possession of adequate information indicating the apparent existence of a combine. The fourth amendment would give the commissioner authority to require the necessary attendance of witnesses and the production of books and records.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am told that *this bill has not been distributed as yet; it might therefore stand and be proceeded with later to-day.

War Appropriation Bill



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Acting Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee at the present sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That sums not exceeding $100,000,000 be granted to His Majesty towards defraying any expenses that may be incurred by or under the authority of the governor in council during the year ending 31st March, 1940, for-
(a)	the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada;
(b)	the conduct of naval, military and air operations in or beyond Canada;
(c)	promoting the continuance of trade, industry and business communications, whether by means of insurance or indemnity against war risk or in any other manner whatsoever; and
(d)	the carrying out of any measures deemed necessary or advisable by the governor in council in consequence of the existence of a state of war: special warrants to the total amount of $16,454,120 issued on or since 25th August, 1939, under section 25 of The Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, 1931, to be included in the said sum of $100,000,000;
With provision also empowering the governor in council to raise by way of loan under the provisions of The Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, 1931, such sum or sums of money, not exceeding in the whole the sum of $100,000,000, as may be required for the purpose of defraying the aforesaid expenses, the principal and interest of any such loan to be a charge upon and payable out of the consolidated revenue fund.
He said:	His Excellency Use Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Mr. ILSLEY:: Mr. Chairman, the resolution provides for the granting of SIOO.OOO.OOO to his majesty for certain general purposes in connection with the prosecution of war activities. Perhaps the committee will want not a detailed but rather a general statement of the purposes for which the money is being granted, and the reason for fixing upon the amount of $100,000,000.
The cost of a war effort by Canada does not lend itself to precise calculations in advance. Fortunately, we lack experience as to the costs involved in mobilizing large numbers of men, and the task of fortifying our sea frontiers is, to a great degree, without precedent. Therefore the financial process must take a form permitting financial decisions to be made as need arises, and not by settling now a fixed plan which must be rigidly observed, irrespective of what the necessities may involve.
The Appropriation Act for the current fiscal year provides, in round figures, $65,000,000 for the services which come within the field of the Department of National Defence. As will be recalled, the votes were, to a great extent, for the acquisition of armaments and machines of war. A large number of contracts have been entered into since April 1, and deliveries are being made. But, broadly speaking, the majority of the contracts are still in process of being performed, with the result that approximately $50,000,000 of the regular appropriations remain undisbursed, and that expenditures for armaments in the next few months will be, in the main, for those for which provision is already made.
It is not desirable, and the reason is obvious, that I be too specific in particularizing the nature of the steps which the general staffs of the three defence services recommend should be taken. I trust therefore that the committee will bear with me if my explanation takes the form of broad generalizations.
First, as to the naval service:
The existence of a state of war, as it is now prosecuted on the high seas, demands that all reasonable precautions be taken to safeguard our ports and sea lanes. The Minister of National Defence is of the opinion that this can be achieved through the acquisition of certain classes of craft, by the equipping of other craft with necessary apparatus and by the provision of various forms of protective works on each seaboard. There will be, also, expansions in the service to permit the navy to give the service expected of it at a time such as the present.
Next, as to the militia service:
The permanent force and the non-permanent units of the militia have been placed on active service status and the establishments of the units are being filled out by recruiting activities. Therefore, with respect to the militia, the major costs in the next few months will be for pay and allowances and for clothing, shelter, subsistence and training provided to the men on active service status.
A problem to be faced is that of housing the members of the forces, because the winter season is not far distant. Again, in a country as large as Canada, the question of transport is neither a simple nor an inexpensive one to solve. It is felt that we should make such provision that the Canadian militia activity at the moment could take the form of mobilizing at least forty thousand men for general purposes, plus a further number for special and coast defence purposes. The acquisition of large quantities of materials is also necessary, but immediate disbursements will be mainly on account of those in training.
War Appropriation Bill

Now, as to the requirements of the air force:
The air force's needs pivot on the acquisition of stores, and equipment, mainly aircraft. It is idle to discuss what one might want, because aircraft cannot be acquired by simply placing an order as one does for an automobile. Therefore, while an expenditure in the vicinity of $40,000,000 would bring the air force to full peace time establishment, both in equipment and in personnel, it is not anticipated such an amount will be disbursed in the next few months.
In addition to expenditure on equipment, an immediate expenditure on the training and dispatch of pilots and airmen overseas will be necessary. Enlistments are now taking place, a substantial number of pilots and airmen are already trained or completing their training, and there will be no delay in proceeding with this effective form of cooperation with Great Britain. It is essential that there be ample funds to meet any emergency which may arise in the needs of this service.
The next department which has material additions to its costs is the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The force has been expanded by a call going out to five hundred former members to report for duty and by engagement of special constables up to a total of 2,500. The pay and allowances for these, and the cost of moving the members of the force to where they will be required, are the major new items of expenditure to be incurred by the force. In all, if the precautionary recommendations are fully implemented, about $3,000,000 may be involved.
The Departments of Public Works and of Transport visualize new activities devolving upon them. In the case of Public Works, these will be in connection with housing for expanded services, particularly those of national defence, while the new costs of the Department of Transport will be mainly with respect to adding to the facilities for ocean shipping, and for landing fields for aircraft. In neither case can the amounts be estimated with exactness, but neither will be for large amounts at any one point. Perhaps $3,000,000 is an outside estimate.
Other departments will need financial assistance for new or expanded services, but, collectively, it is hoped that, in total, these new disbursements may be kept within $1,000,000.
The various departments of the government visualize a possible new outlay of about S125,000,000. It does not necessarily follow that the government will approve all these proposals. Nor, in fairness to all concerned,
[Mr. Ilsley.l
should it be said that the submitted estimates represent the most conservative estimate which might be made; for, as pointed out before, an exact forecast of events into the months to come is not possible. Further, while certain costs can and will come due for payment within the period, many contract orders will remain uncompleted by the end of January and therefore unpaid. Likewise, as already pointed out, deliveries of aircraft are not secured forthwith by simply placing an order. For all of these reasons, and bearing in mind the provision already made by parliament for the public services, this bill has for its purpose that of appropriating $100,000,000, and it is believed that this amount will permit Canada to perform the duties resting on the dominion until further consideration may be given by parliament to our national effort.


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Kootenay East):: Mr. Chairman, the procedure at this moment seems somewhat different from that of the special session on the last occasion on which an emergency of this kind arose, but I presume that remarks made now need not be repeated later, at another stage of the proceedings. I should like to address myself briefly and in a very broad and general way to the situation now confronting parliament. By the adoption of the address in reply to the speech from the throne parliament has placed itself clearly on record and has outlined the course that it proposes to take. That course is one of effective cooperation with Great Britain and France in the prosanition of the war. The exact form and defails of that cooperation of course cannot possibly now be disclosed in their entirety. This we recognize fully. As my leader (Mr. Manion) indicated in his remarks the other day, we desire at this time genuinely to cooperate with the government in the discharge of its grave and onerous duties.
I submit that this is not the time for captious criticism or for hypothetical dissertations upon methods or theories of procedure or upon systems of government. In other words, I think we should forget the differences of the past as far as that is possible and genuinely unite and cooperate to face the tragic conditions with which we are confronted at this hour. I wish once again to assure the government, as. my leader has done already, that by constructive cooperation we desire to assist the government in their most difficult task. Perhaps the committee will bear with me while I quote a few words which I recall vividly as being uttered by that great leader of the Liberal party, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, a little over twenty-five years ago. I recall the occasion as if it were yesterday. He stood in his place with that grace and dignity which

War Appropriation Bill
won for him the respect and indeed the veneration of his political friends and political opponents alike. Beloved and respected as he was by those who knew him, I can think of no better sentiment to inspire us in this period through which we are now passing than the words he uttered on that occasion, particularly as they apply to the matter immediately before the house at the moment. Sir Wilfrid said:
Speaking for those who sit around me, speaking for the wide constituencies which we represent in this house, I hasten to say that to all these measures we are prepared to give immediate assent. If in what has been done or in what remains to be done there may be anything which in our judgment should not be done or should be differently done, we raise no question, we take no exception, we offer no criticism, and we shall offer no criticism so long as there is danger at the front.
I shall never forget the tense moments when those words were uttered. I am conscious at this time that conditions at the front are extremely serious. I do not know that this is the time to say much along that line, but I cannot forbear from making one brief reference. Why has Hitler attacked Poland? Here was a little country already in possession of a non-aggression pact with Germany. Poland had no desire or intention of interfering with the affairs of others. It was a country brought once again to life-it is an ancient nation-by the unanimous opinion, other than perhaps that of the Germans, of those who attended the peace conference. Why should Germany want to violate its nonaggression pact? Poland had resisted any contact with the soviet government because it could not sanction the attitude of the soviet authorities. It was a country which was largely agricultural and which sowed its crops under, shall I say, the shadow of religious shrines. Believing as they did very deeply in the efficacy of the Christian religion, it seems to me that there is only one answer to this question-the antipathy and bitterness which existed against the manner of life of these people, against their beliefs, their ideas and their religious conceptions. There seems to be no other reason, which could be offered. As far as Danzig was concerned, the Germans had it. They were in the majority and they were directing its affairs. It is true that Danzig was under the control of a commission of the League of Nations, but the Germans were in as full physical control as they possibly can be at any time in the future. This thought has pressed itself upon my mind. I cannot for the life of me get away from the idea that we here in Canada, just as were the Poles, are faced with the necessity of defending the things which we hold dear, whether they be religious or social or economic.
Turning more directly to the resolution before us, I give utterance again to the sentiments expressed in 1914 by Sir Wilfrid Laurier. To the measures proposed by the government, to the suggestions contained in this resolution, we take no exception and we offer no criticism at this time. We desire to give to the government a perfectly free hand. We desire to offer constructive cooperation in the serious task they have before them. I trust that it will not be considered out of order should any hon. member, whether he sits on the other side of the house or on this, deem it necessary or desirable or advisable during this session, or during the months to come at future sessions, to offer suggestions to the government. Indeed, the other day the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) invited such suggestions. Anything that I shall say to-day is not by way of criticism, but merely by way of suggestion. I know I am expressing the views of my leader and of my colleagues generally when I say that we have no desire to criticize or to prolong the discussion.
The resolution does two things. First, it authorizes the government to make considerable expenditures for certain things that they deem to be necessary and essential for the defence of Canada and the prosecution of that degree of cooperation which we have already sanctioned. Of course it is quite useless, indeed not desirable, to ask for details of these matters now, and we shall not do so. We simply say to the government that we will gladly cooperate, and grant the request for this sanction and trust the government, in fact suggest to the government, that they exercise every reasonable care to see to it that nothing other than the first duty to the country at this time, namely, the public safety, shall be the motive directing them in the expenditure of these funds.
I have one suggestion to make regarding the last paragraph of the resolution, which authorizes the government to raise by way of loan the sum of $100,000,000. In the first place, this loan should be raised at a low rate of interest-a very low rate indeed. I am confident from remarks that have been made to me by responsible financial men that it is possible at this time to raise the funds at a low rate of interest, and I am assured that if the government will ask for the funds it requires on a very low interest basis they will meet with a generous response from the public as well as from financial institutions throughout the country.
Another thought that occurs to me is this. Sometimes when a loan is issued there is a provision that no sums above the amount asked for will be accepted. I suggest to the
Mrar Appropriation Bill

minister (Mr. Ilsley) and through him to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ralston), not in any dogmatic way, that they should accept any amount that is offered, but that they should very carefully consider accepting as much as may be offered. That is my opinion. In other words, leave the loan open, so that if it is oversubscribed the full amount subscribed may be accepted; because I am convinced that the country will need all the financial resources it is able to make available.
The government is asking for $100,000,000, which is to include $16,000,000 already expended, thus reducing the amount made available by the loan to about $84,000,000. Obviously it is not my duty to suggest to the government that that is not enough; but I do express this private opinion, that more may be needed in the next few months. Parliament may not meet until January or February; we do not know, and I personally would not object if the amount to be raised were made larger, because $84,000,000 is only some $30,000,000 more than was asked for in 1914, when circumstances were vastly different from those of to-day. It must be remembered that mechanization, which is the keynote of all present military and naval forces, is very expensive. The government have the right, of course, under governor general's warrants, to supplement the sum now proposed to be raised, if it proves to be insufficient. But it is likely that subscriptions can be obtained at a lower rate of interest now than will be possible later on, and I suggest that that point be kept in mind.
Another suggestion I would make to the minister and the government is this: Do not overlook the gold resources of Canada. It has been demonstrated in the last few years that Canada is capable of producing a tremendous quantity of gold. Not so many years ago when someone suggested that Canada's gold production might reach $100,000,000 he was laughed at, but during the last few years we have produced gold to a value of over $150,000,000, taking into account its increased value; and I think production during the current year will exceed that figure. That is a very substantial amount, and there is no reason why we should not make a maximum use of our gold production in Canada by adding to our reserves and utilizing the advantages which accrue from that method of financing. We often talk about the gold reserve as something so sacred that it must not be touched, a reserve in excess of our minimum requirements which may be used in times of stress or necessity. That is something we should keep in mind. These are times of stress and necessity, and while I would not for one moment

suggest that we should lower the standard of reserves which has been set up, I do think we should add to those reserves from our production, instead of simply shipping the gold out of the country as an export commodity. We should exercise our rights under the law and in accordance with the practice, and use those reserves to the limit to which we are capable of using them.
Another thought that might be expressed at this time, and I offer it largely, if I may so, to encourage the government to follow the path of reasonableness and caution, is this. We hear a lot of talk about the conscription of wealth, but I have not yet heard anyone define in specific terms what he means by the conscription of wealth. The term is used very loosely; I submit there are as many definitions of "conscription of wealth" as there are people who use the phrase. I very much prefer the term "mobilization of wealth." If the conscription of wealth means, for instance, the nationalization of industry, I warn the government against any such step; it would mean national confusion and chaos, and, I believe, collapse, if we were to attempt to change from the present organization of our industrial and financial life to a system of nationalization or government operation of industry. I suggest to the government, therefore, that they approach this question with great care.
But I do hold very strongly-and I gathered from the Prime Minister's utterances the other day that he has some such view in mind- for the coordinating of the wealth resources of the economic structure of Canada in a united effort to prosecute this war; in other words, for the mobilization of the industrial, financial and other resources of Canada for the common purpose. With that I am agreed, and I think it is the objective we should have in mind. In this mobilization, particularly of industrial resources, I suggest that the government keep in mind the splendid compilation of information made by the census bureau of Canada regarding the industrial life of this country. I do not think it is used either by the scholastic fraternity in their economic instruction in the universities, or by financial or industrial men in Canada, or even by the government, to the extent to which it might be. The government should make full use of this compilation of information-which is completely analysed and tabulated by a competent staff of experts who understand their business thoroughly-and of the census bureau and the trained staff in its industrial branch.
I should like to utter a word of encouragement to all as to the attitude of the people

War Appropriation Bill
of this country. I shall give only two or three illustrations which have come to my attention. We hear a great deal about profiteering and the dangers of profiteering, and with all that I agree. We should be extremely careful about profiteering, but on the other hand let us realize the goodwill and the good faith of the people. Only a comparatively small number of the people of this country would selfishly and in a spirit of greed seek to profit from the war. On the other hand, hundreds of thousands of industrialists, merchants, business men and financiers are just as anxious to serve the country without profit as any who can be found in other walks of life. The other day in Ottawa a group of business men met, representing the whole clothing industry. They have offered voluntarily, without any suggestion or influence on the part of the government or any other group, to stabilize wages, to arrange an equitable distribution of orders-that is, to do away with pulling for orders, with one seeking to get an advantage over another, or using political or other influences to get orders-and to place all the resources of the industry at the service of the government virtually at cost, that is, the cost of operation together with overhead. This is a generous offer. It is made by the industry as a group. I suggest that we do everything we possibly can to encourage an attitude of this kind; and I suggest to the government that through the agencies they have set up the same idea might be passed on to other industries. Under our economic system there is the possibility of controlling an industry from within, whereas when we seek to control it from without we often experience difficulty and disappointment. In any case I point to that offer of the clothing industry as one that should be commended.
I received also an offer from the Masters' and Mates' guild, a splendid class of men whom I believe we all honour-men connected with coastwise and deep sea fishing. This communication is from the Pacific coast, but I have no doubt that it will apply also to the other coast. They suggest-as do the marine engineers, another splendid body of men-that they will place their whole guild as a body at the service of the government. Conscription vanishes into thin air when you have suggestions of this kind. I repeat, they suggest they will place the whole body of their membership without reserve at the disposal of the government, and they offer to cooperate with the government in allocating the work that their members are best suited to perform. This is a fine offer, a splendid example which may be and I think will be followed, if it is made known, by many other unions, groups and guilds throughout the country. I say again
that I think public notice of these things ought to be taken and some encouragement and commendation given in regard to them.
I indicated when I rose that my purpose was to be brief and not to delay business. I have offered these few remarks to indicate a course which we as a parliament and also as private members may usefully promote, and also to demonstrate to the government that we wish to render them reasonable cooperation and assistance, to be constructive in our criticisms, and, as far as we possibly can, to make the pathway as smooth as it can be made for them.
I offer, as the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier said, no criticism of this method of financing. In whatever respect it may be different from what we might think would be best, we do not interject objections at this time. We simply suggest that the greatest care be taken as to the manner in which these large sums-not only those now proposed but others which undoubtedly will follow-will be used and expended, and urge that they be expended solely and wholly with regard to the public interest, the prosecution of this great war, the defence of Canada, and our cooperation with the motherland. These are extremely critical times, and we cannot take too seriously the duties which rest upon us at this hour.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: It is not the purpose of our party in any way to obstruct or delay business. The other day my colleague from Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) read into the records of this house the policy in a general way which our party has decided upon. It is quite obvious that certain of the provisions included in this resolution are not in harmony with that policy, and we shall reserve our right to offer criticism on those matters when the bill is before the house. However, in order that there shall be no unnecessary delay, we do not propose to say anything now at the resolution stage.


Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains) (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, I desire on this occasion to reiterate my opposition, clearly expressed on Saturday last, to any participation by Canada in foreign wars. I particularly protest against paragraph (b) of the resolution which reads as follows:
(b) the conduct of naval, military and air operations in or beyond Canada.
I take this opportunity to call the attention of the house to an article published in the Montreal Gazette concerning the last sitting of the house, that of Saturday last. The Gazette said:
When the amendment of Liguori Lacombe (Laval-Two Mountains) was called in the house
War Appropriation Bill

last night by the Speaker there was a roar of "Nay" and a weak reply of "Yea." The sponsors of this amendment (three insurgents spoke for it) did not even demand a vote.
Mr. Chairman, I assert that, contrary to this newspaper's report, my colleague the hon. member for Quebec-Montmoreney (Mr. Lacroix) and myself rose in our places, thereby clearly indicating our desire to have the hon. members of the house record their vote. But, being alone with the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency to ask for a recorded vote, Mr. Speaker declared the amendment defeated, inasmuch as according to the rules of the house a vote must be demanded by at least five members.
I make this statement, Mr. Chairman, in order to set out the actual facts.


Mr. A. H. MITCHELL (Medicine Hat):: We appreciate some of the difficulties confronting the government at this time, and we have no wish to embarrass the government or to impede in any way the passage of this measure. It must be passed: Canada is at war. But there are certain principles which are just as vital to Canada as the passing of this bill, and they must be enunciated. This hundred million dollars which the resolution calls for is only pin-money compared to the sums which parliament will be required to vote before this war is over. Now is the time to enunciate and if possible ensure acceptance of the principles on which this money and subsequent amounts will be expended during the war.
The New Democracy group has laid down the principle in Canada and in this house that when Canada is at war the whole of Canada is at war. You cannot conscript men and have industry and finance volunteer. You cannot conscript finance and industry and have men volunteer. This is a sound principle ; it is an elementary principle of good business which it would seem imperative for this parliament to accept. If we choose not to do so now, circumstances will eventually compel us to do so. I sound this solemn note of warning to the government, that we cannot afford not to begin right. The experience of the last war, if it taught us anything, taught us that. Why is it that we refuse to learn? Must we in this crisis repeat the initial blunders and wastage of resources and man power that took place in the last war? If we must, then let us decide to do it frankly and openly; let us not pretend that we are not doing it. But if we would learn from the experience of the last war, then let us face the matter frankly and clearly now, and admit that the answer lies in national service-not national service of men alone, of finance alone or of industry alone; anything

less than national service of all three together as Canadians would be a supreme demonstration of inefficiency.
The government have declared against universal conscription; the Conservative opposition have officially declared themselves as against universal conscription; the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation have declared against universal conscription. This means that these parties are allied on a principle which means suicide for Canada. The grossest kind of discrimination and wastage in human life and material resources will follow unless those responsible achieve maximum efficiency throughout the whole length and breadth of our national economy, not merely in any specific part of it. This means universal conscription for national service. And only on the basis of universal conscription can this country do its duty to itself, to the empire and to the cause of civilization and Christianity, now at stake.
It has been suggested that universal conscription will promote disunity ini Canada. We hold the contrary view. We believe that when the need for maximum national service is made clear to Canadians it will have overwhelming approval from them without distinction of class or race or creed, because it is right and just and sound. We stand for Canadian unity, but we stand for unity upon the principle of supreme national effort.
This measure must be passed. It is the best that has been offered to us; we can do no better, now that Canada is in the war, than hasten its passing, and we in this corner shall certainly not block it. But the principles which I have enunciated are eternal and they must prevail.
Right Hon, W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister): May I ask the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Mitchell) one question, partly for my own guidance, but equally for the guidance of hon. members generally? I notice in speaking this afternoon he has referred to himself as a member of the New Democracy group. He has not referred to the Social Credit group which has been sitting in the seats that he and his colleagues are now occupying. I notice also that the leader of the Social Credit group, speaking in the house on September 8, used this expression:
This Social Credit group, now in Canada identified with New Democracy, has committed itself to the unqualified support of Britain and her allies.
The leader of the Social Credit group has spoken of an identification with the New Democracy. Would my hon. friend inform the house whether the Social Credit group still exists as such, or whether it has changed into

War Appropriation Bill
a New Democracy group, and by which of the two designations we should address its leader and members when speaking in this house?


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: I appreciate the point of the Prime Minister; it might serve perhaps to change the subject a little, -but I can clear his mind at once by saying that the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), the leader of the Social Credit group in this house, used the correct term. The Social Credit group is an entity. It exists, and it exists very completely, and is associated with and is part of a tremendous wave of public opinion which is growing in this country, known as New Democracy. Is that clear?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That does not quite answer my point. What I wished to know is, when I address the leader of the group of which my hon. friend is a member, or any other member of it, am I to refer to him as a member of the Social Credit group or as a member of the New Democracy?


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: The right hon. gentleman may take his choice. We are the Social Credit group of the New Democracy.


Robert James Manion: I should like to ask my hon. friend a question, with no desire to enter into a political discussion. That is farthest from my mind. But the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Mitchell) and his leader in the house came out, as they said, for universal conscription-that is of men, materials, industry and capital; I suppose I may go as far as I like. I have in my hand a telegram received a few days ago from Louis Dugal, president of la ligue du credit social de la province de Quebec. It is in French; I have translated it into English, and the committee will perhaps permit me to read it in French and then I will translate it into English. It is addressed to myself, and it says:
L'executif provincial de la ligue du credit social de la province de Quebec, reuni a Montreal en assemblee speciale, reitere son opposition irreductible a toute participation du Canada aux guerres exterieures, tel que resolu au eongres general tenu le 18 juin a Quebec.
This is the translation-


Mr. MICHAUD:: We do not need a translation.


Robert James Manion: Well, some of us do.
The provincial executive of the Social Credit League of the Province of Quebec, gathered at Montreal in a special meeting, reiterates its unyielding opposition to any participation of Canada in exterior wars, as resolved at the general congress held on June 18 at Quebec.
The Social Credit League of the Province of Quebec
Louis Dugal,
87134-7	President.
I should like to ask my hon. friend, for which of these policies does the Social Credit party stand?


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: The leader of the opposition has read a communication which came, as it states, from the head or the executive of a provincial organization. It ill behooves me to interject a note of reproof into the deliberations of this committee. But I should like to know exactly what that communication has to do with the subject of the vote of $100,000,000 with which we are now dealing. I should also like to know what the question asked by the Prime Minister has to do with it, and why these matters are interjected into this debate at this time.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Politics.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I may answer
my hon. friend so far as I am concerned. I was simply asking for guidance in order that we might use the proper designation in addressing hon. members in his corner of the house.


Hon. J. EARL LAWSON (York South):: I have no desire at this time to enter into a discussion with my hon. friend from Medicine Hat (Mr. Mitchell) as to the nationalization of capital or industry. So far as I am concerned I can cover the whole ground by saying that in my opinion the nationalization which he proposes would not bring about the maximum national efficiency which is so much desired.
Despite the urgent desire to dispose with dispatch of matters before the house I should like to pause for a moment particularly on this, the first resolution to come before the house which in the ordinary course of events would have been introduced by the Minister of Finance, to express my extreme regret that illness necessitated the retirement of Hon. Mr. Dunning. It was a privilege and a pleasure to be associated with him in this House of Commons, even as an opponent.
I have no desire to express any criticism of the government to-day. I entirely agree with the sentiment expressed by my leader the other day, and by the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) to-day. I realize that at this time the government has a grave and heavy responsibility, and that no matter what divergent views we may have held in the past with respect to domestic problems, it is most important that there should go forth to the people of this country, and for that matter to the peoples of the world, the knowledge that we stand as a united nation for the survival of democracy and the upholding of

War Appropriation Bill

the principles of justice and right within, and in association with, the British empire. At some future time, as matters develop, the necessity for criticism may arise, but at the moment I desire merely to offer the government one or two suggestions, first in connection with the borrowing of the 8100,000,000, and second in connection with the expenditure of it, which suggestions I trust may be helpful in attaining the maximum results from our united efforts.
The first thought that occurs to me was mentioned this afternoon by my colleague from Kootenay East, namely the cost of borrowing this 8100,000,000. The interest rate upon that amount, to the extent that it is not raised by special taxation during this year, will constitute a burden upon the taxpayers of Canada for many years to come. I think it is most fortunate for the government that at this time, by reason of the operation of the law of supply and demand together with other factors which enter into the matter, interest rates are, I imagine, at their lowest point in our history. These low interest rates are applicable both to short term and to long term money, but I am thoroughly convinced that this condition will not long continue. The advent of war, the increasing purchase of supplies and many other factors, in my opinion will cause that interest rate to rise continually until, if it is left uncontrolled, in the not too far distant future we shall be back to a demand for a rate of five and five and a half per cent on government bonds, as happened during the last war.
I believe public sentiment to-day will not approve of the payment of such rates of interest. I believe the sentiment of the people demands, and rightly so, that the rate paid for the use of domestic capital in time of war for the necessary services of the countiy shall never be greater than and only commensurate with the recompense received by those who serve in the combatant forces.
We heard some discussion to-day with respect to the nationalization of industry. I am sure it requires no statement of mine to make hon. members of this house realize that I should never advocate the nationalization of industry or of capital. But I do suggest very seriously to the government that, having regard to what I have said as to the likelihood of a rising interest rate, the government should contemplate right now such measures as may be necessary in the future to restrict borrowed domestic capital to a return on the basis I have outlined, a return commensurate with that received by those in the combatant forces, in order that there may be equality of service for all citizens of this country.

With that in view I suggest to the government now that they contemplate measures and act immediately to prohibit, except under licence through the central bank and the commercial banks, the exportation of domestic capital from Canada, and that regulations be prescribed by the government so that only that domestic capital may be exported which is for purposes beneficial to the national interest or at least not detrimental to the future requirements of the country.
There are two methods of borrowing; the one is by short term financing, treasury bills and so on; the other is by the issue of bonds, long term securities. If at this time the government finances this 8100,000,000 by means of treasury bills, unquestionably it will obtain a lower rate of interest than it would if it financed by means of long term bonds. But I doubt if, ever again in Canada-certainly not during the period of this war upon which we have embarked-the government will be able to borrow money on long term securities at rates lower than those existing to-day. Therefore I say to the government that in my opinion-and I am not going to suggest that my opinion must be taken alone-though you may place a lesser burden on the people in the first year if you borrow on short term treasury bills during that period, in the long run you will place upon the people of this country a greater burden if you adopt that procedure. Therefore I urge the government to consult with the personnel of the central bank, and others for whose opinions the government may have high regard, in order to ascertain, and having ascertained it to follow, their advice as to borrowing the amount required, either 8100,000,000 or a larger amount, on long term securities at this time; so that if ini the future there should be complaint that for purposes of its own- I shall not now enumerate them, because I want to keep away entirely from political discussion the government was borrowing on short term treasury bills, any action taken in that regard would have behind it the best informed opinion in the country as to the cheapest possible method of financing the borrowings we now have to make.
I wish to make only one suggestion with respect to the expenditure of the money. To my mind, to conclude that we are participating in a war of short duration would be the height of folly. I think we must prepare for long and extended participation. If it be short, then so much the better. Our experience in the last war taught us, among other things, that citizens of Canada served in either a combatant or a non-combatant capacity who would have been eminently qualified to

War Appropriation Bill
render a much better and greater service to Canada had they been serving in some other capacity. At the present time we have little accurate knowledge as to the individual capacities, abilities and attainments of our people. With a view to meeting that situation I suggest that the government spend some of this money, which under the wide terms of this resolution they have power to do, in proceeding at once with a national registration of all the people in Canada, with a view to ascertaining accurately the capacities of our citizens and their respective records of attainment.
I make these suggestions to the government in the most earnest desire to be helpful. And while I am on my feet may I comment on a point which has been brought to my mind by the recitation of the hon. member for Kootenay East respecting the generous and patriotic offers made by groups of men in Canada who are anxious to serve. For many years we have rewarded meritorious service in the combatant forces. I have no doubt that literally thousands of Canadians are willing to serve in any capacity which may be considered beneficial to the country. I know there are at least hundreds who have great ability, and who may be able to serve and are willing to do so, even if it be at great personal sacrifice to themselves. Although the point I have in mind does not relate immediately to the measure before us, I suggest that the government consider the advisability of establishing in Canada some award of merit or decoration of merit which could be conferred upon those rendering distinguished service to the country in war time, at great personal sacrifice, but who are not actively participating in the combatant forces.


Mr. VICTOR QUELCH (Acadia):: Mr. Chairman, I have no intention at this time of entering into any long or detailed discussion as to methods of procedure, but on behalf of the group to which I belong I wish to protest against certain actions which we believe may lead to chaotic conditions similar to those which existed at the close of the last war.
The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lawson) intimated that we had advocated the nationalization of capital. When he made that statement I believe he must have been confusing us with the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, because at no time have we advocated the nationalization of capital. On the other hand we have advocated the conscription of, first, finance; second, industry, and third, man power. By conscription we mean a process of effective control and direction.
87134-7}
When a country engages in war it becomes engaged in a life and death struggle, and it therefore becomes essential that it organize on as effective a basis as possible. Otherwise unnecessary loss of life and great hardship are bound to result. That is why the group to which I belong has taken a stand in favour of the conscription of finance, industry and man power. By such means we believe we can avoid the injustices and inequalities whicln existed during the last war. By such means we believe we may develop the resources of.' this nation to their full capacities, so that we may be enabled to make a maximum contribution, without increasing the debt of the nation by a single dollar. In other words we advocate a policy of pay-as-you-go.
Last year before the banking committee Mr. Towers emphasized three ways by which a government could finance, namely, by borrowing, by taxation, and by monetary expansion. The group to which I belong believe we should adopt the last two of those proposals. We believe in utilizing the Bank of Canada so that we may create the necessary financial credits and currency, combined with definite price regulation so as to obviate any serious rise in prices. We would advocate, further, steeply graded income and profits taxes. We maintain, further, that the only possible justification for borrowing is when our need for goods is greater than our ability to produce them. That condition of course requires external borrowing. We see absolutely no justification for internal borrowing.
I realize there will be some who will object strenuously to any increase of taxation on incomes in the higher brackets. To them I would present this argument:	In time of war it
becomes necessary to call upon certain people to be willing to sacrifice their lives. It becomes necessary for some people to make that supreme sacrifice. It is necessary for others to suffer mutilation of the body. Is it asking too much to ask people remaining in Canada, in comparative safety, to be willing to sacrifice the major portions of their incomes? Is that asking too much, at a time when we are asking other people to sacrifice their lives? I say we have every right to demand that those who remain in safety be prepared to sacrifice the major portion of their incomes, that they be permitted to retain only that portion which is necessary for the maintenance of a moderate standard of living. We are unalterably opposed to the proposal that we finance our share of the war by the issue of bonds. The government has the right to utilize the Bank of Canada, and I see no possible excuse for paying chartered banks to do that which we can do through our own national bank.
War Appropriation Bill


Mr. MAXIME RAYMOND (Beauharnois-La prairie):: Mr. Chairman, as I have already stated my attitude against participation of Canada in the present war I shall not at this time make any additional observations. May I therefore propose an amendment to the resolution before the committee. I move to amend the resolution by striking out in subparagraph (b) the words "or beyond".


The CHAIRMAN:: In my opinion the amendment is out of order.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is a resolution which has been recommended by His Excellency the Governor General, and the amendment is out of order for that reason.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Would such an amendment be in order on the bill?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would prefer to leave that to His Honour the Speaker to say at a time when the bill has been introduced, but the amendment offered is certainly out of order on the resolution.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Ilsley thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 4, for granting to his majesty aid for national defence and security.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mr. ILSLEY moved the second reading of the bill.


