PRIVILEGE-MR. CHURCH REFERENCES TO CANADIAN NAVY IN DEBATE ON NAVAL SERVICE BILL

Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: I rise to a question of privilege in connection with my remarks in the debate yesterday on Canada's navy. My remarks related to a return that I was about to read when the minister replied. This return is dated February 14, 1938, and is found on page 392 of Hansard for that year. It contains particulars of what the navy consists of, where it was located, whether any of the fleet had gone to Sino-Japanese waters, and the goodwill cruises for that year.
The minister replied on that occasion that the destroyers had left for a winter cruise in January and that the schooner Venture would cruise in West Indies waters. The programme for the visit was released to the press on January 4 and 5 of that year. That report is what my address was based on. I never made any reflection on the great body of men of the navy, As I said in this house yesterday and on other occasions, Canada has cause to be proud of her men of all ranks in uniform, in the army, the navy and the air force. They are the real people to be proud of and what they are doing to win the war. Their history is a history of courage. Yesterday and for the past ten years I have supported a policy of rearmament, which the minister brought down in 1938. I have known the minister who spoke yesterday for many years and until yesterday have always found him very courteous. I should probably have used the expression "goodwill navy" instead of "show navy." I try to cooperate with the government, and there is one thing I can say because I have known him a long time, that the Prime Minister has always shown courtesy and politeness to members of the opposition.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. WRIGHT:: 1.	What is the total amount paid to date, under the terms of the Bren machine gun contract with the John Inglis Company?
2.	What is the estimated remaining amount which the government will have to pay before the terms of the contract are fulfilled?
3.	On this basis, what is the estimated cost to the Canadian government for the Bren machine gun, per unit?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	$1,882,997.56.
2.	Estimated amount: $3,725,826.62.
3.	The above total of $5,608,824.18 includes capital costs of $1,600,708.18. On this basis the estimated unit cost per gun and spare parts (per set), exclusive of capital costs, is $572.59. (Gun $368.30; spare parts $204.29).



FOREIGN EXCHANGE CONTROL-FREE AND OFFICIAL RATES

Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: 1.	What was the free market exchange rate between the Canadian dollar and the United States dollar and the British pound September 1, 1939; October 1, 1939; November 1, 1939; December 1, 1939; January 1, 1940; February 1, 1940; March 1, 1940; April 1, 1940; May 15, 1940?
2.	What was the exchange control rate at the same dates?


Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	Note-The so-called free market for Canadian dollars in the United States simply represents scattered transactions between nonresidents, when a non-resident may happen to have Canadian dollars to sell. Wide fluctuations in rates take place and it is difficult at any time to establish an accurate measure of prevailing rates as the volume of transactions of this kind is relatively small. In these circumstances the rates published by the federal reserve bank of New York probably represent the best approximation of prevailing rates based on the comparatively small volume of transactions of this kind.
Exchange rates in the so-called free market referred to above for Canadian dollar and British pound in New York, as published by the federal reserve bank of New York:
Exchange rate for British
Canadian British pound in dollars pound Montreal
Sept.	1,	1939...	95-625	4-21	4-4625Oct.	2,	((	88-875	4-015	no free marketNov.	1,	((	89-625	4-00	UDec.	1,	((	86-9375	3-895	(tJan.	2,	1940...	88-625	3-955	UFeb.	1,	((	87-4375	3-96	itMar.	1,	(t	86-125	3-93	liApr.	1,	((	81-50	3-56	uMay	15,	U	81-8125	3-24	u2.	Foreign exchange control was not instituted in Canada until September 16, 1939. The official rates set by the foreign exchange control board on that date were as follows: Sterling-4.43 buying-4.47 selling United States dollar-1.10 buying-1.11 selling
Questions
which is equivalent to quotation of 90.91- 90.09 for the Canadian dollar in the United States.
These rates have not been changed since September 16, 1939.



ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE


Mr. BRUCE:: 1.	Has the Minister of National Defence called up for war service the hundreds of cadets and ex-cadets of the Royal Military College?
2.	If not, is he prepared to tell the house whether he contemplates doing so in the near future?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	(a) Under the regulations, all gentlemen cadets on leaving the college with a diploma of graduation or a certificate of military qualification, who have not obtained a commission in the royal navy, or in his majesty's regular land or air forces, or in the corresponding naval, land or air forces of the other portions of the empire, are required to accept combatant commissions in the R.C.N.V.R., or the non-permanent active militia or the non-permanent active air force. Having thus become established in the various arms of the service, full scope is provided for their appointment to active service units.
(b) According to available information there were, as on the 17th May, 1940, 534 ex-gentlemen cadets of the Royal Military College serving in the active service components of the sea, land and air forces of Canada and Great Britain.
The total output from the Royal Military College in the past twenty years has been about 900. This means that in the 9th month of the War, 60 per cent of the entire output from the Royal Military College in the past twenty years is already serving.
2.	Action has already been taken through appropriate channels to inform district officers commanding of other ex-gentlemen cadets who are anxious to serve in the Canadian active service force.
distribution of copies of bills to members


Mr. HANSELL:: Will the government consider having a copy of all bills of the House of Commons placed in the post office boxes of members on the day on which they are filed in the chamber?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: As hon. members are aware, immediately after the bills are printed they are distributed by the pages to the desks of all hon. members. If however there is a general desire that there should be further distribution, that copies of bills should
be put in the post office boxes, His Honour the Speaker is quite agreeable that that should be done. The government is also agreeable. It might however be advisable for the whips to confer in reference to what it will mean in the way of additional distribution.



BATA SHOE COMPANY-MACHINERY IMPORTS

Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: 1.	What was the value of machinery imported into Canada by the Bata Shoe Company of Frankford, Ontario, during the fiscal years ending March 31, 1938; March 31, 1939; March 31, 1940?
2.	Did the Bata Shoe Company, Frankford, Ontario, pay duty on all machinery imported into Canada?
3.	If not, what was the value of the machinery imported duty free by the Bata Shoe Company, Frankford, Ontario?
4.	Did the Bata Shoe Company, Frankford, Ontario, pay a sales tax on all machinery imported into Canada?
5.	Under what tariff items was the machinery imported into Canada by the Bata Shoe Company ?
6.	Through what ports of entry was the machinery of the Bata Shoe Company imported into Canada?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	It is contrary to established practice to give information which would disclose the private business of any individual or concern.
2.	Yes.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	Yes, where exigible.
5.	Under various tariff items.
6.	The principal ports of importation were Belleville, Trenton and Montreal.