Mr. LACROIX (Quebec-Montmorency) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment to move on the second reading, seconded by the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe), as follows:
That the said bill be not now read the second time, 'but that this house express the opinion that the moneys to be appropriated and placed at the disposal of the government shall not be expended for any naval, military and air operations outside the limits of Canada.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I think this amendment is wit of order because it deals with the provisions of the bill and for that reason, in my opinion, it cannot be considered. See May, page 391. I declare the amendment out of order.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
£Mr. Quelch.]
On section 2-Appropriation.
Mr. GREEN:: This section of the bill deals with one of the matters in connection with which I should like to make a suggestion, and I take this opportunity of placing three suggestions before the Prime Minister and the cabinet. This week Canadians from coast to coast are facing the new and difficult world in which they find themselves with a seriousness and determination which have not been known in this nation during the lifetime of any hon. member who is present in this house this afternoon, and I believe Canadians are looking not only to the government but to every hon. member of this house for leadership as they have never done before. There is a great opportunity for us to steady the nation and to show the path that it should follow.
Naturally the responsibility falls largely upon the Prime Minister and his cabinet, and I am sure that none of the other members of the House of Commons envy them the difficult task they are facing in these days. But there is also a responsibility upon each one of us, even those of us who sit on the back benches and who have been in the public service for but a short time. For this reason I was glad to hear the Prime Minister of this nation state the other day that he welcomed and invited suggestions.
I suggest in the first place that we take a more definite stand concerning an expeditionary force. The statement of the Prime Minister with regard to such a force will be found at page 35 of Hansard, where he is repented as follows:
The question of an expeditionary force or units of service overseas is particularly one of wide reaching significance which will require the fullest examination.
He then went on to refer to what had been done in Australia, where it had been stated that the government had not yet seriously considered dispatching an expeditionary force overseas. The Prime Minister said that was also the attitude being adopted by the Canadian government. But I should like to point out that the position of Australia is different from the position of Canada. Australia is more isolated and has potential enemies within close reach. It is certainly not protected to the extent that we are by the great nation to the south. Australia's problem is different from the problem of Canada. Canada has a larger population; it is the senior dominion,

War Appropriation Bill
and I submit that Canada should not hang back and wait for Australia to give a lead. Australia will be there when the time comes; there is no doubt about that, but in the meantime Canada should take the lead.
I fear that the announcement by the Prime Minister may give the nation the impression that we in this parliament are half-hearted in our conduct of the war. I realize that that is not the case, but I say simply that that impression may be created. It may be felt by Canadians-and I think this is particularly true of my own province of British Columbia-that Canada is not going to do her fair share. It is vital to maintaining the spirit of our people that they be able to feel that Canada is doing her part.
I can well understand that such a force is not needed in Great Britain at the present time, and may not be needed for months, but eventually it will be needed and should be recruited and trained in preparation for that time. We cannot pick up an expeditionary force on a few days' notice. It is not like going to a store to buy something and getting it off the shelves immediately. To be effective such a force must be trained for six months or perhaps for a year, and we should begin at once. I have all of the old soldier's horror of rushing half-trained men into war, which would mean not giving these fine young Canadians who will compose the expeditionary force a fair chance for their lives. Any war should be fought by properly trained men.
But what do we find in Canada to-day?- and I suggest this, not to be critical, but in the hope that the fault may be remedied before we go any further. We find that men are being recruited for a Canadian active service force-and if I am incorrect with respect to any of these statements I would ask the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) to set me right. The regulations show that men are being enlisted for home service only. In my own city of Vancouver the explanation has been given in the press repeatedly that later, if required, there will be recruiting for an overseas force, and that such members of the active service force now being recruited as wish to serve overseas can then sign on again; in other words, that they can reenlist. Actually the majority of these young men right across Canada believe that they are enlisting for overseas service, and the situation as it now exists will mean confusion, delay, and inefficiency.
I point out to the government what has happened in New Zealand. I am reading from a press report of September 8:
The New Zealand government decided to-day to raise a special military force for service within and beyond the dominion.
Then it goes on to give the particulars. Canada should follow that example. We should change our method of recruiting and have men enlist for either home or overseas service, and parliament should announce to the Canadian people the preparation of a force that can be used if necessary as an expeditionary force.
Remember that these recruits are volunteers. With those of the other dominions they will be the only volunteers, so far as we know, serving in this war. We are raising an army of men who enlist of their own free will, not blindly, but for a purpose, and the purpose of the great majority of the men who are enlisting to-day is to smash Hitlerism. That must be done overseas, and must be done by trained troops. If we leave this question of an expeditionary force in the air I believe we shall see a rapid falling off in recruiting and a rapid deterioration in the morale of our people.
My second suggestion is this:	For the
present Canada is to be represented in the actual fighting by our young lads who go overseas as air personnel. The Prime Minister said the other day

I am quoting from page 35 of Hansard-"and .the dispatch of trained air personnel." Again the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ilsley) to-day said that airmen would be sent overseas just as rapidly as possible. They will be the very cream of our young manhood, and I suggest that they be allowed to fight as Canadians in Canadian squadrons, and not merely be sent over as "air orphans," to be lost sight of in British squadrons. Those of us who were privileged to serve in the Canadian corps in the last war will remember the thrill that came from having that name "Canada" on our shoulder straps. These young airmen should be placed in the same position, and be followed and encouraged and cheered by this nation as no body of our young men has been before.
Finally, and as a third suggestion, I think we must at once find ways to break this vicious circle of rising prices. We have not yet been at war for two days but already the war profiteer is reaping his harvest. I would read to the house a wire I have received from the mayor of Vancouver, dated September 8. He says:
Would suggest immediate action be taken by government to prevent price manipulation and hoarding of essential foodstuffs. Already there is marked upward swing in prices here without any justification whatsoever. It is working terrific hardship upon those on relief and in lower income brackets. If this state of affairs is allowed to continue and those who have already hoarded not made to disgorge it is
War Appropriation Bill

inevitable that much justifiable resentment and unrest will ensue. Would suggest you try to have market commissioner McGuigan of this city appointed here at once to protect our consumers' rights. The local situation is urgent.
J. Lyle Telford,
Mayor.
That could be confirmed by every member of this house, I have no doubt. This sort of thing must be stopped and stopped quickly. It affects every single Canadian, and particularly, and oh, so disastrously, does it affect Canadians who are on relief or on government aid of one type or another, numbering, according to the Labour Gazette, in May of this year almost one million people, a total of 934,000, The same applies to thousands of Canadians who are on the verge of relief, and to pensioners of the last war, war veterans' allowance recipients, old age pensioners, mothers on provincial allowance, and finally- and I ask the committee to note this-the dependents of these young men who are now enlisting, the dependents of our new soldiers. For all of these the raising of prices means semi-starvation.
This war is a war of nerves, far more so than the last war. How can we expect the Canadian people to keep their nerve and to keep up their spirit under such conditions? I suggest that the government take steps at once to investigate each price increase, even if they have to use the local municipal authorities for that purpose, and that if any improper increase is found, the person responsible be dealt with summarily and severely. Somewhere in most of these increases there is somebody trying to profiteer. It is seldom the retailer, but somewhere in that chain there is a man profiteering. If our present criminal code does not cover such an action, an amendment should be brought in at this session. If this price racketeering-for that is what it is-is stopped, and stopped quickly, nothing will do more to keep the morale of our people high and to maintain confidence in this parliament.


Mr. MacNEIL:: We have now reached the point where we must discuss the extent of our military action. This, in my opinion, must be a matter of grave, cool and deliberate appraisement. We cannot make the grave decisions involved purely on a basis of sentiment or emotion. It is now a matter of national strategy; and no greater injury could be done to our country at this time than to attempt to dictate its strategy by unreasoning emotion. As a dominion we are now at war. -War is a grim and deadly business. It demands not only cool judgment but a balanced strategy. Personally I refuse to be stampeded
fMr, Green.]
by slogans that are now being coined to whip up a suicidal hysteria. For reasons which were not based on sound strategy, decisions were made in the last war which we all now admit were blunders. By reason of these blunders thousands of young Canadians were sacrificed needlessly. As a small nation facing an unpredictable war, facing an unpredictable alignment of forces, the conservation of our man power is a paramount consideration.
I want to think as soberly of these matters now as when I see long Canadian casualty lists and attempt to weigh the loss of life against the objectives attained. I want to think as soberly of these matters here as though I were actually facing death on the field. I want to think as soberly now of these matters as when I am faced with the problems of peace rehabilitation and national reconstruction at the termination of hostilities.
War talk is a heady brew. May I say, as one who knows something of war, that perhaps the greatest stupidity of war is the impulse to plunge headlong into the conflict with a mistaken heroism and discard the strategy of the ultimate aim for the brave but melodramatic moment. Now that we are at war, nothing is more important than the calculation of a course which will bring us quickly and efficiently to the establishment of enduring peace based on justice.
We have been drawn into war as a part of the British commonwealth. Our war policies, I assume, will therefore be coordinated with those of the commonwealth. To the extent that Canada is left vulnerable the British front will be vulnerable. It is clear that as a first step in a coordinated plan, we shall be expected to place Canada in a reasonable and proper state of defence. At the same time may I point out that any unwise extension of any war effort which would undermine our defence would hamper rather than assist Great Britain. It would be the height of folly to expose the British front to a flanking movement and jeopardize a vital source of essential supplies. We invite defeat if we push forward into a salient which we have not the strength to hold.
This parliament must now decide whether Canadian lives are to be sacrificed on European battlefields. We cannot leave this decision simply to the British high command. We cannot allow this decision to be determined by hysteria or unreasoning emotion; and I submit that, from the standpoint of national or commonwealth strategy, there is no justification for sending any expeditionary force to Europe. It is on considerations of the national interest as I have attempted to

War Appropriation Bill
define it that the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation is opposed to military action overseas.
Canada's war objectives have been stated by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice. The first of these, according to the Prime Minister, are home defence, internal security, defence of British and French possessions in this hemisphere, economic blockade and pressure, and supply of war materials to the allies. In addition he asked blanket approval of an indefinite extension of these war objectives to military participation abroad if and when, after consultation with the British authorities, the government decides such action to be advisable. The Minister of Justice speaks of Canadians in the front line of battle " under the control of Canada, commanded by Canadians and maintained by the Dominion of Canada." We can only interpret this as meaning that the government is paving the way for action on other fronts.
We of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation are not in agreement with such an extension of policy. In our statement we have offered no objections to measures for home defence and economic assistance to the British and French people. We do say that the measure of Canada's direct and vital concern in this straggle does not justify the shedding of Canadian blood on European soil. This is the policy enunciated by the governments of some of our sister dominions. This is the correct policy for Canada. Canadian participation in this war does not compel military participation abroad. On the contrary, we can make our best contribution to the commonwealth and at the same time safeguard the interests and future of the Canadian people by limiting our assistance in the way we have proposed.
It is important that we should clearly define now our position on this aspect of the problem. If we launch any measure of military operations abroad there will ultimately be no limit, regardless of present intentions. We must now face the fact, and face it calmly and frankly, that if we sanction any degree or form of military participation in Europe it will give rise to an increasing demand for more direct military intervention on a much larger scale.
It is possible now to discuss these problems calmly. It may not be possible to discuss them calmly when casualty lists from Europe come home. May I point this out, with no desire to detain the house at undue length? It is idle to brush aside the conscription issue if we plan now for military intervention in Europe. An expeditionary force and the
publication of casualty lists resulting from the operations of such a force mean inevitably that the conscription of man power will come to Canada. I cannot conceive of any wartime administration, having advanced to that stage in the struggle, doing otherwise than was done by Sir Robert Borden in 1917, when he said that, with an expeditionary force of
237,000	men in the field, because of inability to secure the necessary reinforcements, in order to avert national disaster, it was necessary to introduce conscription of man power in Canada.
One or two other important considerations occur to me. Unquestionably, as the straggle advances, the industries of other countries will be devastated. The production of essential materials will be difficult. More and more they will look to Canada and rely on Canada for essential materials. We have after all only eleven million people; and the most careful, deliberate, cool, almost ruthless appraisal must be made of the dangers of diverting any substantial number of men from productive enterprise at this time to combatant service.
I suggest this further, that any attempt under present circumstances to enforce conscription in Canada would virtually immobilize Canada because of the marked degree of disunity which would be created.
I think we should also keep in mind the strength and the geographical position of our country, and now plan for peace rehabilitation and consider the problems with which this small nation will be confronted at the termination of hostilities.
Other speakers have traversed that ground. In order that the point may be clear, that we may have a definite declaration of policy by the government, I move this amendment:
That section 2, subsection 1 (b) be amended to read as follows:
(b) The conduct of naval, military and air operations in or adjacent to Canada.
Some lion. MEMBERS: Question.


Frederick George Sanderson: Shall the amendment carry? Will those in favour please say aye?
Some lion. MEMBERS: Aye.


Frederick George Sanderson: Those opposed will
please say nay.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Nay.


Édouard Lacroix: Mr. Chairman, I had risen-[DOT]


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. The amendment
is lost.


Édouard Lacroix: Mr. Chairman, I request that the vote be recorded.
War Appropriation Bill


Liguori Lacombe: I second the motion of
the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency.


Mr. LACROIX (Quebec-Montmorency):: We are five here who insist that the vote be recorded.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: The hon. member was standing.


Frederick George Sanderson: Order.


Mr. GARIEPY:: Mr. Chairman, this is a matter of fairness. I rise to a point of order. The hon. member for Beauce was standing awaiting his chance to speak before the amendment was put, and you persisted in going on with the proceedings while the hon. member for Beauce claimed the floor. It is most unfair in a matter of this importance that if the hon. member for Beauce has any remarks to make he should be deprived of an opportunity to make them when he rises to do so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend that I do not think the chairman had any intention of unduly pressing a vote at that moment. The chairman was looking at the amendment and did not see the hon. member for Beauce rise at the time. But there is no doubt that the hon. member for Beauce did rise, and I think the chairman has since taken that fact into consideration by being aDout to call the motion again. It would, I am sure, be the wish of the committee to have the motion called again.


Édouard Lacroix: Mr. Chairman, allow me, on this important matter of a war budget, to raise my voice and express my opinion.
War appropriations are being asked for:
(a)	the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada;
(b)	the conduct of naval, military and air operations in or beyond Canada.
On September 8, the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) made in -this house the following statement, reported on page 35 of Hansard.
The question of an expeditionary force or units of service overseas is particularly one of wide-reaching significance which will require the iullest examination. I note that Sir Henry Gullett, Australian minister for external affairs, told the Australian house of representatives on Wednesday that his government had not yet seriously considered dispatching an expeditionary force overseas. He declared that when the commonwealth had discharged its first duty to the empire, which was to ensure its own safety, and when it was better able to assess the strength of its enemies and the nature of the conflict, it would evolve proposals for further participation in the war for submission to the people. That statement indicates the Australian government are making the same general IMr. Lacroix.]
approach to the consideration of this problem as the government of Canada.
I understood from the statement of the right hon. the Prime Minister that Canada would not send overseas volunteer forces financed by this country without first giving the matter serious consideration.
Now, on the morrow of that declaration, we are being asked to include in the war appropriations a sum of $100,000,000 for military, naval and air operations in or beyond Canada, which means overseas.
I do not agree with the right hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) when he says that it would be a dishonourable thing for Canada if our volunteer forces were raised at the expense of England.
No, no, Mr. Chairman, there is nothing dishonourable for Canada in trying to remain solvent during a conflict which is not directly our own war.
We bled our country white from 1914 to 1918. We made lavish expenditures. Canada lost 60,000 human lives. We have nearly
40,000	men crippled for life, to whom we are paying pensions. We are paying yearly for interest $114,000,000 more than in 1914 and the pensions to veterans of the great war are costing us $40,774,880.80 a year.
From 1930 to the present day, our country has not been able to collect from the ratepayers enough taxes to meet her obligations. Our working class is living in slavery. Our farmers have abandoned and are still abandoning their lands through the lack of the necessary income or credit.
I have always been willing to vote and I have always voted in favour of the military appropriations required for the defence of the country. But when I am asked to vote this appropriation to maintain an army outside the country, I say that we cannot afford it, while England can very well afford it if she wishes. And if we have volunteers ready to go to help her she should refund to Canada the expenditure involved.
England has financial facilities and financial experts which a young country has not. Only recently, she bought on the Canadian market nearly 100.000,000 bushels of wheat at about 55 cents a bushel, knowing very well that two years ago we had guaranteed to our farmers 70 and 80 cents a bushel. There would be no dishonour in England's using these 25 millions of dollars towards refunding to Canada the expense of supplying her with volunteers, and there would be no dishonour in Canada accepting it. I should feel no embarrassment nor shame if England used these 25 million dollars for that purpose.

War Appropriation Bill
Moreover, should we maintain one or two army corps of volunteers in England and then find ourselves short of men to keep them up to strength, would we not soon be on the way to compulsory service?
Another compelling reason for not embarking upon a war overseas lies in our geographical situation. More than ever is it time for this country to endeavour to remain Canada. The French Canadian particularly, who holds fast to his religion, his language and his schools, should give serious thought to the matter at this juncture. Our forefathers fought to preserve their liberties in that regard.
What would become of a Canada fallen into complete bankruptcy? The debtor belongs to his creditor; he falls under the latter's thumb when he is no longer able to finance himself. Is there not danger of us falling under the dependency of the United States, our principal creditor, in the event of our becoming bankrupt?
In order to remain what we are we shall have to look to our finances and to our outside expenditures. We went to extremes from 1914 to 1918 in giving unto the last man and the last dollar.
For these reasons I feel in duty bound to vote for the amendment which has just been moved.


Mr. CRETE (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted, at this stage of the discussion, to express a personal opinion. It is useless to underline once again the importance of this special session, since this is only the second war session in the whole history of Canadian confederation. It is most unfortunate and regrettable, however, that this second war session, necessary as it may be, should take place hardly a quarter of a century after the first, that is, a period ranging from the birth of our sons to their attainment of young manhood.
I do not harbour the slightest doubt, nor have I any grounds to do so, respecting the good faith and the sincerity which all the representatives of the Canadian people, gathered here, have shown with regard to the means that would best ensure the security and survival of Canada and her people. It is undoubtedly due to the different mentality of the various groups of people in this country, that the proposals advanced with respect to participation do not all harmonize, and that, in certain cases, they would almost seem to be contradictory.
I shall not attempt to analyse our position from the international standpoint, nor to justify our neutrality or non-neutrality. Notwithstanding the assistance of the world map which I have studied from every angle during
the last two days, I have as yet been unable completely to understand a single one of the important speeches made in this house since the opening of the session.
Apparently, if I am to believe the oft repeated statements of our leaders, parliament has not the competency to discuss, and much less to declare Canada's neutrality; with this in mind, I wonder through what miracle the Canadian parliament finds itself in a position to formulate, on its own authority, a declaration of war against Germany.
Neither shall I waste the house's time in discussing the conscription of manpower, since all parties and groups are agreed on this matter and have assured the Canadian people that such conscription would not be established, save for the relatively unimportant group of social credit members opposite us, who probably wished thereby to throw into complete confusion their already few supporters in Quebec.
There is, however, the very important question of Canada's participation in empire wars concerning which I would like to express my frank opinion.
Having no desire to make political capital out of this, I shall speak simply and frankly, avoiding the husting's manner which is out of place when the survival of a nation is at stake.
We have heard a great deal, during the last few days, about different kinds of participation, and I hasten to state my own point of view. I can see no objection to Canada's supplying England with everything she needs for the provisioning of her troops, and I am sincerely convinced that this would be our most effective form of cooperation. Nor do I see any objection to the voluntary enlistment in the English army of any Canadian who so desires, provided England bear the cost of such.
But, were Canada to repeat the experience of 1914-18, I could not approve of such action, and I would add that I could not believe any more in the friendship of England for Canada, were England to demand that our country ruin itself, in capital and in man power, by a contribution similar to that of the last war, that is a contribution both unreasonable and out of proportion with its resources.
Consequently I will oppose any appropriations for the purpose of equipping a contingent, even of volunteers, for overseas service.
Mr. Chairman, true to my deepest convictions and to my conscience, before the country which is mine and which I love, of my province, my constituency and my family, I reiterate to-day the stand I have already taken

War Appropriation Bill

on the question of participation, and I am sincerely convinced that that stand only will guarantee to our children that they never will be drawn into military service on foreign soil.
Let me conclude by formulating the wish that the same God, to whom our king was praying on the morning of the declaration of war, will soon dispel the hatred between nations, stop the roaring of cann'on and the rattling of machine-guns which are mowing human lives like ours and killing adolescents like our sons.


Mr. LALONDE (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, may I be permitted a word with respect to the amendment moved by our hon. friends on the other side of the house. I believe it my duty, in view of the events which have recently taken place in this house, to make clear my attitude on the government's policy respecting Canada's participation in this European war. That much I owe to my constituents and to my conscience. I have repeatedly declared that I stood opposed in principle, in common, I believe, with the majority of the members of this house, to the idea of squandering our country's resources and the life-blood of our sons in any external war where, note well, Canada's interests were not at stake. A Montreal newspaper went so far as to quote me to the effect that I was opposed to any participation whatever in empire wars, and that f would vote against my party should such a policy be put forward in this house. That is not quite correct.
It is now high time that I should clearly define the policy I intend to follow and on behalf of which I shall fight unremittingly. I wish it understood that I am opposed to the conscription of Canadian man power and wealth for participation in any external empire war where this country's interests are not at stake. And our participation must be proportionate to our means and our interest in the conflict. That is the sole meaning and extent of the statements I have made in and outside this house.
Last Saturday evening, there was moved an amendment to the address in reply to the speech from the throne, which amendment simply amounted to a declaration of complete neutrality, a matter which had been decided upon negatively a few sessions ago when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) had moved the adoption of a resolution of neutrality. I need not add that in view of the basic significance of such a motion, I would have voted against the amendment.
I desire it to be clearly recorded that I deeply hate war and that my sole wish was that our beloved country might be able to
*Mr. Crete.]
keep out of this world conflict between the supporters of pagan barbarism and the heroic defenders of the Christian democracies. Alas, Mr. Chairman, in view of her constitutional position, in view of her political situation and of the impossibility for her to proclaim and enforce complete neutrality, Canada finds herself to-day engaged in a disastrous world war that is bound to shake the foundations of modern civilization. I listened with a great deal of sympathy to the speech made by the right hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), in which he set forth the practical results of Canadian neutrality. Once again, sir, even though I would greatly desire to see our country remain neutral in this conflict, I am forced to agree with my hon friend from Argenteuil (Mr. Heon), that our constitutional status does not permit it. The deficiencies and insufficiencies of the statute of Westminster, the racial sympathies of the majority of our citizens, the economic ties which bind us to the British commonwealth are as many reasons, as many paths leading us directly and unfortunately into this world conflict, with the sole result, as the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Lacroix) stated recently that the burden of our national debt will be increased, that the lives of a great many enlisted men will be sacrificed and that we shall have to recognize that our beloved country does not enjoy the absolute freedom of completely autonomous nations.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, even though it be trumpeted from the house tops that Westminster has granted us complete independence, I will not believe it. Such nations only as possess the attributes of complete autonomy have a right to proclaim their neutrality and to enforce it. I respectfully submit, as a corollary, that this does not apply with regard to a declaration of war, as was suggested by my excellent friend the member for St-Mau-rice-Lafleche (Mr. Crete), and I doubt that the adoption of the address in reply to the speech from the throne can be legally considered to have the effect of a formal declaration of war on the German Reich As a consequence of the splendid work accomplished by the leading advocates of the statute of Westminster, I admit that we have obtained noteworthy concessions, such as the right to adopt extraterritorial legislation, to abolish appeals to the Privy Council, and such as the repeal of the Colonial Laws Validity Act. This means a great step forward, but the ties previously referred to still remain, over and above our inability, which we must perforce recognize, to amend our constitution without first

War Appropriation Bill
obtaining permission from London and our obligation to refer our legislation to the governor general for assent.
Adoption of an absolute neutrality measure in Canada might lead to a serious constitutional crisis should such a step prove contrary to British interests to which we are still bound. I cannot do better than quote the words uttered in this house, on March 31, 1939, by the right hon. the Minister of Justice:
The Statute of Westminster never purported to dissolve the bonds between nations of the commonwealth. Indeed it was intended' to strengthen and maintain that bond, which is the principle of unity.
I would add to this testimony that of Professor Keith.
Though the governor general has ceased to be an agent of the imperial government, his position is still not that of the mere figurehead of a dominion government. The constitutions grant to him the office of reserving bills, and the right to give instructions as to reservation is vested in the king advised by the imperial government, and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom did not fail to intimate immediately after the conference that this power was not surrendered nor, as we have seen, did the conference arrive at any conclusion as to its abolition. It is obvious, moreover, that apart from royal instructions the representative of the crown would be bound on his own authority to oppose resistance to any legislative measure contrary to his duty of allegiance and fidelity to his oath of office and his position as representative of the crown. Hence General Smuts' dictum still applies; it would be impossible for the governor general to assent to any bill which purported to destroy British sovereignty over the Union.
Moreover, it must be pointed out that the choice of the governor general does not rest, as is claimed in the Irish Free State, with the dominion government. The position is defined in article 3 of the treaty of 1921 by which "the representative of the crown in Ireland shall be appointed in like manner as the Governor General of Canada and in accordance with the practice observed in the making of such appointments." This means, as Mr. Lloyd George explained on December 13, 1921, '"that the government of the Irish Free State will be consulted so as to ensure a selection acceptable to the Irish government before any recommendation is made to His Majesty." Unquestionably, this _ principle is observed as regards all the dominions, but the recommendation is that of the imperial government, with which the right to secure appointment, subject to the king's personal approval of his 'representative necessarily lies.
Then, this question is asked by Professor Keith:
Is the right of neutrality possible under the constitution of the empire? The only answer is that the preponderant weight of empire opinion denies the right of neutrality. It would insist on the tie of common allegiance to the crown and the voluntary association in the
British commonwealth, together with the agreement to exchange information on foreign affairs, as negativing the right to remain neutral.
Would a declaration of neutrality entitle the Union of South Africa to neutral rights at the hands of other powers? To this question there is available a very definite answer. The rights of neutrality can be claimed only by a power which is able and willing to perform the duties of a neutral.
To these legal arguments must be added racial considerations which we must not underestimate. I have heard and approved the English-speaking members of the house who, in the course of the debate, made an appeal to Canadian unity. I hope that such sincere dispositions will manifest themselves in the future in every field of national life where cooperation between the two races is essential to the progress and prosperity of Canada and that certain Jingo elements of our population will act accordingly when the occasion arises. If French Canadians must not ignore that their compatriots of English origin have jealously kept a deep-rooted love for the mother country and that we must not blame them for the apprehension which they feel when Great Britain is threatened, likewise Jingoes and ultra-imperialists have no right to question the loyalty of the French Canadians to the British crown because they are not moved by the same reasons as their compatriots of English origin to fly to the assistance of England. Canadian history is more eloquent than I can be to refute the quibbles of the demagogues who have insulted the men of my race by calling them "slackers," those men who, on two different occasions, have saved for the British crown, at the price of their blood, the Canadian territory which to-day we are called upon to defend; those men who have crossed the sea in 1914 to offer their lives for the democratic ideology. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that, were my compatriots freely and voluntarily to decide to fight against brutal German supremacy, they will be true, on the battlefields of Europe, to the noble traditions of gallantry which brighten the pages of their history.
Moreover, the economic ties which so closely bind Canada to the commonwealth have had their influence in making Canada greatly dependent upon England.
Our trade with the British commonwealth amounts to nearly 50 per cent of our total trade. I cannot believe that those economic interests are not for something in the relative dependency from which we are suffering to-day.
Such are, frankly expressed, the reasons why we cannot seriously claim that our country enjoys complete sovereignty in the British commonwealth. Because of that and because we must submit to an existing fact, we must
War Appropriation Bill

admit that it is constitutionally and economically impossible for Canada to proclaim its absolute neutrality and that our country is necessarily drawn into the catastrophic whirlwind which threatens the very life of Europe.
We then have to decide the form and the scope of Canada's participation in the European war.
I felt greatly relieved when I heard the statements of principle enunciated by the right hon. the Prime Minister on September 8 last. They can be reduced to four main points: 1. The defence of our territory:
The primary task and responsibility of the people of Canada is the defence and security of Canada.
2.	Economic cooperation:
We propose to cooperate in economic pressure.
3.	The solemn engagement not to propose nor enact a compulsory military service act and
4.	Not to send any contingents beyond the seas without having obtained the prior approval of the people of Canada.
We have before us a motion to amend paragraph (b), I believe, of section 2. When the address in reply to the speech from the throne was carried, the house approved the principle of Canada's participation to the extent of cooperating with England in the war which has just been unleashed on the world.
May I now ask, Mr. Chairman, how it would be possible for us to maintain to-day the opposite of what we admitted previously. I now come to the sending overseas of an expeditionary force. I am going to express my personal opinion. The right hon. the Prime Minister said: What I want is the free expression of a free parliament. I fear-and I do not hesitate to say so-that the dispatching of contingents of volunteers is but the prelude of a compromise which later will bring about a union government from which military conscription will ensue. In the present occurrence should we not choose the lesser evil?
Mr. Chairman, I find in the definite statement of the right hon. the Minister of Justice sufficient evidence that we are not going to have in Canada, military conscription to which I am irrevocably opposed. Knowing as we do how unsparingly he and his colleagues from the province of Quebec have laboured towards the acceptance of the FrenchdUanadian view as regards military cooperation, I think we can pause for a moment to say that military conscription shall never be approved and adopted by the present Liberal government. On the other hand, this sending of forces overseas, even on a voluntary basis, is causing me, despite

everything, a great deal of apprehension. I
cannot help suspecting, as my hon. friend for Portneuf (M.r. Gauthier) said, that "the force of circumstances will perhaps be stronger than -the will of men," and that, in view of the facts, notwithstanding the integrity and honesty of purpose of the hon. ministers who have promised that no such thing would be done, Canada may to-morrow be forced to accept such a course under a union government. We should accordingly strive to prevent the formation of a union government in Canada. We would then have conscription within six months.
Mr. Chairman, for that sole reason, I cannot concur in the amendment which has just been moved by the hon. member for Vancouver-North (Mr. MacNeil). I am in sympathy with the principle he is laying down, but I wonder what would happen to-morrow if we were to oppose the present government for the benefit of a union government.
What would happen to-morrow should we fight the present government? We would be faced with the necessity of setting up a union government. The lesson learned during the last war is more eloquent than anything I can say. I believe the people of Canada feel that the present government should be maintained instead of setting up a union government. This is my own opinion, and I want every hon. member to understand that. What happened during the last great war? At that time we saw the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) fighting with Sir Wilfrid Laurier against conscription. The same thing will happen if we fight them to-day, and I do not want that. My people do not want that and the province of Quebec does not want that. We want unity on the part of every citizen and every member of this house. We want united support for the present government so that we shall not be blamed for unsound and unfair policies so far as our cooperation or participation in this war is concerned. This is the reason why I cannot stand behind the hon. member who moved this amendment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a word to bring home to all hon. members the significance of the amendment which has been proposed. The government is asking that the house should make an appropriation of 8100,000,000 to be used, among other things, for the conduct of naval, military and air operations in or beyond Canada. The amendment would substitute for the words "or beyond Canada" the words "or adjacent to Canada," so that the clause would read:
(b) the conduct of naval, military and air operations in or adjacent to Canada.

War Appropriation Bill
The first question I wish to ask is this: What precisely is meant by "adjacent to" Canada? By "adjacent to" Canada, do we mean confined to our own shores? If that is to be the interpretation, what is to become of the view that is taken by those who are best able to speak of what even in its narrowest application is essential to the defence of Canada itself, namely the necessity of our naval and air forces cooperating with other forces, in the defence of Newfoundland and of St. Pierre and Miquelon, those islands which are beyond our coast? The amendment, as I see it, would certainly leave in doubt whether we would be permitted to use our naval and air forces in cooperation with the British or French naval and air forces in the protection of Newfoundland and St. Pierre and Miquelon. Their protection is essential to our protection. Once an enemy is permitted to take possession of Newfoundland or the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, and use those islands as a base for their operations, what real security is left for our Canadian Atlantic coast? And yet this amendment, as I read it, unless it be given a much broader interpretation than was given by some who have already spoken, would make it absolutely impossible for us to use our naval and air forces in that way for the defence of our own Canadian coast. I venture to say that if the committee realizes such to be the case, it will not think of amending this section in that particular way.
May I add another word? I am afraid that many hon. members to-day, and very naturally, have still vividly in their minds the last war, and do not realize sufficiently the changes that have come about with respect to both the methods and the objectives of war in the course of years. There is no comparison between what may or may not have been the wise thing to do in 1914 and what may or may not be the wise thing to do in 1939. The whole strategy of war and the implements of war have changed in the interval. I imagine that some hon. members, who may be supporting the proposed amendment, have mostly in mind only the one question of an expeditionary force overseas. Assume that the question of an expeditionary force were not being considered at the moment at all; the amendment as proposed would rule out any kind of effective cooperation between the British and French navies and our naval and air forces for the defence of Canada itself. I do not think any hon. member of this house would wish for one moment to have the government's power to defend our own country limited in that way. I have given one illustration only as respects the Atlantic. Many others might be given, and in relation to the Pacific coast as well.
May I point out that the government has stated its policy in the speech from the throne which has already been adopted, and in the course of the debate on the address I gave in more specific detail essential features of that policy. I made quite clear the scope in part of cooperative measures we propose to institute immediately. My statement was. in part as follows:
There are certain measures of economic,, naval and air cooperation which are obviously necessary and desirable and which it is possible to undertake without delay. The information we have obtained indicates that the most immediate and effective further means of cooperation would be a rapid expansion of air training, and of air and naval facilities, and the dispatch of trained air personnel. These measures we propose to institute immediately.
This amendment would deny the government the right of going the length it has already stated it intends to go and, may I add, which this House of Commons by the adoption of the address has give it the authority to go. The address has been adopted; this house has approved the government's policy as specifically set forth. Surely at this stage of our proceedings we should not unduly delay matters by an attempted refusal to give the government all the authority its policy demands.
One word in conclusion. I sympathize with those who feel certain that measures should be debated at this stage. I go back, however, to what I said at the beginning of this afternoon's session of this house. Men are dying by thousands, yes, by hundreds of thousands, on the field of battle in Europe now. The struggle is rapidly extending to parts of Europe other than Poland. There have already been attacks upon France and attacks upon Britain, and there have been attacks upon the high seas. It is not disclosing a fact that is not pretty generally known when I say that enemy submarines are believed to be scattered over not only the Atlantic ocean but also the Pacific. Where enemy warplanes may be a few days from now, or to-night, none of us knows. The way to meet an aeroplane or a submarine attack is not to wait until the enemy reaches your shores but to go out and meet him and try to prevent him from ever reaching your shores. I hope that for the balance of the session members of the house will not fail constantly to realize that the government has a tremendous responsibility in getting on with very pressing matters. We are asking the house to enable us to do our part in cooperating as effectively as we possibly can cooperate, and to that end we must have the opportunity to act and cooperate expeditiously. Accordingly I would ask the house,
no
War Appropriation Bill

with regard to further amendments to any measures, to be if possible prepared to vote on them at once, and not take up unnecessary time in discussion, when Canada is, as she now is, at war with Germany.
Amendment negatived: yeas, 16; nays, 151.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
On section 6-Loans authorized.
Major James William Coldwell: 
Mr. DONNELLY:: How does the hon. member know that the board has not made it?


Major James William Coldwell: The hon. gentleman
interrupted me. I know because, according to press reports, the board stated early in August that the carry-over of wheat had passed out of its hands and it was waiting for the new crop.


James J. Donnelly: The hon. member knows that the board has options.