NATIONAL DEFENCE-USE OF SERVICES OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS

Mr. BRUCE:: 1.	Has the Minister of National Defence considered the question of using some of the large number of mechanical engineers who are available in Canada?
2.	If so, would it be necessary for these men to apply through the Civil Service Commission on a competitive basis?


Mr. ROGERS:: It is understood that the civil service commission has received a large number of applications from qualified mechanical engineers. When the department requires professional assistance of this kind, application is made to the civil service commission and the appointment is made by them.



REPORT ON CULTURAL CONDITIONS IN CANADA

Mr. McGREGOR:: 1. Has the report on cultural conditions in Canada, etc., been received as provided for in vote 63 of the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1940?
Questions

2.	If so, by whom was this report prepared?
3.	Has the report been printed, and, if so, is it available for circulation?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1. No.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.



BATA SHOE COMPANY-LOANS UNDER NATIONAL HOUSING ACT

Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: 
Mr. RALSTON:: 

CADET TRAINING

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What was the cadet vote in the militia estimates as passed by parliament for each of the years 1935 to the end of 1940?
2.	What is to be spent in 1940?	,
3.	Are any periods of two weeks training
being provided as in the great Avar for cadets in each military district?	.
4.	Are there any vrntes to boards of education in Canada for such work, or for other maintenance charges, uniforms, instructors, equipment or pay, and what are they?


Mr. ROGERS:: 
Mr. BRUCE:: Will the government give consideration to the question of immediately recalling Major-General McNaughton to organize further divisions in Canada as he is better qualified for such organization than anyone at present available?


Mr. SPEAKER:: I would point out to the hon. member that in framing his question he concludes with a statement of fact, which I think is not in order. I suggest that the hon. member restate his question in another manner.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: If the last clause were dropped I submit the question would be in order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As to the first part of it, an answer would involve announcing government policy. It is not customary to announce government policy in reply to a question on the order paper but to make it known to the house at such time as the government deems it advisable. That would be the answer to the first part.
supreme court decision as to poaver of



PROVINCES TO REGULATE PRICES

Mr. NEILL:: In vieiv of the great effect on the relations betAA'een the dominion and provincial jurisdictions created by the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, that provincial legislatures have the right under the British North America Act to regulate prices of all commodities Avitliin their oAvn boundaries, will the dominion government take steps to carry an appeal to the privy council?


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: This
involves a question of government policy as to which I cannot give a definite answer to-day.

Government Loan-Mr. Rowe



MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
SIGNIFICANCE OF "WAR OFFICE REQUISITION*' IN CONTRACTS TABLED
On the orders of the day:
['Certainly.\nProgress reported.']
Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Yale):: Would the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) inform the house on a point in connection with the lists of contracts which have been tabled? Frequently under the name of the contractor the phrase appears "war office requisition". Does that mean that there has been a requisition by Canada on the war office, or that it is the United Kingdom purchasing in Canada?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport):: The reference means that Canada has requisitioned the war office of the United Kingdom for that particular material.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. HARRIS (Danforth):: Inasmuch as these contracts run into many millions of dollars, and there is no notation with regard to delivery, perhaps the minister would inform the house also whether delivery is up to date. And in respect to requisitions which have since been cancelled or rearranged, has rearrangement been made for the supplies from other sources, particularly the United States? Perhaps the minister could reply to-morrow.


INDUSTRIAL SURVEY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Joseph Henry Harris: I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Rogers) whether the registration of the Canadian manufacturing industry which was initiated by 'his predecessor in office has been completed, and is it up to date?
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of National Defence): I received notice of this question only a moment or so ago. I shall be glad to Obtain the information for the hon. member.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ALAN COCKERAM (York South):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is there a shortage of -303 ammunition in Canada at this time?
I understand instructions have been given to military headquarters in the various districts restricting the use of -303 ammunition to infantry battalions of the third division in training centres and machine gun battalions-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of National Defence): I wonder if the hon. member feels that he is serving a useful purpose by putting a question of the kind at this time. .


Alan Cockeram: I do.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I will answer, although I entirely disagree as to the usefulness of the question at this time. Certain rifle practices have been postponed only as a result of new mobilization arrangements arising out of the decision to call up the third division and additional rifle battalions of the fourth division.


LOAN OF $750,000,000 TO MEET LOANS OR OBLIGATIONS, TO PURCHASE UNMATURED SECURITIES, AND FOR PUBLIC WORKS AND GENERAL PURPOSES
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, May 29, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Ralston-Mr. Vien in the chair:
That the governor in council be authorized to raise by way of loan under the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, 1931, an amount not to exceed in the whole the sum of seven hundred and fifty million dollars for paying or redeeming the whole or any portion of loans or obligations of Canada and also for purchasing unmatured securities of Canada and for public works and general purposes.
Mr. ROWE:: The attempt to comprehend the meaning of this resolution to borrow $750,000,000 further emphasizes the gigantic task that lies ahead of this country. It is a challenge to our national credit, which fortunately is high enough to sustain it. The future will test our ability to pay, and that test will be met by an energetic people in a country of vast and rich resources.
This stupendous financial provision is only one more shocking indication of the extent of the effort which will be necessary to carry out our high purpose to defend religious and individual freedom. Events of to-day and shadows of the events of to-morrow consolidate our people as nothing before has done in one common bond of effort for one common purpose. Our people, of different religions, races and languages, are standing shoulder to shoulder in the face of a peril that is common to the members of our commonwealth and to the countries which have already been overrun. While we stand by we are inspired
Government Loan-Mr. Rowe

by the actions of those gallant men of the British expeditionary force who are maintaining the finest traditions of the empire in an unexpected emergency caused by the desertion of an allied king. We are also fortified by the courage, determination and skill of the great French army. We have the further assurance of the well-grounded and lasting friendship of the great nation to the south, their president one of the greatest of world statesmen, who has struggled so earnestly to save his people from the disaster of war and is at the same time a great force in preserving democratic freedom.
Therefore while our hearts may be heavy and sad to-day, realizing the difficulties which confront us, and knowing that the way we have to go is hard and long, we believe that with God's help and by doing our duty we shall win. Closely allied with the mother countries of Britain and France we must now face fearlessly and by swift action the greatest conflict in the history of our Christian civilization. No other people in the world are more capable of accomplishing so terrific a task than this enterprising and free people, if they have courageous leadership. No people in the world have greater resources behind them, and we must be prepared to offer an ever-increasing variety of services and sacrifices if we are to meet the necessities that arise from day to day. I am sure they will challenge almost to the point of weariness the mental capacity of the government which sits to your right, Mr. Chairman, just as the physical attacks will challenge the capacity of our gallant, youthful and vigorous army which must meet them in the field. We must gird ourselves to meet this task on one common front. We must strengthen our determination, without fear or favour. No one is worthy of being in this house if he would play politics with this crisis.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Earl Rowe: Indeed, Mr. Chairman, I feel that anyone who would hint that politics were being played can scarcely realize the seriousness of the situation. On the other hand we on this side are equally weak and guilty if we withhold anything that may assist to bring about a common victory. We are now a nation at war. We have a War Measures Act which contains wide and effective powers. It is now our duty to establish this country on a war basis. Our man power and resources must be rapidly mobilized to their maximum. We are told that a record has been made of our industrial capacity. That is encouraging, because it may be needed soon to replace the output of British factories. The subversive