Major James William Coldwell: I do not know anything about the buying of options, but if I remember aright, the party to which the hon. gentleman belongs criticized the former wheat board under Mr. McEarland for having anything to do with the option market; consequently I am concluding ihat the Liberal party would not tolerate the buying of options.
I am pointing that out. I also point out that if we pick up our daily newspapers we find that stocks and shares of industries which are connected with the war have risen very rapidly during the past several weeks; fortunes have already been made. It seems to me that if we are going to finance this war we ought to finance it as far as possible out of current revenue. As it was put by one of my hon. friends to my left, we should adopt a pay-as-you-go policy. On behalf of the group with which I am associated I suggest that in the initial stages of this great conflict we should as far as possible lay down the rule that we are not going to burden future generations with the cost of this war which, after all, has been brought about by the policies of the generation to which we belong.
I say, further, that we could repeal the legislation which gave in effect a rebate of income tax to organizations which made certain extensions and replacements in their industries this year. Maybe this will be done before parliament prorogues. We could yet further increase taxation on higher incomes, and we could begin to tax excess profits. Already, as has been pointed out in this chamber, the cost of commodities has risen, in my opinion without warrant and without justice. I appeal to the government this afternoon not to institute a policy of war loan and load this country again with a burden which, if it increases, will inevitably bring about a total economic and social collapse in Canada within a measurable period of time. We should not authorize the government at the very first stage of this great conflict to borrow $100,000,000. We have in the national bank an instrument which can relieve our present necessity. I listened to the governor of the bank telling the committee that the coverage we had of gold, securities and so on was sufficient to enable us, if we

War Appropriation Bill
wished, largely to increase the amount of money we could issue and recover it by new taxation. I am no believer in printing press money. But I point out that where you have a necessity and where you have the coverage you can, if you will, avoid the making of loans at high rates of interest. As an hon. member pointed out this afternoon, an attempt will be made, in view of the world outlook, to increase the interest rates, which have been low.
In summing up what I wanted to say, I suggest that we should relieve our necessity at the moment by the use of the instrument which this parliament created, namely the Bank of Canada. Then ways and means should be devised to finance this 8100,000,000. I believe it could be wholly financed out of a capital gains tax and an excess profits tax and we wmuld still have the income tax in the higher brackets to assist us in the future. I urge, then, these policies upon the government instead of the policy laid down in this clause, which in my opinion sets our feet upon the path of economic and social ruin in the future.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
On section 6-loans authorized.


Mir. DUBOIS (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, for the last three years I have opposed any increase in the militia estimates, foreseeing as I did what is happening to-day. I have never realized more fully than I do to-day the responsibility of the mandate which my electors entrusted to me in 1935. I have no bitterness towards anyone, I am moved by no spirit of hatred; I am guided by duty -alone in this fateful hour. Sitting in a free parliament, in a free country, I wish to say freely to this house that I cannot support this bill so long as the words "or beyond" have not been deleted from section 2, subsection 1, paragraph 3.


Mr. GAUTHIER (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, I have no desire needlessly to prolong this debate, but I owe to myself and to my constituents a word of explanation on the vote which I gave this afternoon. Having enjoyed the privileges of a democratic country and a democratic parliament and also making use of the privileges of a Liberal member of that parliament, I wish to state that, in voting a single cent for an overseas expeditionary force, I would do an injustice to myself and my personal convictions as well as to my constituents, and I would be false
to them after the battles that I fought in the county of Portneuf at the side of men who have left in this chamber the reputation of good fighters, good Liberals, men of strong and lasting convictions, for instance Hon. Lucien Cannon who, in 1935, was elected member for Portneuf and who, during the campaign, when I was fighting at his side, stated on all the platforms of the county that he would not vote a cent for an overseas expeditionary force, and I supported that statement. Consequently, I would do an injustice to my constituents and, moreover,
I would be adopting an attitude quite contrary to the stand I have taken in the House of Commons ever since. In 1937, I stated in this chamber, in a speech on the military votes, that I was opposed to the enlistment of men for external wars and I am still of the same opinion. At that time
I	expressed my fear of the possibility of the appropriations then voted being used for the dispatch of an expeditionary force, knowing that if a single man-be he cavalryman or airman-paid by Canada went overseas to serve in this war, the vote I would have given in favour of the appropriation used to send that man overseas would have been a vote against my convictions and contrary to the principle for which I have stood ever since I became a member of the House of Commons. I feared then, as I fear now, that the moment we begin participating, even on a voluntary basis, we will have one foot in the saddle and, sooner or later, would be galloping off on a participation less voluntary than it appeared.
In 1914 I was of military age. I remember friends of mine who went to bed free men and woke up the next morning to find themselves enlisted. Service was voluntary at that time. I also remember friends of mine who enlisted of their own free will. I did all I could to remain in Canada. I advised those who would listen to me to remain in Canada for the defence of Canada and Canada alone. This advice I still give and will continue to give. My views will never change. I will continue to advise my fellow-citizens not to enlist for service in a foreign war. Here, Mr. Chairman, we have an immense country with a population of only
II	million. The immensity of our country compels us to keep our people here to defend it. We should not increase our already enormous debt by excessive participation in this war.
May I say, Mr. Chairman, that if we are now giving utterance to opinions which are not shared by the majority of the members
War Appropriation Bill

of the house, we are entitled, without causing scandal, to make use of the privileges which we enjoy as representatives of the people. It is our right to make use of the privileges belonging to a democratic parliament in a democracy. That is what we are doing. And I do so, Mr. Chairman, not, as has been stated, to draw forth applause nor to obtain ephemeral political success, but by conviction and because I do not wish to change my views, believing that I should devote all my strength to the defence of my country alone which, whatever may be thought, I wish to keep under the British crown. I share the opinion of my friend the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Lacroix) who this afternoon presented an irrefutable argument to prove our desire to maintain the Dominion of Canada under the British crown and in the free association of the British commonwealth of nations.


Mr. CHURCH:: I fail to see that the last speaker was in order in reference to this section.
In 1937-38 the governor in council was given power, and he had power long before that to raise money. A great deal of this money was not spent. I am supporting every clause of the bill; I do not object to the bill, but I should be glad if the Minister of National Defence to-day or to-morrow would clarify this way of spending $100,000,000, because it was criticized in the late war as a blank cheque. We want to get value for our money, and I should like to have some clarification of the policy of the government with regard to unexpended money. Last session $63,000,000 was voted for the Department of National Defence, but owing to the length of the session very few orders have been placed. Now is the time to act; there has been altogether too much metaphysical language used since we met last Thursday. It should be made clear what these orders in council under section 6 relate to and what sums remain unspent or unborrowed and on what program and policy. Not a day should be lost in connection with the provision of man power, food, clothing and munitions. It is going to take a long time, one year or two, to get the money spent, to get orders for munitions delivered, and to equip recruits, because man power is the most important thing of all, and get them trained and equipped. There has been a great deal of complaint that with the money provided last session and some under orders in council, when the men went to the camps equipment- boots, clothing, rifles and so on-was lacking.
I do not wish to delay the passage of this bill, but either in connection with this section or on third reading I hope that, instead of all this metaphysical language that has been 
used here during the last three days, the government will let the house and the country know exactly what they propose to do. I think everyone in the country wants, in such a world crisis, to give the government the maximum of help with the very minimum of criticism. So I hope that to-morrow or the next day the government will take some definite stand in order to help voluntary recruiting. Some of these unemployed youths, who have had very little help from parliament, nevertheless are extremely anxious to help the government and enlist, so I hope we shall have a clarification of all the talk that has gone on during the last three or four days.


Mr. LANDERYOU:: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to delay the government during this session, but I desire to take this opportunity of once more protesting against this method of raising funds for government purposes. If we can borrow money on the credit of the nation, for the life of me I do not see why we cannot issue money on the same credit. It is the same basis. Why must we continue to borrow money rather than issue it? I have never had any statement from the minister in charge of the financial affairs of this nation as to just why we as a nation cannot issue money upon credit instead of borrowing it upon credit. I hope that in the expenditures that will be made in the years to come, if this war continues for any length of time, the government will give due consideration to the propositions we have advanced during the years we have been members of this house.


Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata) (Translation):: Mr, Chairman, the hon. member who has just spoken must not expect that we are going to refute for the thousandth time the argument put forth by his group to the effect that soldiers should be paid in worthless paper. If soldiers enlist, they deserve to be paid with currency that will enable them to purchase the things they need and to help their families. It is quite ridiculous for social credit members to propound once more before the house their groundless theories purporting to pay the soldiers with worthless paper.
I wish, first of all, to extend my congratulations to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Usley) who during several months has acquitted himself of a double task without neglecting the business of his own department. He was in charge of Department of Finance and he had given proof of his business experience and good judgment. When only a private member, he had shown himself quite helpful to me on several occasions and I have always valued his keen knowledge of public affairs and to him I wish to extend my best wishes.

War Appropriation Bill
The question we are to deal with is the most important I have been called upon to consider in the fifteen years during which I have had the honour of representing Temis-couata county in this house. Sentiment, here in parliament, cannot serve as a basis for discussion. We must listen to the voice of reason alone. Particularly at critical junctures we must be calm in our appreciation of every question. Certain facts pertaining to international law and domestic constitutional law must be clearly brought out so that all may understand the present status of this colony which we are agreed to call the Dominion of Canada. In previous debates, certain speakers have stated that freedom of speech constituted one of the benefits of our system. They have mentioned the names of two of my colleagues, whom I congratulate, for it has not always been my privilege to express so freely my opinion in this house, even though I remained at the time within the limits of parliamentary rules and though the terms I used were not contrary to parliamentary custom.
While duly appreciating the efforts made by certain statesmen in favour of peace, we cannot fail to observe, now more than ever before, the futility of the labours of the League of Nations on every continent: the Gran Chaco in South America, Abyssinia in Africa, China in Asia and Czecho-Slovakia in Europe. I do not wish to belittle the sincerity of these statesmen who put their faith in the League of Nations, but as Lord Baldwin admitted, in the last public speech he made at the time of the coronation of His Gracious Majesty, King George VI, the League of Nations has been of little use, and Mr. Chamberlain, moreover, repeated the same thing last year with greater emphasis. There has been much talk about "status" in Canada. It has been said that the British Empire is made up of free nations, possessing equal rights, which is false. In the course of another debate, a prominent speaker stated that no one in our province of Quebec- and he insisted on the word-journalists, members of parliament and others, had solved or even attempted to solve the insurmountable, I almost said insoluble, legal difficulties offered by our constitution and the neutrality of our country. To speak of the member for Temiscouata is repugnant to me, Mr. Chairman, but I may remind hon. members that two years ago, in the columns of the greatest French newspaper in America, La Presse of Montreal, he who now speaks to you showed, in words which were crystal clear and lucid as the mid-day sun, that Canada was not a sovereign country. I regret that on this point of law I do not share the view of my
leader the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) who spoke the other day of a "full nation." "Full" was translated in Hansard by "veritable."
I defy anyone to find in any dictionary the French word "veritable" as a translation of the English word "full." We are a "veritable nation" in the sense that we are an agglomeration of individuals in a territory having certain boundaries, but Canada is not a sovereign nation, and that, because of our constitution. There is not a single member of the house, I suppose, who has not read over and over again the British North America Act, particularly sections 53, 54, 55, 56 and 57, concerning the disallowance of laws passed by this parliament. In the first place, His Excellency the Governor General of Canada, according to one of these sections, may refuse to give them his sanction and submit them to the British government; and even if, in accordance with the terms of section 56, His Excellency the Governor General of Canada, in his capacity of official representative of His Majesty the King of Canada, gives the royal sanction to a law enacted by both houses of the Canadian parliament, His Majesty the King of Great Britain in council may disallow that law in the space of two years. That means that the King of Great Britain, assisted by his council, has two years in which to disallow any law, even if that law has received the sanction of the official representative of His Majesty the King of Canada.
To avoid any misunderstanding, Mr. Chairman, let me quote section 56 of the British North America Act, which everybody knows by heart:
Where the governor general assents to a bill in the queen's name, he shall by the first convenient opportunity send an authentic copy of the act to one of Her Majesty's principal secretaries of state, and if the queen in council within two years after receipt thereof by the Secretary of State thinks fit to disallow the act, such disallowance (with a certificate of the Secretary of State of the day on which the act was received by him) -
And that means the Secretary of State at Westminster, not at Ottawa-
-being signified by the governor general, by speech or message to each of the houses of the parliament or by proclamation, shall annul the act from and after the day of such signification.
This is exactly what I was just saying. How, then, can we claim to be a sovereign nation if our king, not as king of Canada but as king of Great Britain, assisted by the British cabinet at Westminster, may disallow any law enacted by this parliament?
Consequently, Canada may be a nation geographically, but juridically it is evident that Canada is not a sovereign nation. And for that reason I am of the opinion that the
War Appropriation Bill

Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) was perfectly right in stating that Canada cannot be a neutral in the present war. I am in agreement with him when he says that there is no such thing as partial or mitigated neutrality. A great deal of fuss has been made about proclaiming the neutrality of Canada, but those who will take the trouble to read the British North America Act, particularly the sections concerning disallowance, will fully realize that Canada is not an independent country, that Canada is not a sovereign country and that, even if we have made progress in the constitutional field, it is progress in words only and, as a matter of fact, absolutely devoid of juridical meaning. Canada is a colony and has made no progress in the last hundred years.
Mr. Chairman, Canada, being a British country, was at war the moment England was at war, for the good reason that Canada was considered a British dominion, and that only sovereign nations may proclaim their neutrality in time of war. Consequently, Canada's declaration of war simply amounted to an official confirmation of a fact already established and a consequence of what we see in the British North America Act, and also in the field of external trade, since our trade commissioners are under the authority of the English consul or diplomat in every country in the world where Canada has no minister of her own.
Furthermore, it is with Sir Thomas Inskip, who recently entered the House of Lords, that our high commissioner in London, Mr. Massey, had to communicate to get acquainted with the details of the negotiations taking place between the British government and the other powers. Mr. Massey has no direct contact with the French and German embassies in London, and any news he receives originates either from the Foreign Office or the members of the British cabinet.
Let us nurse no illusions, Mr. Chairman, and at such a critical moment as this, let us carefully measure our words. That is why I am in complete agreement with the Minister of Justice when he declares that this country could not remain neutral in the present war because our neutrality ended at the very moment England forwarded her ultimatum to the German Reichfuehrer.
Such being the case, let no one henceforth repeat that Canada is a nation, let there be no further hints to the effect that Canada is a free and sovereign nation. The whole truth must be told, and it must be admitted that Canada's status has not been raised since the days when she was a colony, save that her trade has expanded and that we are

represented by more or less efficient ministers -except in France and Belgium-in several countries of the world.
I am very proud, Mr. Chairman, of coming from that part of the province of Quebec of which the Minister of Justice is himself a native. He knows that I have the greatest respect for him and that I also greatly respect the leader of the Liberal party, the Prime Minister and their colleagues. I am in close contact with the labouring and agricultural classes of the province of Quebec,-at least as regards my constituency, and I might even add outside that. Moreover, anyone who converses daily with workmen and farmers, attentively listening to them in order fully to understand their problems, finally obtains what might be termed a composite picture of the opinions of both those classes.
And you know, Mr. Chairman, that Canada is not to be judged by the Ottawa atmosphere. No place lends itself better to meditation than the countryside. I had the very great privilege to deliver speeches in many cities and towns of the province of Ontario, from Windsor to Ottawa, especially while campaigning in 1932, 1933, 1934 and 1935 on behalf of my friend the Hon. Mitchell Hepburn, Premier of Ontario. There is perhaps not one member representing a rural constituency in the province of Quebec who had the opportunity of meeting as many farmers and working men from the good province of Ontario. In Windsor, Chatham, London, Toronto, and Ottawa, at Casselman, Finch and Rockland and many other rural localities, I noticed that no one looks so much like the good farmers of the province of Quebec, as the Scotch Presbyterian farmers of Ontario. I was able to make many friends among those farmers. I took pleasure in discussing with them and they reminded me of the electors of my county. Their problems were identical.
Mr. Chairman, you will be surprised, I believe, in hearing the text of a resolution carried unanimously by the municipal council of the parish of Saint-Hubert, in the county of Temiscouata. That parish lies at a distance of nine miles from the station of Saint-Honore on the Temiscouata Railway, and twenty miles south of the St. Lawrence river. The resolution which was sent to me speaks for itself, but I especially wish to call your attention to its wording, which shows that the French Canadians from the province of Quebec are considering tne situation with all the seriousness it calls for and that they are offering suggestions which every one can put to good use, from the leaders of the House of Commons to the humble member that I am.