influences that have already opened the gates of other nations in advance of the swiftly moving hordes of Hitler must be dealt with by quick and forceful means. This can be effectively accomplished, just as our forces can be effectively and successfully organized, only by an immediate registration of every man and woman in Canada. We must meet a swift aggressor with swift action. We must develop mass production to withstand a mass destroyer.
When our government fears that it will take a year or two before we can begin to produce tanks, let them talk to Mr. Henry Ford, who says that within six months he can produce a thousand aeroplanes a day. Let our government tell the people that the events of the last few years have aroused them and that now their policy is not the slow and steady mobilization of eight or nine thousand men, as it was the other day, but a rapid and vigorous recruiting of at least forty thousand men for the immediate future. The mobilization at once of a home defence army of fifty thousand men might well be considered and put into operation by the present government. The militia guards at many points, such as bridges and hydro plants, might be replaced by experienced war veterans who are not at present on the strength of the militia. To furnish supplies for these men and thousands more who may be required in the near future, our factories must not wait and run part time, as many are doing to-day. They must be speeded up and kept producing twenty-ifour hours a day.
These and many other measures are necessary, as I think everyone within sound of my voice will agree. The confidence of our people, which is necessary for the achievement of our war objectives, must be inspired by government action and government policies. The old middle-of-the-road speed, no slower or faster than the people will enjoy, is not good enough to meet a crisis such as we are facing to-day. The wait-and-see policy, politically popular in days of peace, cannot meet this situation. Economic appeasement, often mentioned in fireside chats, was a sweet phrase in days of tranquillity, but it is useless to-day. Deferred military cooperation with Britain, practised before the war, now constitutes a dangerous policy, threatening the speed which must be made in this crisis which now menaces our freedom.
I should be derelict in my duty to this house and to this country if I failed to offer these considered suggestions before we pass this gigantic expenditure which future generations will have to meet. The light of our immediate past does not reflect much encouragement in regard to the action necessary to secure

Government Loan-Mr. Rowe
our immediate future. It is a past strewn with blunders, failures and, I say again, complacencies that are almost inexcusable. Our allied forces must be supported. Those forces defeated Germany twenty-five years ago and this time those forces will not only defeat but will conquer Germany. We are not afraid; we are not downhearted, but if as a people we are going to meet a swift aggressor, hasten our victory and save the lives of many of our gallant young men, I urge upon the government to do what other governments have done when facing a crisis such as this.
I say this, Mr. Chairman, with the very deepest respect for this government and especially for my good friend the Prime Minister, whose friendship I enjoy, whose personality is delightful and whose integrity I would never allow anyone to challenge.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Earl Rowe: The Prime Minister has been a great man of peace, a great promoter of peaceful negotiations and of friendly relationships with other countries. But I say these are days of war, not of peace, and in all sincerity and certainly not in any spirit of politics but with the deepest feeling of sympathy-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Earl Rowe: Some of my hon. friends may not understand-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Earl Rowe: I say to you, Mr. Chairman, and to my older colleagues in this parliament that no man worthy of being in this house will even impute those political motives at this time of dire crisis. I have not referred to some of the weaknesses of the Liberal policy which I could have mentioned in a way that might awaken bitter resentment among hon. gentlemen opposite.


An hon. MEMBER:: Go on.


William Earl Rowe: Someone says to go on. No, thank you. I have been in this house longer than the hon. member-


Mr. McCANN:: In and out.


Mr. POWER:: By the back door.


William Earl Rowe: My hon. friend says "in and
out," but we are in this game to stay. On the other hand, if we do not measure up to this task we are going to be out, as far as the part of this country in the war is concerned. I would say to the Minister of National Defence for Air that I am not so much concerned about being out-


Charles Gavan Power: I said you try to come in
by the back door after you have failed to get in by the front door.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Earl Rowe: Someone mentioned something about political taunts, but to my friend the minister I would say that I think I have as much right to come in the front door of this parliament as he has.


Charles Gavan Power: We are not talking about
parliament; we are talking about the government. You could not get in the front door of the government by the votes of the people, and now you are trying by intrigue to get in by the back door.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Chairman-


An hon. MEMBER:: Sit down.


Thomas Langton Church: Canada came in at the back door, late in the empire air training scheme.


William Earl Rowe: I am surprised but I am not at all disturbed, because there is no one who can challenge me on the question of intrigue against the present government. There is intrigue going on throughout our civilization to-day, and you ought to know it.
I will say, as I conclude-


An hon. MEMBER:: Keep on going.


William Earl Rowe: I do not propose to go on further. Political taunts have been thrown across the floor of the house, but I say in all sincerity-it is my duty to say it, whether I am listened to or not, and I believe the leader of the present government will follow me in what I am about to say-that at the present time we need a prime minister speeded up to a war job.


An hon. MEMBER:: We have it.


William Earl Rowe: With deepest respect and
sympathy I urge the Prime Minister, a great man of peace, to step aside and let a war prime minister speed up a war job by an order for swift advance.


Mr. GARDINER:: For the past ten days we have been meeting in this house for the purpose of attempting to 9peed up the war effort of Canada. During that period it has become the daily effort of our friends on the opposition side, and more particularly our friends in the official opposition, day by day to raise the question which has been discussed here and there in different types of organizations which have apparently been set up for that purpose, the war effort of this government, from a point of view which makes it possible for them to stand up on the floor of the house and question the incentives and motives of the present Prime Minister of Canada.
We met in this chamber a few months ago and were confronted with much the same opposition, in so far as the official opposition

Government Loan-Mr. Gardiner
is concerned, as that with which we are confronted to-day. The one man directly opposite who then sat in this house, who is not now here but who really counted at that time, was the leader of the party. The group of men who are sitting in the opposition seats to-day are a group who have got rid of more leaders since 1927 than any other political party in any part of the British empire. Following the last great war they had a leader, one who was chosen at the end of the war partly because of his practices during the war. He appeared before the people of this country for one election, and was defeated. He was defeated because of the fact that he did more during the short time he was in office in this country to disunite the people of Canada than any other man had done. To-day he sits in another place. After he left the leadership of the party he took his place in the business life of this country, and in the business life of this country, Mr. Speaker, he made a failure. As a last refuge he went to that other place from which he speaks to-day in order to attack and criticize the leadership and the government of the Dominion of Canada. And daily our friends on the other side of the house get up from time to time and raise questions as to whether or not we should have different leadership, not only in the House of Commons but in the Dominion of Canada.
I think it is time someone should answer some of the statements which have been made. My hon. friends follow the usual route taken by men who want to seek a way in by the back door, as was said a minute ago. They always begin their remarks with something kindly with regard to the men they begin to attack. That reminds me of the fact that the one great betrayer of all time did it with a kiss.
Having driven the leader of whom I spoke a moment ago from the leadership of their party, they chose another. They kept him in office until he lost an election. Then they hounded him inside this house and out of it until they drove him from the public life of the Dominion of Canada. Then they chose still another. They called him the man of action-"fighting Bob". He went through an election with them. Following the election they met in caucus in this city, just before the house met, and on that occasion he offered them his services to carry on throughout this session, or as long as they desired him to do so. But they refused his offer, turned him down and selected another leader, who entered the house to lead their party. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that at the present time they are carrying on further intrigue with the idea of

bringing back to this house another leader, in order to lead them if possible to greater success. Well, my friends may call that politics, or they may call it whatever they like. I do not think it is even worthy of the name of politics. Politics was never intended to be played in that way.


An hon. MEMBER:: You ought to know.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, and I have remained in the public life of this country a long time because I have played politics in a square way.
How do my friends start in? They say the Prime Minister has been one of the greatest leaders of this country in peace time-but that is not what they have been saying for the last twenty-one years. Yes, to-day they say he is the greatest leader that Canada could possibly have in peace time, but they go on to say that he is not warlike enough to be here to lead in a time of war. Let us check that. Some of us have sat in this house for four or five years, and some longer than that. Those of us who have been here four or five years will remember that when the government of which the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) formed a part, prior to 1935, left office, they had voted for one year's expenditures upon the defence of Canada some 317,000,000. In the last complete year they were in office they had spent 313,750,000, if I remember rightly.
An election was held, and a new government took office. During the first year he held office the Minister of National Defence in that new government brought down estimates totalling some 324,000,000, if I remember correctly, and what happened?


William Earl Rowe: Nothing.


James Garfield Gardiner: Nothing so far as the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe was concerned. He sat in this house and did not say a single word in support of the passing of those estimates.


William Earl Rowe: If the minister will look up Hansard and read what I said in the house he will see that I favoured the spending of a hundred million dollars.


Ernest Lapointe: What
page?


Mr. MARTIN:: You said that a week ago.


William Earl Rowe: No, I said it when the first estimates came up in 1937.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Not a single member of the Conservative party opened his mouth while on the floor of this house.

Government Loan-Mr. Gardiner


Ernest Lapointe: Show us the book.


James Garfield Gardiner: As has just been stated, when those estimates came down in this house they were discussed day after day. Hon. members sitting in the far corner of the house opposed them. Some hon. members sitting on this side of the house opposed them. Hon. members sitting directly opposite, if I remember correctly, during that session did not utter a word, either of criticism or of endorsation, of the government's policy.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: I think the minister should say "some" members in this corner opposed them; certainly some members supported them.


James Garfield Gardiner: I was speaking more
particularly of the official opposition and the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, as well as certain members of the Social Credit group who were in the house at that time. That was the position in 1936 when we were meeting in session here.
In 1937, if I remember correctly, the then minister of national defence brought down estimates asking for expenditures of approximately $35,000,000. Again those estimates were opposed from the opposition side of the house, more particularly by our hon. friends of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. They were opposed also by other hon. members sitting on the opposition side of the house, and by a few hon. members sitting on this side. But those estimates were finally voted through the house.
On each of those occasions the present Prime Minister of Canada found it necessary to stand up in this house and plead not only with his own supporters but with the members of the opposition to support the proposed increases in expenditures for defence in the Dominion of Canada. As was said here the other day, hon. members on the other side of the house, irrespective of what party they belonged to, tried to put forward the idea, in a critical attitude, that those estimates were going to be used for some action outside of Canada. If I remember rightly, from every part of the opposition there was insistence that he give to the house an undertaking that those estimates would not be used to prepare for an expeditionary force or to help some nation outside of Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


James Garfield Gardiner: Members from every part of the opposition; I did not say all members of the opposition.


Mr. MacNICOL:: We supported it.


James Garfield Gardiner: Members from every part of the opposition took that position on each one of those occasions.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


James Garfield Gardiner: The point is that on each one of those occasions the leader of the government of this country, the present Prime Minister of Canada, got up and made a special appeal in connection with the estimates of the Minister of National Defence in order to have them passed as nearly unanimously as possible. A group of men who reduced the estimates from a total of $22,000,000, in the last year the Liberal party was in power in 1930, down to an expenditure of $13,750,000, for the last full year that they were in power prior to the election of 1935, now get up and say that Canada should have been making preparations long ago; now they come along and tell us that we should have been building aeroplanes, that we should have been building up an air service in this country more than two years ago. Before 1930 the dominion government were making provision for the building up of a flying force. They had already made some provision for the establishment of a trans^Canada flying service to carry the mails of this country. When the new government came in, what did they do? They destroyed that service. They discontinued it. They left the people of Canada in a position where, when the new government came back into office in 1935, there was not a sign of that flying service from one end of Canada to the other.
After we had been in power for four years we had increased the estimates for militia from $17,000,000, which was the amount for the year when they went out, to $60,000,000. We had taken over a Canada with no civil flying service and we established from one end of the country to the other a trans-Canada service. We had built feeder lines to connect with the transdllanada from the north and the south. I should like to ask my hon. friends of the opposition: Do they mean to try to convince the people of Canada to-day that their policy of scrapping the trans-Canada system was an encouragement for the building of aeroplanes in Canada? Do they intend that this house should believe that with the scrapping of that system and the cutting down of those expenditures, Britain was brought to the point two years ago where she began to discuss the possibilities of building up a training system across this country? I do not believe that there is a man, woman or child-more particularly a child-from one end of Canada to the other who will believe the kind of argument that is presented to the people of this country at the present time, nor will they believe it at any other time.