War Appropriation Bill
Province of Quebec.
Municipality of Saint Hubert.
At its meeting of September, 1939, the municipal council of Saint Hubert adopted the following resolution:
Moved by councillor Charles Theriault,
Seconded by councillor Alphonse Chouinard;
Whereas England is at war against Germany for a just cause;
Whereas the Canadian parliament has been summoned for a special session in order to determine the attitude of Canada in the present conflict;
Whereas our member in the said parliament, Mr. J. F. Pouliot, would probably like to have the opinion of his electors made clear to him so as to be able to express it in the house during the present session;
To this end, it was unanimously resolved that the parish of Saint Hubert, through its municipal council, convey to him its views on the present conflict;
1.	Canada must first provide for the defence of her territory, and this in the most efficient manner possible.
2.	Canada can best help England by supplying her, out of Canadian resources with products of every kind.
3.	Canada is not in a position, on account of her debt, to send expeditionary forces, the necessity of which, besides, is not obvious.
4.	Conscription would be disastrous for the country and, in the end, more harmful than useful to England. Therefore, we hope you will endorse our views and that you will uphold them in the house as you have always furthered the interests of the Canadian people.
Carried unanimously.
(Signed) Geo. April,
Sec. Treas.
Countersigned by
Freddy Masse, mayor.
That is the opinion of the farmers of Saint Hubert. Were my colleagues from the province of Quebec to forward that resolution to every municipal council in their counties, I am sure it would be carried unanimously in the great majority of cases.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I have one more thing to say, and it is that my English-speaking fellow-citizens imagine that the province of Quebec is opposed to conscription because the French Canadians are afraid to fight, and they feel contempt for those they deem to be cowards. That is a grave error. If French Canadians are opposed to conscription it is because, in most cases, their families have been living in Canada for two or three hundred years and that they are Canadian to the core. Their fatherland is, first of all, the place where they live surrounded by beautiful scenery, the place where their parents have lived, and where their sons shall also live; that is their home. They cherish both their province and their country.
The resolution is categorical. Canada must provide first for the defence of its territory and that with the greatest efficiency possible. We have no objection to our helping England by organizing the defence of Canada on a sound and practical basis, so that the sacrifice of those who enlist may be of some use and that they may not be marched to slaughter under incompetent leaders and lacking the necessary armaments. When a man makes the sacrifice of his life he gives his all and he is entitled to the protection of the government and of the country, so that his effort may be most useful to the community. I invite my English-speaking colleagues to come in my county next summer, so that I may be privileged to present to them some of the good farmers of Temiscouata. I am sure they will have for them, if they do not already know them, the same respect that I have for the farmers whom I met in the course of electoral campaigns in the provinces of Ontario and New Brunswick.
I believe that the resolution I have just read virtually represents the sentiment of the province of Quebec. I congratulate my good friend the right hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) on the statements he made the other day about conscription. Conscription is not necessary. We have no need of it for war outside Canada and it would be superfluous in Canada, for there is not a healthy old man that I know of who would refuse to fight for the defence of our country. For all these reasons, I understand that Canada's formal declaration of war, made when Canada was in fact already at war, was a concession. We are ready to go that far but no farther. We are ready to make a concession for the sake of Canadian unity, but on condition that the province of Quebec be not made the scapegoat for all the jingoes and war profiteers of whom it is said that patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels. During the last war aspersions were cast at the province of Quebec, which entertained no prejudices, whose population was composed of good citizens and which had a right to its opinion if Canada is really a democracy.
There is something else that I wish to say. To my great surprise I read in the newspapers reports of meetings where young men objected to the existence of armaments in Canada. Are they those who advocated separation of the province of Quebec from the rest of the country. If a province of Canada were to secede from the others it would necessarily have to be better armed and we would have to spend considerably more for its defence.
War Appropriation Bill

There is something else in this resolution, Mr. Chairman, to which I particularly call your attention and that is that an expeditionary force does not seem to be necessary at present. Why expose our country to attack and to sabotage for the sake of sending our forces to fight in Europe?
To begin with, the population of England is four times that of Canada and the army is, at the present time, nearly the same as the Canadian arm}'- was at the end of the great war. Let us keep a sense of proportion. We must keep cool. Let us see things as they are and ask ourselves if Canada must make an effort four times as great as that of England in this war. Here, we have no battalions of women; nurses are not digging trenches around hospitals, as we have seen in telephotographs appearing in newspapers. That is not done. In our country, the women are as brave as the men, but they set the example of family virtues, which is in accordance with the established tradition.
I abide by the terms of this resolution and, I think I thus express the sentiment of the electors not only of St. Hubert but also of the county of Temiscou&ta, and of the immense majority of the province of Quebec, in the urban as well as the rural communities.
Let me add a word in conclusion. The question of a union government has been mentioned. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) has been kind enough to offer his cooperation to the present government. The leaders of the other parties did likewise. And, though the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) has expressed personal objections, I am sure that he will not hinder the work of the government in order, as far as possible, to maintain order in this country. With that, I am in agreement. Now, as regards a union government, I was informed last year that a five-year campaign had been started in favour of the amalgamation of the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National railways. We are now in the second year and I am satisfied that those who so strongly advocate a union government are the very people who favour amalgamation of the railways. You need only read the newspapers to realize this. And if these people seize upon such a critical time to further their plans, at no other time can it be more aptly said that patriotism is the refuge of scoundrels.
Do not think, Mr. Chairman, that French Canadians are disloyal subjects of his majesty. Far from it. Had you witnessed the crowd of people, old men, young men, middle aged men, women and children who vied with each 
other at Riviere-du-Loup station to pay homage to it-heir majesties as they graciously consented to stop there, had you seen the large number of people who had travelled miles and miles to greet our gracious sovereigns, you would have fully realized that it was not out of curiosity but out of deep reverence that they had come. I would also let you know, Mr. Chairman, that every Sunday, in every Catholic church, is sung the hymn Domine, salvum jac Regem, the Latin version of God save the King. And do you know what my venerable parish priest said at high mass last Sunday, when commenting upon a letter received from His Eminence the Cardinal-Archbishop of Quebec? He said: "Pray for peace." He asked his parishioners to turn to Heaven and beg Almighty God to put an end to this barbaric state of war. I trust that the universal prayer shall be heard.


Mr. HEAPS:: Mr. Chairman, before clause
6 is passed, I am tempted to rise because of the statement made by the Prime Minister in this house a day or so ago, and repeated this afternoon, that the government are prepared to listen to suggestions made by hon. members. The total amount authorized to be raised by this measure is 8100,000,000, most of which is to be spent in Canada for the purposes of Canadian defence. My purpose in rising is to suggest to the government- and I hope they will receive my suggestion with a good deal of sympathy-that in view of the very serious situation that now exists, parliament might well make a gesture of real friendship to the mother country at this time by appropriating to the credit of the British government in Canada the sum of $100,000,000 to be utilized by the British government in *purchasing the goods we produce in Canada, the products of our mines, our forests and our farms. I suggest that it be an absolute gift from this dominion to the mother country. I believe such a gesture by this parliament at this time would have a very fine effect on the people both of Great Britain and of this dominion.
We in Canada have to a certain extent profited by the events that have been taking place in Europe during the past few days. A couple of weeks ago our wheat was a tremendous financial problem to the government of this country. By tire increase in the price of wheat on account of the war, this government is going to save a vast amount of money, possibly $50,000,000. I cannot of course state just what the amount will be because whatever sum might be mentioned could be only a guess.

War Appropriation Bill
We shall profit also because our unemployment situation will be mitigated to a large extent. The number of unemployed will be much smaller as a result of the war which has just broken out.
We gain also through the tendency of all commodities to rise in price as has happened during the past few days.
Because of these facts, Mr. Chairman, I think it would not be out of place if the Canadian government placed to the credit of the British government the sum of $100,000,000 as a gesture of friendship to the people of Great Britain in this hour of their crisis. I trust that the Prime Minister and the cabinet will give this suggestion very serious and, I hope, sympathetic consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-Report to the house.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is one
expenditure which the government is proposing to make under the War Appropriation Act, when passed, -which is of a special nature, and therefore I feel I ought to draw it at once to the attention of hon. members. It is an expenditure the advantage of which I think will be immediately apparent. Hon. members will recall that two years ago I mentioned that the next development in our external relations would be the appointment of high commissioners to other of the dominions. The government of Great Britain has appointed high commissioners to most of the dominions, the first being to Canada, which was the first of the dominions to appoint a high commissioner to Great Britain. Since that time, last year in fact, the Union of South Africa appointed to Canada Mr. de Waal Meyer, as Accredited Representative of South Africa in Canada. Within the last two weeks we have had the pleasure of receiving a high commissioner from Eire in the person of Mr. John J. Hearne, who is now resident in the capital. The several dominions are now- represented by high commissioners in London. That development has been fully justified.
We have felt that at the outbreak of war there is more necessity than ever for rapid and confidential communication with the other dominions, and that effective cooperation between the dominions themselves would be very much furthered if we had high commissioners in all of the dominions as well as in London. Having a high commissioner in London in a position to consult w'ith the British government and the British government with him has proven to be of very great assistance to ourselves and I believe also to
the British government; and the British and inter-dominion representation that we have had in Canada thus far has been of very real and substantial benefit to our government, and I believe also to the governments which have their representatives here. In addition to planning to reciprocate the South African and Irish appointments, we have intimated to Australia and New Zealand that we should welcome an exchange of high commissioners with those two countries, and they have stated that they would very cordially receive high commissioners from Canada.
Hon. members will, I imagine, recognize immediately that this is an effort at a more effective cooperation between the different parts of the British empire all of which are more or less involved in this war. It would be of very material assistance to our government to have in South Africa, in Ireland, in Australia and in New Zealand, as we have long had in the United Kingdom, a representative of our own, in the person of a high commissioner, who would be able to give us through Canadian eyes his impression of different measures and matters which may require very careful consideration both here and there. I mention this important development as it appears special in its nature, seeing the provision of the War Appropriation Act will be availed of for the purpose of making these appointments.
Mr. POUiLIOT:	May I ask the Prime
Minister if the high commissioner in London gets in touch with the British government or with the embassies of the various countries?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The high commissioner in London is in touch with members of the British government, particularly the secretary of state for the dominions. Through the latter source he frequently obtains information of an inside nature which he communicates immediately to the government here. He does not however come into official relations with ambassadors of other countries.


Mr. HOMUTH:: Might I ask if the expense of these commissioners will come out of this appropriation?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is what I was intimating, yes.


James Earl Lawson: Although we have a sincere desire to cooperate with the government in passing legislation, if I correctly interpret the provisions of this section we feel that the government is going pretty far in expecting cooperation with regard to the provisions of this section and that we must make a protest in connection therewith. I read the first part of section 7:
War Appropriation Bill

The Minister of Finance shall make a report to_ the House of Commons on or before the thirtieth day of June, 1940, or if parliament is not then in session, within the first fifteen days of the next session-
What is the "next session"? That is the next session after the thirtieth day of June, 1940. To illustrate my point, let me assume that a general session of this parliament was convened on the twelfth of next January and prorogued on June 29, 1940; this house would have no report with respect to this vast expenditure of money, under this bill, until the next session after that came along in the ordinary course of events, in 1941. This in turn would mean that, unless this parliament through the exigencies of war or something of that kind extended its own life, we would have no knowledge under this measure as to how this money was spent or what contracts were let or anything else until after there was a general election in this country. I find it. difficult to believe that such is the intention of the government. If it is, I desire to protest against it. I think that provision should be amended so that a report will be brought down within fifteen or thirty days, or whenever the government deems advisable, after the convening of the next session of parliament.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The appropriation is for the fiscal year which ends March 31, 1940, and the books are not really closed-it is not possible to close them-until some time after that. For instance, during the month of April expenditures may be charged to the previous fiscal year. So it was thought necessary to give May and June for getting the report of the Minister of Finance ready for presentation to parliament. Therefore it was provided that he should make that report on or before the ^ end of June if parliament were then in session; if parliament were not then in session he would have to make it at the earliest opportunity, which would be the beginning of the next session of parliament.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: 1941.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Which would be 1941. The expenditures are, of course, subject to the usual audit and so forth, but we must remember here that we are talking about a vote for the fiscal year ending March 31. Therefore I do not think we should be called upon necessarily to present the report to the house before the end of the fiscal year, and this is the earliest reasonable opportunity that the report could be presented after the end of the fiscal year.


James Earl Lawson: I submit that the reasons given by the minister are not tenable in the circumstances of this case, and I will try
[Mr. Lawson.l
briefly to state why. In the first place, the government is asking for an extraordinary sum of money for an extraordinary purpose and under extraordinary conditions, when we are being given practically no details as to how this money is to be spent. By reason of these conditions we are quite willing to give this blanket power and authority to the government.
But the very section in itself belies any necessity that the fiscal year must end and the payments must be made, because if the minister will look at paragraph (b), he will see that the intention is to bring down, not only particulars of "the moneys expended under the authority of this act," but-
(b) all known financial commitments which have been entered into but which have not come for payment before the first day of May, 1940.
I suggest to the government that, in view of the wide powers granted by this legislation, and in view of the fact that this money is going to be expended in large part for the purchase of supplies and so forth, the government would be most anxious to bring down a report, even if it were only a temporary one, at as early a date as could reasonably be expected after the opening of the next session, at least a report in conformity with paragraph
(b)	of section 7 of this bill. I therefore suggest that the section might have its whole intention changed so as to meet the views I have suggested, if the words after the word "or" in line 20, namely the words "if parliament is not then in session," were omitted.
I see where that also might leave the matter open to misconstruction. Would this meet the purpose?
Within fifteen days of the next session of parliament and in no event later than June 30, 1940, the Minister of Finance shall make a report to the House of Commons.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That would be more in the nature of an interim report, and I do not think I am prepared to agree to that. This house has full powers , of moving for returns and getting all necessary information in the usual way. I have before me the act that was passed in 1914, and there was in it no provision of any kind whatsoever for making a report to parliament.


Robert James Manion: It would be better iff the minister left the provision as in 1914.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Supposing we let it go
as it is, and we ask for returns and are told that it is not in the public interest to give such returns, where would we be then? In order to keep the confidence of the people in what is being done I think we ought to have a report.

War Appropriation Bill


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am content to strike the
section out if that is the wish of the committee.


Robert James Manion: I think it would be far
better with the section struck out than as it is. In all probability the House of Commons will meet, say in January. If I may judge from the experience in the last war, that session will probably not last as long as ordinarily, which means it might last a couple of months, as did the session following the special session in the last war. If this provision is left as it is, it would mean that June 30 is the earliest date for a report, and the House of Commons would probably be prorogued or dissolved before that date. I think it would be far better to leave the clause out altogether, as in 1914.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I move the deletion of the
clause. It was merely put in to give the house some check on us.


Robert James Manion: We have the same check;
we can ask for returns.


Mr. CAHAN:: I do not think the minister
can move that. He should ask one of his colleagues.


Ernest Lapointe: I move
that clause 7 be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On section 8-Publication of orders and regulations.
James Lorimer Ilsley: I shall ask one of my colleagues to move that this clause be struck out. At the time the bill was printed it was thought that publicity for all the orders and regulations made under the authority of this measure would be desirable. But upon consideration it is quite clear that it might be very dangerous to have a provision of this kind in the bill, because it is likely that some orders and regulations made under it should not be made public. Therefore my colleague the Minister of Transport will move that this section be deleted.


Mr. HOWE:: I so move.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I can quite understand that there may be regulations made to give effect to the provisions of this bill, for instance under section 2, subsection 1 (b) for "the conduct of naval, military and air operations in or beyond Canada"-many regulations may be made which it is not expedient to publish in the Canada Gazette. But certainly regulations which have the force of law and which come into effect in Canada should be published in the Canada Gazette in order that Canadians
here may know what the law is so that they will not inadvertently break the regulations or infringe the law.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I agree that that is so. But under the War Measures Act there is no provision that any of the orders or regulations need be published; it is just left to the government to give publicity to those which it is considered in the public interest to publish. I suggest that the same thing be done under this bill.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I notice that under the War Measures bill and under the previous War Measures Act notice in the Canada Gazette was not necessary. But the minister will remember, if he had to do with the regulations made under the War Measures Act, that as a matter of fact such regulations were published in separate blue books and made known to all those in Canada who were likely to need notice of them.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, that is true.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Some such course should be followed.


James Lorimer Ilsley: We would follow the same practice. I think it could well be left to the executive, instead of being made compulsory.
Motion (Mr. Howe) agreed to.
Bill reported.


Walter Edward Foster: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Now.
Mr. ILSLEY moved the third reading of the bill.


Thomas Langton Church: I wish to say just a few words. I made a few remarks on section 6 but found that two other matters I wanted to bring up could not be spoken to under that section and could be brought up only on the third reading of the bill.
Recently I have noticed a large crowd of young men outside the Toronto armouries every day. Many of them have come to see me and other hon. members. There is some misunderstanding as to what these young men are enlisting for. When they go to the commanding officer there is some question as to whether they are signing on just for a month or for a year or for home defence or for overseas service. In my opinion there is no such thing as home defence; as I have said during the last two or three years, our main line of defence is in France and Britain; if they fall there is no such thing as defending the shores of Canada, for it will be all over if Britain fails. If voluntary recruiting is not
War Appropriation Bill

to be absolutely killed in this country, something must be done and done quickly owing to the lack of support. The government have taken a very important stand on man power without any adequate survey. For the last three years I have asked in this house for a national survey of man power, food resources, industrial power, economic power, and nothing has been done. I asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to set up storage reservoirs in England, but I was a voice crying in the wilderness during the past two years calling for rearmament, and I then predicted that this great disaster was coming.
I want to know what instructions have been sent out by the militia department for recruiting all over Canada and to whom and for what. We have waited long enough to see some allies of ours on the North American continent who are not visible to-night. We were told by some hon. members on my left that all we had to do was to let these allies defend our shores, and rely on Pan-Americanism only while it is of tremendous importance to have America with us. Yet their isolation policy disappoints us, and the time has gone by for all their peace pacts, agreements, and any more things of that kind. That very policy during the past two years of appeasement to the United States prevented this country from becoming properly armed during that period, so that to-day we have almost to act the part of Lazarus to beg a few crumbs from the table of rich Uncle Sam, in the form of a few aeroplanes, machine guns and so on. This is going to be a long drawn out battle, and under the present system I can tell the government that it will be hard for. us to get men. If you want to kill voluntary recruiting you are going the right way about it, by not acting and getting on with the job. Last March and a year ago last March I called attention to the fact that Mr. Hore-Belisha, the British minister of war, and Right Hon. Mr. Brown, the British minister of labour, had addressed a great gathering of young people in the market place of the city of York. At that time this statement was made: Employment is waiting for you in the army. If you take it you will get food and clothing; free housing; pocket money; instruction and physical education; you can learn a trade, if you have not already mastered one, at a vocation centre-
They could on an apprenticeship system of national service learn a trade and vocation, qualify as a mechanic or air pilot, and get deferred pay on a national service plan. I wanted one for Canada adapted to us. Why did we not tell our young men two years ago that if they joined the army they would receive this sort of treatment in Canada, and that after five years they would have a trade?