Government Loan-Mr. Gardiner
What was it that inspired the British government to come to Canada and interest themselves in the building up of a flying force in this country? It was the fact that the Minister of Transport in the government of the right hon. the present Prime Minister of Canada took hold of the Department of Transport under the inspiration of his leader and applied himself to the building up of its operations and the establishment of a trans-Canada system from the Atlantic to the Pacific. When Britain saw that all the energy of a country like Canada had been put into the building up of a system of that kind, they were inspired with the idea that this was the country in which to build up a system of air training. Again I ask this question: Was it the lackadaisical policy of the present official opposition, which was the party in power from 1930 to 1935, with regard to the development of flying and the building of planes in this country that inspired the British government, or was it the activities of the Minister of Transport in building up that system from one end of Canada to the other? The answer is obvious.
So much for the leadership of the Prime Minister of Canada in times of peace and in limes of war, as related to the position in which we find ourselves at the present time.
Another statement was made by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe, one which is made daily in this house in one form or another. He stated that the Prime Minister has great international knowledge. There is nothing new about that. We on this side of the house knew it in 1919, and long before. We certainly knew it in 1919 when the present Prime Minister was chosen as leader of the group that sits on this side of the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: On this side too.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, and on that side over there as well. As a matter of fact, a great many more people in Canada seemed to have known that. That is the reason why, when referring to a matter of this kind, I cannot cover the whole situation by referring to this side of the house. Many hon. members who sit on the other side are here because the people of Canada have given expression to that very view. Why do they know? They know it because services of the present Prime Minister of Canada had been used by the government of Britain, by the government of the United States and by the government of Canada in the consideration and settlement of problems that concerned countries far distant from this dominion. He has built up an international reputation even before his reputation for political leadership had been estab-

lished in this country, and one of the reasons why at the end of the last war he was chosen to lead the party now in power in the time of another war was that the people of Canada already recognized him as one who would create a spirit of unity, one who was better qualified than anyone else in Canada to understand and bring together all the different elements in the prosecution of a common task. The record of the Prime Minister, not only before the war but since, has borne out the judgment of the party which chose him as leader, and the judgment of the people of this country who have on four occasions made him Prime Minister, and the judgment of the members who sit behind him and in front of him, whether they be in the government or outside of it.
We believe, Mr. Chairman, that the group that sits behind the Prime Minister in this house to-day is more national in its constitution and spirit-because of the fact that it is representative of so many constituencies and is so widely spread-than any other government that could be created by any other person anywhere in the Dominion of Canada. In other words, confronted as we are with the necessity for unity in order that we may meet the enemy either from outside or from within, there is no man in Canada who can more effectively unite all the forces of this country than the present Prime Minister. That is why we stand behind him to a man. That is why the people of Canada stood behind him when war was declared. Men and women from one end of the country to the other said then that there was no other man in Canada who could have carried this country so unitedly into war as the present Prime Minister. That is why Canada stood unitedly behind him on the 26th day of March last, and Canada, sir, still stands unitedly behind him.
I do not think that the great mass of the people are taking seriously those who appear in this house as spokesmen for what at one time was known as the Leadership League, or those who appear in this house as spokesmen for what has been known for years in this country as the element who would like to control Canada for their own benefit in time of peace or war. I do not think the great mass of the people are taking seriously the criticisms that are made by the representatives of either group-and there is no great difference between the two groups, because one was only the mouthpiece for the other. If they had possession of the seats of government tomorrow they would not be thinking half as much about the prosecution of the war as the present government is doing. They would be thinking, some of them, about other things.


Mr. TUSTIN:: Cheap stuff.

Government Loan-Mr. Gardiner


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend says
"cheap stuff." It is not as cheap as the kind of thing that has been put up in this house for the last ten days, and as one member of this house, I do not intend any longer to sit silently by and listen to such statements with regard to the one man in this house who has put forth a greater effort than any other to prepare Canada for the difficulties which we are facing at the present time and which we are trying to steer our way through in the most effective manner possible.
Something was said by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe with regard to the great friendly country to the south of us.


An hon. MEMBER:: No thanks to him.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend says
"no thanks to him." We on this side of the house have never been in the habit of courting, for political purposes, the friendship of any country or anj" group of people outside the Dominion of Canada; nevertheless we have believed, and our leader more than anyone else, that the thing least to be desired, either in time of peace or in time of trouble, is a lack of a feeling of friendship towards us on the part of any country. Living as we do alongside the United States we have been inspired by what after all is the fundamental principle related to the fighting of this war. What is it that has made the war a necessity? What was it that brought it upon us? It was the fact that under the doctrines of Hitler and the totalitarian state it is not enough to say that we are a great nation; it is necessary to build up a system under which it is essential that everything that is necessary to the existence of the people who are living within those boundary lines be within the boundary lines of the nation. Once having adopted that doctrine it becomes necessary to bring all the necessities of life and all things necessary for the protection of your land within the bounds of the country you happen to be ruling. When Mr. Hitler did not find within his own country food products sufficient to feed his own people he went out to acquire more territory. He got more in Austria, more in Czechoslovakia, more in Poland, more in Holland and Denmark, and more in Belgium. In other words, his doctrine is that when you cannot find supplies sufficient within your own borders, go out and take them. In private, life we punish people who act upon that doctrine. It is a doctrine for which nations when they adopt it have to be punished; or they must be prevented from eariying it out.
What do the great democratic nations of the world believe in? We believe that the best demonstration of the doctrines we believe 95826-23
in is to be found on this continent more than anywhere else. We are a small people, some ten or eleven millions of us, living on the northern part of this continent side by side with a great country of a hundred and thirty millions of people. When they want mineral wealth from the northern part of our country; when they want pulpwood or food products from various sections of Canada they do not find it necessary to come over here and take the country in order to get what they want. They make no preparations for taking it.


Mr. MacINNIS:: No, they simply bribe
the government.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend says
"they simply bribe the government." That is exactly the kind of sentiment I should expect to come from that corner of the house, It is the kind of statement which when made throughout this country does not tend to create that friendly feeling which is so desirable under present conditions. We in Canada have lived in friendship alongside the people of the great country to the south and have traded with them in the commodities that we and they require. When we have wanted southern fruits, when we have wanted some of their manufactured products, we have not thought it necessary to go and take a piece of the United States. It probably would not have done us much good had we felt inclined to do so. But in any case these two great countries, one with 130,000,000 and another with 11,000.000 people have lived for over one hundred years side by side in peace and harmony; and one of the reasons why we have been able to live in that way is that we have had during the greater part if not the whole of that time men inspired by a desire to be friendly towards the great country to the south. And not the least among the great leaders of this country, inspired by that desire, has been the present Prime Minister of Canada, the present leader of the Liberal party and of this government.
When I was travelling through Canada during the last campaign I heard these same stories that are being flung across the floor of the house at this time. I heard these same suggestions to the effect that we had leading the government of Canada a man who was too friendly to the United States. I know where the inspiration for that story comes from.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Toronto.


James Garfield Gardiner: It does not all come from Toronto-some of it does-but it comes from sources where there are certain individuals and corporations who are not particularly interested in doing some of the things that ought to be done in order to maintain the friendship that



Government Loan-Mr. Gardiner
exists between the two countries. What I said in reply to that suggestion on every occasion was this, and I repeat it in this house: Is there anyone in the dominion, at a time when we are at war, at a time when Britain desires the friendship of the United States more possibly than she desires anything else, who would advocate having in charge of the government of Canada a man who was not friendly to the United States? I reply now to the criticism in this statement, that the people of Canada in 1940, on March 26, declared that they wanted the present Prime Minister to carry on during the period of this war, and for the following reasons: First, because of his great international reputation; second, because he was a good peace-time prime minister, as everyone admits now even in this house; again, because he has been an even better war-time prime minister; because he inspires confidence in the institutions of the country both inside and outside Canada. And in so far as the members on this side of the house are concerned-and supporting members on the other side as well, and I am sure I speak for some even in the opposition groups-we all believe that there is no other man in Canada, either in this house or in the other place, or outside both houses, who can form a government in Canada to-day that would represent the national spirit of this country to the extent that the present Prime Minister does.


Mr. COLDWELL:: For the last five or six days a number of us sitting in this corner of the house have been wondering whether there really is a war going on. We wonder this afternoon what the men who are overseas would think of this exhibition were they present in the gallery. Let me remind my friends who sit to my immediate right and who say "hear, hear" that whether we of the opposition groups like it or not the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) less than two months ago received the largest endorsation that a government has ever received in the history of Canada. I venture to say that two years ago none of us in this house regarded the possibilities that now face us as anything but more or less fantastic. Speaking for myself, I did not think that the events which have come to pass could have taken place. An hon. member says that we had plenty of warning. Well, the governments of democratic peoples throughout the world, knowing more than we could possibly know, paid little heed to the warning.
The resolution before the committee involves the refinancing of an exceedingly large sum of money-$750,000,000. It seems to me that much of our consideration of Canada's war

effort involves resolutions of this kind. We have to consider not only the immediate interests of the Canadian people but also the effect of such a proposal upon our economic structure and its implications which will be felt now and in the post-war period. We in this group believe that this proposal calls for a thorough planning and a complete control of our financial system in order that we may marshal our resources in a manner which will be entirely effective; and believing this, we wish to place before the committee once again the suggestion that before we proceed to raise money by way of loan we should consider the national ownership and control of all our financial institutions so that they may serve the needs of the nation in this crisis. Now, that involves more than control of the chartered banks. It involves control of institutions engaged in investing the funds accumulated by our private citizens and by semipublic, public and private corporations. Britain and New Zealand have both done this. We have heard the statement in this house so frequently, it has been repeated so often that the people pay little heed to it, that we should mobilize our man-power. Before any suggestion is made to mobilize man-power for overseas service, I suggest that we should mobilize our economic resources, particularly the financial institutions, to serve the interests of the state at this time. How are we going to do it? That has always been the question, and my answer now is that Great Britain and New Zealand are doing it, and the basis of settlement will be decided when the present crisis is over. The important thing, it seems to us in this group, is to proceed with the mobilization of our economic strength in order to withstand both the shocks of war now and the shocks that will come with the aftermath of this great struggle.
We believe that refunding proposals ought to become merely a part of the planned, controlled use of the accumulated wealth in this country. The time to initiate such a programme is clearly now, not when it has been complicated and made more difficult by the sale of large quantities of new bonds which will be held by many more of our people.
The resolution provides for raising by way of loan a sum not to exceed $750,000,000 to redeem obligations of Canada, to purchase unmatured securities of Canada, and for public works and for general purposes. When we discussed a similar resolution in May of last year we were not at war and the problem was different. The proposals we made at that time might not have the same application to the problem that we face to-day. We suggested then that some $100,000,000 might be

Government Loan

Mr. Coldwell
issued directly through the Bank of Canada. We were told that the appropriation of large sums of money through the Bank of Canada could not be undertaken for public works, and that we should strive to keep our budget in balance. Well, to-day there is no thought of a balanced budget; the only question is the extent to which we can finance the great public effort necessitated by the war.
At the moment in Canada we have vast quantities of goods, some of which could be consumed in Canada itself if those who lack them had the opportunity to buy them. In this respect we differ from Great Britain, where such commodities as wheat, bacon, butter, fruits, and so on, must be rationed and conserved. And there of course the effect is different because conservation forces a certain measure of saving which can be diverted into war production channels. In Canada we need to encourage the purchase and consumption of the very things the consumption of which is being discouraged in Great Britain; hence the necessity of providing, under an appropriation of this sort, adequate means for necessary relief and the promotion of a public works programme, until at least opportunities are furnished for the reemployment of those who are now unemployed. Aside from the humane considerations, or the actual necessities of the unemployed, and so on, the consumption of farm products would enable farmers to assist in financing our war effort. Unless they can dispose of their commodities they can make no contribution financially to the needs of the country at this time.
At the moment in Canada both the workers from many industries and the farmers are enmeshed in a net of depression prices and unemployment which, as we have often said in this house, are related directly one to the other. The latter could have been solved had Canada's economic resources been organized on the outbreak of war to provide the material aid which the allied cause lacks. The former will have to be met by increased consumption in Canada, by the planning of production and the establishment of set prices, to be agreed upon, of primary products in Canada. Our plea, then, is for the immediate control through nationalization of our financial system and of our key war industries. This suggestion does not even go as far as the policies now in effect in Great Britain and New Zealand, although we would go as far ourselves to enable this nation to marshal its strength and plan its production to meet consumptive needs.
Obviously it is a mistaken policy to borrow huge sums of money and let future generations pay a mountainous toll of interest. Previous war experience demonstrated that 85826-23J
such a policy led inevitably to vast accumulations of wealth. Subscriptions to government loans may now be received from people with very small incomes who will make tremendous sacrifices in order to make these subscriptions; but when the inevitable post-war depression follows, the bonds or securities or certificates held by those with small incomes will go upon the market and find their way into the vast accumulations, just as they did after the last great war, the net result being that we have permanently in our midst a small number of people who can collect vast sums in interest from the rest of the population-people who have nowhere to put that money except, as we saw a year ago, into savings accounts in the several banking and other financial institutions, and who can demand for years to come a toll of wealth from those who produce wealth. Such accumulations exist in Canada to-day, and if we are asking men to sacrifice their lives, to risk their health, we have a right to demand of those who have vast accumulations of wealth a contribution in money, substantial sums of money, to the common cause of the country in this crisis.
At the moment social services are being cut. On May 1 relief was cut in half, causing a tremendous amount of suffering to many of our citizens. The interest we have been paying and are going to pay to the bondholders remains relatively high. Our first loan was at the rate of 31 per cent, which is within one-quarter per cent of the rate on the first loan during the great war. During the last war the interest rate on war bonds reached 54 per cent, free of income tax. We hope that example will not be followed during the course of the present war. John Maynard Keynes, who recently wrote a book on war financing in Great Britain, contends that under no circumstances should the rate of interest paid by the government exceed per cent. In my opinion that is a very generous rate of interest when we are asking sacrifices from so many of our men and women during the period of the war. This afternoon the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) made an impassioned appeal for the registration and mobilization of our man power; but as a prerequisite to any such registration we would ask that this government bring down a policy of the nationalization of at least our financial institutions and our war industries.
I do not think there is very much more I need say on this resolution. I have simply tried to express a point of view and to advance some constructive proposals in relation to the resolution now before us. I hope within the next few days we may get down to a consideration of the measures necessary for the