If we had done that we would have had the mechanics and pilots we need so badly to-day. Last February the Toronto board of education sent a deputation to Ottawa urging the government to take over a course in aviation and aid it in the technical school for the purpose of training members of the air force, but nothing was done. I then also urged that something should be done in regard to sending young men from Canada to England and aid them to enlist there to serve with the Royal Air Force, but again nothing was done. I have many letters, which I could show the government or anyone else, indicating that some of these young recruits, instead of loafing round the corners doing nothing, have even gone to England on cattle boats in order to enlist in the Royal Air Force during the past two years and are pilots to-day.
_ I do not intend to take up more of the time of the house, but I do believe the young people of this country who want to enlist should know once and for all for what term they must enlist, and whether they are to enlist for home defence or for service elsewhere. A great many of these young people do not want to enlist for home defence; they say, as I say, that there is no such thing. If Britain and France fail over there on the Rhine and in their campaign, it is all over with us so far as the defence of this country goes. I believe our young men should be told what their pay is to be, the length of service, what clothing they will receive and if they will be paid any pension. And it ^hquld be put down in black and white so that'We shall not have a repetition of what happened during the last war, when men went overseas, leaving their homes and families, and came back to find themselves out of employment and getting no help from the government or pensions. No doubt what the Prime Minister has said is quite correct; I do not know, because all the papers have not been laid on the table. I believe a large part of this $100,000,000 should be spent along certain lines, and that not a dollar should be spent except on the advice of and in conjunction, cooperation and coordination with the mother country. Otherwise it will be wasted. Something must be done also about the dreadful submarine menace. How are we going to send any food overseas if there are submarines waiting to destroy the ships? During the last war Great Britain had to look after only the Atlantic ocean; now she has to look after seven oceans with fewer ships, and for every four ships that went out, one did not come back and she had to ration food drastically.
When Mr. Chamberlain introduced the military training bill in England, he let those

War Appropriation Bill
concerned know on what terms they were enlisting. That bill was introduced on May 4, just a week after the policy was announced, and at that time Mr. Chamberlain said only two hundred thousand men would be available for training this year. With the millions of men the dictators have, England could get only two hundred thousand men this year under the military training bill. Then, during the course of his remarks, he said that if the scheme ran for three years, eight hundred thousand men were hoped for. So it will be seen how much she needs our men overseas. It will take us a year or a year and a half to train and equip our men and to produce any munitions. At the present time the men are without proper boots and clothing. I saw the conditions that existed at one or two camps; some of the regiments had no boots, equipment or clothing, and it will take months to get the necessary supplies. So I say the sooner we make up our minds that something must be done, the better it will be. No one objects to the expenditure of this money, but we want the government to get on with the job. Above all, we want them to clarify their policy all along the line and let these young men know for what period they are enlisting and whether they are joining for home defence or for other service. I believe this country has been aroused as never before. We do not know what may happen at any time. If Britain and France fail, what use will all this money be for home defence here, whether it is good, bad or indifferent? Security is far better than opulence. For two or three months last session certain members of the house discussed social credit. They were quite within their rights in so doing, but there will be no social credit or any other kind of credit if we have no security from these dictators, and the time should have been spent on defence and security. What do the dictators care about social credit or other credit so far as this country is concerned?
Last spring, and a year ago last spring, I urged upon the government that we should have a proper national survey made, but up to this moment nothing has been done. The women's organizations of the country are asking for some leadership. Some of them are opening offices, even without authority, just waiting for the government to act, and have a really national survey at once. What have they done? The government said they were going to survey the industrial plants of this country. When I brought up the matter on February 12 last, what was the policy of the government in regard to surveying industry in Canada, as was done in the days of the last war? They had no policy. It is true that when the matter was brought up, they later wrote about 700 letters to plants,
but sent no one to make a survey, and five or six business men wrote me to say that their plants had never been surveyed. Now this money has been voted, and I hope the government will get on with the job. I am not asking these questions in a spirit of criticism; I have asked them before, but I am getting tired waiting for an answer. In the interests of voluntary recruiting I ask the government to-night to let the commanding officers of the various military districts know all about these enlistments, as well as all the other information for which I have asked.


Robert James Manion: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Church) who has just taken his seat has asked a very fair question, which was also asked this afternoon by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green). I believe this house deserves an answer to such a question. The minister has been in his seat on both occasions, but apparently he intends to ignore these two speakers. I believe an answer should be given.
While I am on my feet I should like to say that throughout this country I have heard a great deal of discussion about this very matter. I have heard it argued by men, many of whom should be very familiar with the question. I have heard some outstanding men say' that those who are now enlisting are promised that they are enlisting only for home defence. I have heard others, perhaps better informed, claim that when these men enlist, according to their attestation they can be sent overseas if the time should come when an expeditionary force should be sent. I do not wish to be placed in the position of arguing that an expeditionary force should be sent if England does not want one. At the same time, however, it is obvious that it will take time to train men; and if men are being taken into the forces at the present time, the position of these men should be made clear not only to the men themselves but also to the country generally. I hope the minister when he rises will give a definite answer in this regard, in order to clear up a doubt which exists in the minds of so many people across this country.


Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I shall try to be as brief as possible. First of all, action was taken by the government, under section 63 of the Militia Act, under which the minister himself was granted authority to call out men for service within Canada. In the next instance action was taken by the government, when it was decided to call parliament, under section 64 of the Militia Act, placing the militia on active service within Canada.
War Appropriation Bill

The terms of section 64 of the Militia Act are very explicit, in that these troops may be placed on active service either within or without Canada, for the defence of Canada. At the present time, sir, the troops called out are in three categories: In the first place, there are those who are defending the vulnerable points within Canada; in the second place, there are those who are defending our coastal areas on both coasts and, in the third place, there is a mobile reserve for active service in the meantime within Canada. But if in the light of developments in the future the government policy should be that of sending an expeditionary force overseas, that reserve force would be the nucleus of the force so to be sent.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Under the present act, an active force can be sent overseas for one year only.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The terms of service in the field at the present time are for one year under section 68 unless the man volunteers to serve for the duration of the war.


Mr. BROOKS:: Would these men be reenlisted for overseas, or would their present status be for both at home and overseas?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That
would be a matter which would be decided later on. I think they may be reenlisted for overseas service.


Robert James Manion: Perhaps I have been a little dense, but there is one point on which I am not quite clear. Do I understand the minister to say that at the present time the men who are being enlisted and who have been for some time past are being enlisted under section 64?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, that is correct-all under section 64. The minister had only limited authority under section 63, but once we decided that parliament was to meet, then under the provisions under section 64 all authority was taken by the governor in council, and not by the minister as such.


Thomas Langton Church: Why don't you train and equip an expeditionai-y force here at once?
Motion (Mr. Ilsley) agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



CANADIAN PATRIOTIC FUND


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved the second reading of Bill No. 2, to incorporate the Canadian Patriotic Fund.
Thomas Langton Church: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Incorporation.
Mr. MacNICOL:: The last line of section
2 is as follows:
. . . together with such other persons as become members of the corporation.
By whom are they to be selected or appointed?


Mr. POWER:: By the corporation.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Objects.
Charles Gavan Power: Private soldier
Comparison of amounts payable to dependents in Great War and present rates
Wife	
Wife and 1 child.. Wife and 2 children Wife and 3 children Wife and 4 children Wife and 5 children Wife and 6 children Wife and 7 children
Wife	
Wife and 1 child.. Wife and 2 children Wife and 3 children Wife and 4 children Wife and 5 children Wife and 6 children Wife and 7 children
Present rates
Separation	Assigned	Total to	Soldier'sAllowance	Pay	Dependents	Portion$ 35 00	$20 00	$ 55 00	$19 0047 00	- 20 00	67 00	19 0059 00	20 00	79 00	19 0071 00	20 00	91 00	19 0083 00	20 00	103 00	19 0095 00	20 00	115 00	19 00107 00	20 00	127 00	19 00119 00	20 00	139 00	19 00
Great War rates
Separation	Assigned Pay	Canadian Patriotic	Total to	Soldier'sAllowance	Fund	Dependents	Portion$30 00	$20 00	$10 00	$60 00	$13 0030 00	20 00	19 00	69 00	13 0030 00	20 00	26 00	76 00	13 0030 00	20 00	31 00	81 00	13 0030 00	20 00	36 00	86 00	13 0030 00	20 00	41 00	91 00	13 0030 00	20 00	45 00	95 00	13 0030 00	20 00	45 00	95 00	13 00
In this connection I may say that certain societies and associations made representations that it might not be necessary for the patriotic fund to raise such large sums of money and suggested that section 3 be amended to provide that the patriotic fund corporation should, in addition to the duty of collecting these moneys, have placed upon it the duty of coordinating the efforts of other charitable organizations and that it not be mandatory upon the patriotic fund to start immediately to collect a fund, as the bill now provides. The language of this bill was taken from the 1914 act, and it is made mandatory upon the corporation to collect these funds. The necessity for doing so having to a large extent disappeared owing to the provisions which are being made for dependents, it may not be necessary for the corporation to make such an intensive and extensive drive on the patriotically minded and charitably inclined citizens of Canada. Therefore, I shall ask my colleague, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin) to move the following:
That section 3 be deleted and the following he substituted therefor:
The objects of the corporation shall be to coordinate the work of and promote cooperation among the various existing organizations carrying on work similar to that of the corporation, and, if it is advisable in the opinion of the corporation, to collect, administer and distribute the fund for the assistance in case of need of the wives, children and dependents, resident in Canada, of officers and men, who, during the present war, may be on active service with the naval, military or air forces of His Majesty or of any allied or associated power.


Mr. CARDIN:: I move accordingly.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Is it the intention to have contributions to this fund considered in the same manner as other charitable contributions in connection with income tax payments?


Charles Gavan Power: The acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) is not here at the moment, but I would say that would be done. However, I cannot give a definite answer.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I think that was done the last time.


Charles Gavan Power: I think it would be done, but I cannot give a definite answer.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
John Ritchie MacNicol: Would the minister explain further what is meant by active service? Would that cover a man guarding a canal, a bridge, or something like that, or is it only the man actually in the army?


Charles Gavan Power: My understanding of active service is that it covers those who are called out under section 64 of the Militia Act.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: Those doing guard duty are called out under section 63.


Charles Gavan Power: They are called out on service under section 63, whereas they are called out on active service under section 64.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The minister referred twice to a man with a family of six. Is a family of six the limit to receive benefits under the bill?


Charles Gavan Power: I do not think a family of six would be the limit in all provinces. I have the figures down to a family of seven. I can tell my hon. friend that a private soldier

Canadian Patriotic Fund
with a family of seven would receive for his dependents the sum of $139, while his portion would be $19. I am informed that the recruiting officers are not very anxious to take recruits with families of ten or twelve.


John Ritchie MacNicol: There is an article in to-day's Citizen referring to a man who had been enlisted in Ottawa with a family of twelve, eight of whom would benefit under the new bill. The result will be that his family will receive $170 a month. I am not saying that is too much, but that is what he would receive.


Charles Gavan Power: I hardly think the patriotic fund would have to raise any money for the purpose of looking after that man's family.
Mr.	SENN:	In	the case of	a soldier's
decease, have arrangements been made so that his family will fare as well as the family of a soldier who was killed in the last war?


Charles Gavan Power: By an order in council which was passed at	the	beginning of	the week,I believe on September 1, the provisions of the Pension Act are to apply. As my hon. friend	knows,	the	Pension Act	applies to
soldiers who took part in the last war, but its provisions have now been made to apply to those who are called for service during this war.
Mr.	HOMUTH:	For service	or active
service?


Charles Gavan Power: Both, if they are in the army now.


Mr. STIRLING:: I am not quite clear as to the difference between service and active service. Am I right in supposing that those who enrolled under section 63 now come in under section 64, that section, which calls for active service, having been proclaimed?


Charles Gavan Power: In so far as the Pension Act is concerned, yes; in so far as this bill is concerned, I would have to inquire. I can tell my hon. friend that if it does not cover such a case, we will see that these men who are called out on service are treated in the same way as those called out on active service.


Robert James Manion: What I have to say really has nothing to do with the bill, but the subject has been mentioned by the minister. I should like to take this opportunity to step aside a little for a moment to mention one matter. The minister referred to private soldiers having families of six or seven. In my remarks the other day I suggested that soldiers with dependents should be kept out of the danger zones as far as possible. I just
draw this to the attention of the minister because he is one of the ablest ministers in the government.


Charles Gavan Power: Thank you.


Robert James Manion: I do not know that this is saying very much for him, but at any rate he is. However, I suggest to the government that they give serious consideration to seeing that men with large families are not sent into the danger zones. This should be done not only for the sake of the families but for the sake of the country because of the high allowances that would have to be paid; and if such a man becomes a casualty, there is a heavy pension bill to be paid by the country. No doubt the minister will have an opportunity to discuss this matter with his colleagues, and I think it should be seriously considered.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 4-Property vested in corporation.


Mr. ROBICHAUD:: Are contributions to the patriotic fund to be wholly voluntary?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes.


Mr. ROBICHALTD:: The bill is not clear on that point. I notice that clause 4 reads:
There shall vest in the corporation all moneys at any time collected by, or contributed to, the corporation.
The old act of 1914 had the word "contributed" only. But now it says, "collected by, or contributed to, the corporation". My own municipality was called upon to contribute the sum of $28,000, and we had to issue debentures on which we paid interest and sinking fund up to the year 1937. I think it should be made quite clear that these contributions are to be voluntary only, and not a matter of conscription or confiscation. The municipalities at this time, after passing through the depression, are not in a condition to make any forced contribution to the Canadian patriotic fund.
Furthermore, in many parts of the country the Canadian patriotic fund has left a bad taste in the mouth, and I think the government would be well advised to change its title because, as the hon. member for Temis-couata (Mr. Pouliot) said a few moments ago in discussing the other bill, patriotism is sometimes the last refuge of a scoundrel. I know that in some parts of the country the Canadian patriotic fund has left a bad impression. It was abused by people who had money in the bank and had really no need for assistance from the fund. Other people, perhaps because they were too timid to go after assist-
Canadian Patriotic Fund

ance from the fund or lacked influence, got no assistance. The present fund will have to be administered better, and I suggest to the minister that it be made clear that no municipality shall be forced to contribute and to issue debentures as we had to do in 1914.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I would suggest to my hon. friend that all contributions were made voluntarily. Was there any municipal contribution made otherwise than voluntarily during the last war?


Charles Gavan Power: I am sure there was not. The sum of 348,000,000 was raised by voluntary subscription in Canada.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is what I understood. I never heard the suggestion during the lifetime of the patriotic fund that contributions were levied upon municipalities.


Louis-Prudent-Alexandre Robichaud: I have been secretary of my county for the last twenty-two years, and I was secretary then. 1 know that we were given a quota which our municipality had to raise, and I understand that was the case with every other municipality in the province. It may have been done under a provincial act. It should be made clear that no such compulsory contributions will be attempted at this time.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: There was an amendment giving the municipalities the right to borrow for patriotic purposes, but whether or not they should contribute was entirely for the municipal councils themselves to decide, and even if the bill were amended the councils would still have the power to contribute voluntarily to the fund.


Louis-Prudent-Alexandre Robichaud: But why the distinction between "collected" and "contributed"? Why use the word "collect"? It was not used in the old act, and while under the old act contributions may have been voluntary in theory, in practice a gun was held up at you.


Charles Gavan Power: I know that the patriotic
fund was purely a voluntary fund. I have no doubt that the provinces gave the municipalities the right to issue debentures in order to contribute to the fund, but I am quite certain from all the reports that I have read that all funds were raised by voluntary contribution, and I have never heard anything to the contrary.
As to the distinction between the words "collect" and "contribute," I assume the word "collect" would denote the action of taking the money in, and that "contribution" would denote the action of giving money out to the fund, but I should not like to give the Webster definition of the terms. I am not quite sure

that both words are absolutely necessary, but generally they indicate what would be the duty of the corporation.