Government Loan-Mr. Quelch
defence of this country, and consider them from the point of view of the welfare of the Canadian people rather than that of any political advantage that may accrue to one group or another in this house. If we do this, probably we shall be able to find some constructive policies to meet the present situation.
I hold no brief for anyone, but there are some matters I think the government should make clear to the house; for example, as to whether or not some articles which have appeared in our western papers-I refer specifically to those appearing under the name of Mr. Grant Dexter-accurately state the position in regard to the war effort as far as the government is concerned. If they do then I think this house and the country ought to know it. We have been told, for example, that the government programme was advised by the government of Great Britain on the outbreak of war. Is that true, and has it been followed? Did the government, as Mr. Dexter says, extend or desire to extend that programme greatly beyond its present limits? Is it true that the British authorities did not greatly welcome our sending a large expeditionary force last autumn, and was that due to the fact that Britain herself was short of the equipment needed? Then of course we have the statement made by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) in the house on May 22, when he told us rather explicitly that one of the difficulties Canada had experienced was our inability to obtain the necessary plans and so on from British manufacturers for the production in Canada of the heavy equipment that is needed in modern war.
We have heard a great deal of criticism and replies thereto across the floor of the house. I believe that if these matters could be cleared up definitely the country would be more satisfied and united. As far as we in this group are concerned, we want to see the war financed by those who have the ability to carry the load. We want to see our resources, industrial and financial, organized intelligently and not left to mere chance. To such policies, when the government brings them down, we will give our support.


Mr. QUELCH:: I had not intended to take part in this debate, Mr. Chairman, but in view of the fact that on. several occasions the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) referred to this group and made certain charges that are totally untrue, I want to take a few moments to deal with some of the things that have been said.
Speaking in this house a few days ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) stated that public opinion during the past five years

would not have tolerated adequate defence estimates. The important question is why public opinion would not tolerate such estimates. The simple reason is that during the past five years we have had a reactionary financial policy dominating the activities of the government. I suggest that if during the last five years the Prime Minister had implemented his promises regarding monetary expansion, the people would not have held that opinion. If he had carried out his promise to make currency and credit available in terms of public need, to meet the domestic and social requirements of the Canadian people, then they would not have hesitated to agree to the necessary expenditures to safeguard the welfare of this nation. Instead of that, however, we have had a policy that year after year has been sabotaging the resources and productivity of this nation. Time and again in this house the former minister of finance stated that the only money available to meet government expenditures was the money taxed from the pockets of the people. The former minister of labour even went one step further and said, "If we are going to increase our expenditures it will become necessary to increase taxation," and he added that as we were already taxing the rich as far as we could, it would mean that we would have to increase taxation on the poorer classes of the people. Is it any wonder that the people were not prepared to support an increase in taxation for purposes of defence when we were told quite plainly that that increase would have to be borne by the poorer classes?
I should like to say just a few words with regard to the stand we have taken on this matter. During the special session of last September I think we in this group made quite plain what our stand was. What did we advocate? We advocated the complete mobilization of the total resources of the dominion, conscription of financial and industrial resources, and we demanded that this should be done before the conscription of man-power; we demanded a national registration of all manpower in order that we might find out how many men were trained for this or that industry, how many unemployed were skilled and how many were unskilled. Then as we developed our plans for the defence of the country, as we realized what expansion there would have to be in this or that industry, we would have been able to institute schemes whereby those people would have been given the necessary training. I recall-and this is something which does no credit to those who took part in it-that during the past election campaign certain men came into Alberta and attacked us on the ground that we had advocated the greatest possible mobilization

Government Loan-Mr. Homuth
of the resources of the country for war purposes. In other words in an election campaign held during a serious crisis they were willing to sabotage the defence of the country in order to gain a few votes. It is unnecessary for me to refer to any names, because hon. members realize who were guilty of that action. Certainly it is not to their credit that such action was taken.
We had to wait for the special session of parliament to get from the former Liberal party the first really sane statement respecting monetary policy. That statement was made by an acting minister of finance (Mr. Ilsley), and I take it he was speaking on behalf of the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Ralston), who was minister at that time although he had not a seat in the house. The acting minister told the house that it was intended to bring about monetary expansion for the purpose of providing full employment and to develop the resources of the nation to their full extent. It is strange that during the five years the Liberal party had been in power, on each occasion we advocated that very thing we were told that we were advocating inflation. Yet as soon as the war came along the government advocated the same thing. It was willing to bring about monetary expansion to provide full employment in a time of war, so that we might develop the resources of the nation to full capacity, but it had so little interest in the welfare of the Canadian people from 1935 to 1939, that it was not willing to provide monetary expansion to satisfy the needs and requirements of the people in times of peace. For five years the government deliberately sabotaged the life of this country. Is it any wonder that when war is declared we find ourselves in difficulties? Is it any wonder that when war came we did not have men skilled to take their place in industry?
I noticed a few days ago an item in the Financial Post to the effect that the production of Canada could be increased by many billions of dollars, but thei main stumbling block was that we did not have sufficient skilled labour. Why have we not the required skilled labour? Had the Liberal party developed the resources of Canada between 1935 and 1939 as we continuously advocated, we would not be short of skilled labour today. They are the ones responsible for that condition, and they ought not to try in any shape or form to place that responsibility upon the opposition. They have had the full power at all times to carry out their policy, and it has been a policy of laissez-faire.
In my opinion those who have been responsible for our financial policies in the past five years, policies which have wrecked the very lives, health and morale of the
Canadian people, are more guilty of treason to the nation than many people who have been arrested, because by its action the government has made it impossible for us to make the effort we should be making in this hour of crisis.