Louis-Prudent-Alexandre Robichaud: All I can say is that
contributions may have been voluntary in the sense that the Sudetenland was given voluntarily to Germany and to Hitler. That was supposed to have been done voluntarily, but actually it was far from being voluntary.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 5 to 15 inclusive agreed to.
On the preamble.
Charles Gavan Power: I have an amendment to
suggest to the preamble to bring it into line with the amendment to clause 3, and I will ask my colleague to move it.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I move, Mr. Chairman,
that the preamble be stricken out and that the following be substituted therefor:
Whereas it is desirable to promote coordination and cooperation between existing organizations and to provide, if any need shall arise, for the assistance of the wives, children and dependents, resident in Canada, of officers and men who during the present war may be on active service with the naval, military or air forces of his majesty or of any allied or associated power: and, whei'eas it is desirable to provide an organization for such purpose:


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Preamble as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour) moved the second reading of Bill No. 3, to amend the Combines Investigation
Act.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If this were deemed to be a necessary war measures act, or for the purpose of dealing with the subject matter as a necessary provision in view of the fact that Canada is in a state of war, I would hesitate to object to its enactment. Under the War Measures Act the governor in council has full power to enact orders, rules and regulations which will have validity during the period of the war, and, subject to amendments during the war by the governor in council, to make all provisions necessary to modify the existing combines act or, in so far as it is deemed necessary, to modify any other act as a war measure. In the orders, rules and regulations which have

Combines Investigation Act
already been enacted and laid upon the table of the house, the governor in council very properly has dealt with the substantive provisions of certain existing acts. For instance, the Patent Act is changed in important particulars; and during the previous war, under the same War Measures Act, other fundamental acts were dealt with in so far as it was necessary to modify them temporarily or for the duration of the war. This measure is not, I think, a measure of that kind.
During a recent session of parliament, the session of 1937, the combines act was amended, and serious discussions took place in this house with regard to its provisions. Subsequently an agreement wTas made between this house and another chamber as to the terms of certain provisions which were then enacted and which are now being repealed, not for the duration of the war, but for all time. I suggest that it is far better, so far as the fundamental provisions of this act or of any other act are concerned, that they should not be repealed for all time under the guise of meeting certain exigencies which are likely to arise or which may arise during the prosecution of the war. Therefore I would suggest that, in so far as, during the progress of the war, it is deemed advisable to modify the existing combines act, it should be done under the provisions of the War Measures Act, and then the regulations so made may be amended from time to time, as they were during the last war, in order to meet war exigencies as they arise. The fact is, I do not think this measure is a legitimate measure, in that it makes the amendment of fundamental provisions of the existing combines act not temporarily, nor to serve the exigencies of the war, but to serve for all time. That is not now necessary, and it raises a dispute which it is advisable, or at least expedient, to obviate during this present session of parliament.
There is a provision which I suggest the minister should consider if it is decided to deal by order of the governor in council with these exigencies which may arise during the war, and it is this. I speak from experience in the last war. For two years and a half, at least, I was chairman of a board which had to do with the manufacture of armaments and supplies to the extent of many tens of millions of dollars, and, for that purpose, had under its control and supervision some fifty industrial corporations in the United States and Canada. It would, I think, have been impossible to have dealt effectively with the manufacture and production of those military supplies if there had been in force in the United States, where part of the manufacture took place, or in Canada,
where a portion of it took place, such very strict and severe provisions as are now found in the combines act.
Section 2 of the act, under "definitions," provides that:
In this act, unless the context otherwise requires,
(1) "Combine" means a combination having relation to any commodity which may be the subject of trade or commerce, of two or more persons by way of actual or tacit contract, agreement or arrangement having or designed to have the effect of
(a)	limiting facilities for transporting, producing, manufacturing, supplying, storing or dealing, or
(b)	preventing, limiting or lessening manufacture or production, or
(c)	fixing a common price or a resale price, or a common rental, or a common cost of storage or transportation, or
(d)	enhancing the price, rental or cost of article, rental, storage or transportation, or
(e)	preventing or lessening competition in, or substantially controlling within any particular area or district or generally, production, manufacture, purchase, barter, sale, storage, transportation, insurance or supply, or
(f)	otherwise restraining or injuring trade or commerce, or a merger, trust or monopoly; which combination, merger, trust, or monopoly has operated or is likely to operate to the detriment or against the interest of the public, whether consumers, producers or others.
I suggest, from experience, for the consideration of the government-I am not moving any amendment whatsoever-that in view of the efforts which must be made to mobilize industry in this country, it will be impossible to mobilize industry for the efficient production of commodities which are needed for the efficient prosecution of the war, if the producers are held strictly to the terms of this penal statute. I therefore suggest that the government should deal with it by orders under the War	Measures Act,
which will have the same force and effect during the term of the war, the same validity, as if they were enacted by parliament, and which may be modified or amended by the government from time to time as the exigencies of war require, in order that there may be an effective mobilization of industry, and, with regard to certain branches of production, that there may really be a combine, if necessary, by those engaged in that branch of industry in order to produce more effectively, and, I think, more cheaply and satisfactorily. I protest against dealing now with this matter by legislation when the governor in council has full power now to deal with it from time to time under the War Measures Act, as the exigencies of the situation may reveal the need for changes in order that the commodities required for the prosecution of the war may be produced
12S
Combines Investigation Act

satisfactorily and effectively. I make that suggestion earnestly for the consideration of the government, because it seems to me this bill proposes to amend the fundamental provisions of an act, which in times of ordinary commercial transactions are sound and just, but which may require to be modified temporarily during the prosecution of the war, but the permanent modifications of which would require grave consideration and prolonged discussion.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I hesitate to introduce a note of discord into this session, but I confess that when I read this bill I was amazed that a bill of its nature should have been introduced in a session assembled under present conditions, and one which we had hoped might be marked by a degree of unanimity and concord not usually found in sessions of parliament.
In the absence of some special explanation I fail to see any need for amendment of the Combines Investigation Act or anything that could not have been- dealt with better, as the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) has so ably pointed out, under the War Measures Act. I have been debating in my mind whether I should say anything or should express myself at some length. But I have studied for a number of years the matters dealt with by the Combines Investigation Act. When the last amendments were made, I think in 1937, I declared that in 1923 when considerable time was devoted to the subject I took exception to the whole structure of the act. I think it is wrongly based; I have taken that position throughout the years.
I would point out that during the past fifteen or twenty or twenty-five years there has been a gradual change in our industrial and economic structure. When the idea of controlling trusts and mergers was originally conceived on this continent by the late Theodore Roosevelt in the United States in the early days of this century, conditions were entirely different from what they are to-day. The object of the Sherman Act, upon which this legislation is really patterned, was to deal with a group of individuals who might get together and conspire to bring about a condition inimical to the public interest. The idea of a trust at that time was not an institution that might be laudable in its objects, but rather a sinister institution the purposes of which were against the public interest. Legislation designed to deal with a condition of that kind is not applicable to-day because of the complete change that has come about in our economic structure. In the last few decades there has been a growing tendency to merge smaller businesses into larger ones;

we have great corporations, known as quasi monopolies, that have grown up in the economic realm. These are legitimate. I am not saying they are good or bad in themselves; that is not the point. The point really is that they do not come under this legislation; yet in some instances they may have upon the industrial and social life of the country an effect quite as injurious as a conspiracy of individuals might have. On the other side it may be said that many of these corporations or quasi monopolies are desirable because of their regulatory nature.
In this legislation we have been building up round an individual, the commissioner, as he is now called, a body of what the lawyers call case law. That is, he is clothed with powers-I am speaking of him not as an individual, but as an institution-that no individual should exercise. In this bill we are going still farther, I am sorry to see. I think the existing legislation goes farther than it should. Rather I will put it in this way:	The existing legislation is not properly
adapted to the present economic structure.
But this particular bill bestows on the commissioner more and more arbitrary powers which in my opinion are not in any sense connected with war conditions. Let me illustrate. It has not hitherto been possible for the commissioner to retain beyond a reasonable time, while he is carrying on his preliminary investigation, which is generally speaking a secret one, control of all the books and records of the company or companies under investigation. But under this bill the commissioner would be empowered to order the production of books of account, documents, minute books and all the records of a company and to retain those books and documents for a period of four months. The object of the original legislation, and, indeed, of the legislation amended, was that the commissioner should make a preliminary investigation to ascertain whether or not the complainants had a real case. It was designed to protect rather than to persecute, to protect those charged from being exposed to public calumny without just cause.
Under this bill the government are now asking parliament to give the commissioner the right to hold those records. Of course I know the answer will be that it has been found that when they come to prosecute, after the commissioner has made his report, records may have disappeared. But under the statute as it now stands, the commissioner may take any portion of the records, have them copied and attest the copies as being true copies, and such copies are accepted in courts of law as of equal validity

Combines Investigation Act
to the original documents. There is no difficulty there, but I am- pointing out to the minister that in this respect the government are going too far.
Before I sit down I must refer to the two sections that are being repealed. The repeal of section 28, passed in 1935, is a serious matter. It provides:
No person shall be charged with, tried for or convicted of an offence under this act, by the same information, upon the same evidence or at the same time as he is charged with, tried for or convicted of an offence against section four hundred and ninety-eight of the criminal code.
I am not prepared, nor do I wish, to enter upon a lengthy argument, but I recall very well that this matter was thoroughly discussed and examined when this section was passed, and 1 believe it ought to be thoroughly discussed before this change is made. It is proposed to repeal this section without, I submit, proper time and consideration being given to it; yet it deals with charges under the criminal code. At the moment I am not prepared to go back over the old argument in an extensive way, but we ought to remember one thing. There are offences which may be considered such in a civil sense; we will say bad practice in business, and so on, but in themselves they are not criminal acts. There was some protection for the citizen in the section now to be repealed, so I say this is a serious matter. I am not debating the point; I am merely calling attention to the seriousness of it. The other section to be repealed also has considerable importance and should not be disturbed without careful consideration.
The point I wish to emphasize is that raised by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, which I think is well taken, that the proposals contained in this bill are not proposals which ought to have been obtruded upon this parliament during this session. They should come before parliament at an ordinary session, if at all, when we would have all the necessary time at our disposal to deal with them. We should have ample time to read and consider a bill of this kind, and it should stand until those who may be affected by it have an opportunity to present their views. It is serious legislation. On the other hand I point out, as the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George also indicated, that to the extent to which we wish to deal with peculiar circumstances arising under war conditions, that can be done much more effectively as war measures under the War Measures Act. The government may, as I expect it 87134-9
will, find it necessary, during the period of the war, to take certain positions which it would not consider it advisable to take in times of peace. I am quite sure the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) will agree that this is likely to be the case. Therefore it is inadvisable to amend a bill for war purposes, if that is the object of this amendment. Let us deal with such matters under the War Measures Act, and let this bill stand for the present and come before parliament at an ordinary session when we shall have ample time and opportunity to debate it.
I want to conclude my remarks by saying that I feel very strongly on this matter. For years I have taken a definite position. Personally I am not prepared to-night to discuss the matter at length, nor do I wish to fight the measure. I can tell the minister and the Prime Minister, however, that if this were an ordinary session I would feel myself in duty bound to offer the most persistent opposition to this legislation. As I indicated this afternoon, however, we have come here in a spirit of accord. We desire to cooperate with the government, but we see no reason why this bill should obtrude itself at this time, and I earnestly suggest to the government that the bill be dropped until the next regular session.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) I would remind hon. members that this act has been on the statute books for many years. I have had some experience with it, and I can tell you that the procedure has killed the whole statute; it is too cumbersome. Take milk, bread, coal or any of the other necessities of life; that is where this war will react on the poor people of the country. In 1915, 1916 and 1917 we had a great deal of trouble with these combines in restraint of trade and enhanced prices in the city of Toronto. I preferred an indictment before the grand jury at the York assizes with regard to some of these very items I have named, but the law officer of the crown took the position that inasmuch as this act had taken combines in restraint of trade from under the criminal code, where they had been for many years, the presiding judge and the grand jury had no right to pass upon the indictment. We created a combines act and a whole lot of impossible procedure.
The fact that we are not making much headway in regard to the conflict of jurisdiction between federal and provincial powers, as set out in some of the decisions of the privy council, may be responsible for the fact that we are greatly handicapped in dealing with this problem. The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has taken a

Combines Investigation Act

^reat deal of interest in this question for many years. He was one of the pioneers in dealing with it, but I must say that I am very much dissatisfied with the whole procedure or with any regulation of it. It is too cumbersome. Four or five men go to see a lawyer and say, "Here, we have a scheme to advance prices." Take coal; there was a scarcity of coal in 1917, and in that year United States newspapers pictured Canada as a sort of Lazarus hanging round the coal yards of the New York Central, trying to buy or steal a few crumbs of coal. A year or two ago we had a coal investigation conducted by Doctor Tory, but in his report I cannot find one word about the consumer. The retail coal men have now acted splendidly. I was referring only to 1917.
The labour organizations of the country are continually complaining about these trusts and combines in restraint of trade, which react on the poor people and those on relief. They also affect the municipalities, who must not only pay rent for these people but provide food and coal in order to keep things going. Prices are increasing abnormally at the present time. Wheat has risen from 48 cents to over 80 cents; yet the people of this country had to peg the price not long ago, and every taxpayer in Canada might have had to contribute heavily as a result. So prices and profiteering should be checked.
As I say, the procedure is all wrong. I do not blame the commissioner, whom I have found to be efficient as far as he can go. The act itself, however, is absolutely inefficient, not practical, non-enforceable and useless. I have had a great deal of experience with the combines act over many years, and am disappointed at its lack of relief or any regulation. Under it we can go into a man's office, seize his books, keep them for months, and then maybe get nothing out of them. All we do is interfere with his business. If there is a combine, why do we not stop it? We used to try to stop combines under the criminal code, until it was decided that we should have a board. Dear knows, we have had nothing but boards and commissions for years in this country, and that is not the way to attack this problem. You will never get anywhere that way, and you will have all kinds of trouble in this country in this war emergency from combines in restraint of trade that now flourish like a green bay tree.
We must have a more modern and faster system. A year or two ago I received some letters respecting a combine. What would I have to do? Well, I would have to draw up a petition for the commissioner, and the com-

missioner would send someone to see the man in question. He goes round in a circle, and at the end of sixty days nothing is done. Combines are flourishing like a green bay tree. They snap their fingers at parliament. If the commissioner takes action, they go to a weekly court for an injunction.
This is one of the things I thought would have been cleaned up long ago by the so-called Rowell commission. However, by the time we get that report it will be ancient history, and will be consigned to the archives. Something should be done to help the people of Canada in this direction. Prices are so high they are ridiculous. Some articles cost two or three times what they used to cost. I do not know where it will end. That is what is causing communism, and many other isms in Canada-I am referring to an abnormal increase in rates which the poor people cannot meet.
No doubt the minister has looked into the matter. I would point out to him, however, that there was an investigation in British Columbia respecting fruit. Of what benefit was it to the industrial worker or the farmer of Canada? The same profiteering is going on now with respect to grain, and nobody is prosecuting it. They snap their fingers at the law courts, and there is no control over them. A commission may be appointed, and they do as they like.
Mr. KARL K. HOMUTH (Waterloo South): Surely the minister who introduced the bill will give us a reason more valid than has been given as to why he has introduced it. We are anxious to expedite the business of the house, but on this occasion, as an hon. member has said earlier this evening, we find a piece of legislation which, under the War Measures Act, is not necessary. Despite the arguments which have been urged, we have had no response from the minister, or any attempt, to give a reason. I suggest he might very well withdraw the bill, and let it come up at a regular session.
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I thought I had already exhausted my right to speak on second reading, and had intended to make a statement when the bill was moved in committee.
I followed carefully the arguments of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) and other hon. members who have spoken. It is doubtless true-and we assumed it-that we could have proceeded with these amendments under the War Measures Act, by order in council. At the same time I had no desire to deceive the house as to my own belief that these amendments were required only in time of war.

European War-Orders in Council
The feeling of the combines commissioner is *-and I share it-that these amendments could be defended and would be desirable even in time of peace.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is a large question.


Mr. ROGERS:: I admit that, and I have no intention of deceiving the house on the point. I believe the amendments could be defended in time of peace. But there is additional need for them in time of war, and since the house is now in session and since these amendments were anticipated, I really felt that the government would be under some criticism if, knowing they were contemplated, we made no effort to take the house into our confidence, or to indicate exactly what we felt should be done to meet the situation.
On the other hand I quite agree there is nothing to be gained by proceeding with controversial legislation at this time, particularly when the main purpose can be realized, I assume, under the War Measures Act.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Very fully indeed.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I would therefore say to the house at this time that I shall be glad if the bill is permitted to stand for second reading. Then, in the interval between now and tomorrow, I shall consult with my own officers to assure myself of the fact that the immediate purpose which we have in view can be met under the War Measures Act. If that is so, and since some hon. members have indicated that it would be unwise to introduce controversial legislation at this time, then I may say we shall be prepared to proceed under the War Measures Act., But I should like to leave that matter in abeyance for the time being, until I consult with my officers.
On motion of Mr. Rogers the debate was adjourned.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MACKENZIE KING moved the adjournment of the house.
He said: I indicated in my remarks at the opening of the sitting that after the bill respecting the Combines Investigation Act and the bill respecting the patriotic fund had been discussed, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Usley) acting for the Minister of Finance, would bring down his budget. I notice the minister is not in the house at the moment. I believe in any event it would be advisable to wait until to-morrow to have him make his presentation.
87134-OJ
Robert James Manion: Is there anything coming up tomorrow, besides that which the Prime Minister has mentioned?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As I said this afternoon, there is a bill to provide for the regulation of war charities, and a bill respecting a department of munitions and supplies. The resolution respecting the latter I shall have placed on the order paper to-night, so that it will be before hon. members in the morning. Perhaps the house would permit us to proceed from the resolution immediately to the bill itself, and through its different stages.
In speaking of the bill respecting the department of munitions and supplies, I mentioned that there would be a bill related to it to amend the Salaries Act. I did not imagine that anyone would think that particular bill related other than to the salary of the minister, for which provision would have to be made. However this is the capital city, and it is already abroad that there is a possibility of its affecting the salaries of all civil servants. I wish to make it clear that that particular bill relates only to the salary of the minister who may be appointed.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.30 p.m.
Tuesday, September 12, 1939