Mr. HOMUTH:: I rise for the purpose of
speaking to the resolution and making some suggestions to the government, which I think are of considerable importance. No one loves a political fight more than I do. I learned my politics in a hard school. But I do believe the people of Canada are not concerned with political speeches at the present time. One thing I did notice, however, was that busy as the cabinet ministers are with our war effort, they could sit here long enough to listen to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) make a political speech before they went out to attend to our war affairs.


Mr. McNEVIN:: Was it not in two or
three schools you learned your politics?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: No matter what money
vote we are called upon to pass, it must have some relation to our war effort. Perhaps the best thing that could have happened the war effort was the calling together of the members of the House of Commons to sit in session. Since we have come here we have been able to get some information from the government, and at least to some extent we have been able to find out things they have done and things they have not done.
In the discussion on the resolution preceding the one now before the committee I advocated the registration of man-power in Canada. The necessity for such action becomes more manifest every day. I urged upon the government at that time, and I repeat my plea now, that under this vote of 8750,000,000, an amount of money be set aside immediately to take that registration. In the last few months we have had in Canada an appalling wastage of man-power and labour hours. We still have thousands of people out of work. Thousands are wandering the highways of Canada, men who ought to be in some productive industry connected with our war work.
In my home town a soup kitchen was opened last January, and under the regulations pertaining thereto a man was entitled to only one meal a day in that kitchen. Thousands of people pass through that town, many of whom, if given a chance, would have joined the army, and ethers who would like to be in productive industry. Had we a registration of man-power those men could be allocated to our various industries and thereby give a tremendous impetus to our war effort.

Government Loan-Mr. Homuth
As I said the other day, people are fearful of the so-called fifth column, and I believe the registration would give us a complete picture of each person, showing the birthplace of every man and every woman. Through it we would gain some idea of what we have in Canada, and would have closer contact with the people than we have at the present time. I am not so sure but that right in our government service we have men-in fact, I am sure of it-who in the last two or three years have been looked upon as admirers of the totalitarian philosophy. This is something we must check up more closely than has been done.
Then, Mr. Chairman, we must speed up industry. We were supposed to have had a complete registration of industrial capacity. Persons connected with the Department of National Defence were supposed to have gone out and made a study of all our industry. Prior to the last war, industry in Canada was not in any position to make shells, because it had never made them. Finally however our industrial activity was geared up to the making of shells, and as a result we turned out millions and millions of them. To-day the first thing we must do is to get the machinery necessary for their manufacture. So far hundreds of manufacturing plants scattered throughout Canada have not yet been asked to produce the machinery necessary for the production of munitions in the smaller centres. There are thousands of plants in Canada which could produce munitions of some kind, but I feel we have not put enough energy into organizing the industry of the country. It is quite true that the last few weeks have brought this home to us perhaps more than anything else, but do not let us fail. Let the government go ahead and speed up these things. I feel that the government have not been as frank with the country and with the members of this house as they ought to have been.
When I was questioning the minister of supply the other day about certain matters, he told me that he supplies everything he is asked by the Department of National Defence to supply. In other words, if these things are not being ordered, it is because the Department of National Defence has not ordered them. Apparently it is the fault of the Department of National Defence if tanks, anti-aircraft guns and anti-tank guns are not in production. The other day the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Rogers) told us the story of the Bren gun and admitted on the floor of the house that Bren guns were not produced.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Surely that is not so.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: The minister said that distinctly. If the hon. member will look at
f Mr. Homuth*.]
Hansard, he will find that the minister said that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the hon. member permit a question?


An hon. MEMBER:: Give us the reference.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Surely that is not the fact.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Oh, yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is a very serious statement.


Mr. RALSTON:: Bren guns are in production.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: The minister of supply is in the house and the Minister of National Defence is not. I could take no other meaning than that out of the minister's reply the other day.


An hon. MEMBER:: Read it.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I could take no other
meaning than that they had not yet completed production of Bren guns, that they were waiting because there had to be some modification which was coming from England. That is what the minister said. Under the terms of the contract the production of Bren guns was to start at the end of the twenty-fourth month, and 1,000 guns were to be delivered between the twenty-fourth and thirty-sixth months. We have been told continuously ever since war broke out, particularly during the election, that the Inglis company was far ahead of schedule in the production of Bren guns. If that is the situation, then why have we not had production of Bren guns? I think I am correct in making that statement.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The statement of the Minister of National Defence, as I recall it and as the facts would warrant, was that Bren guns are in production but have not been issued because certain modifications recommended by the War Office must be made before the guns are issued.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I quite agree with the minister that Bren guns are in production.


William Earl Rowe: But not produced.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I am saying that they are not produced.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They are produced.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: There is some modification which has to come from England. I am not finding fault with that. The people of this country are no longer going to be lulled into a sense of false security. They want the truth. They are not afraid of the truth. Let us speed up these things. About two weeks ago I listened to a programme over CBF entitled

Government Loan-Mr. Cleaver
"Canada at War". This included a description of a trip through the Bren gun plant, and it ended up with the knocking down and building up of a Bren gun, with all the attendant noise. The final bit was the firing of a Bren gun. If this matter entails a mechanical problem, then that is something for the engineers in charge to solve. If it is simply a lack of labour, then that is all the more reason why we should have a national registration. With a national registration the labour competent to do this job could be put at it. Perhaps other industries could be making certain parts of the Bren gun and thus help to speed up production. I do not say this in a spirit of criticism, I say it because each and every one of us is much concerned about the situation here in Canada, even for our own defence.
There are artillery units training in Canada which have never fired a gun. There are machine gun units which have no machine guns with which to train. These matters cannot be kept from the public because the boys who are in these units come home for leave. These boys are getting tired of the sort of training they receive. They feel they are not getting the training for which they enlisted. Our industries should be geared up to produce the commodities we need and enable these men to get the type of training for which they enlisted. Everything possible should be done for them so that when they do go over there they will have an equal chance of coming back. That is the whole story, and that is my reason for urging this on the government. As I say, the men in many of these units are disgusted because they have not had the proper training. They play baseball and softball, but we will not lick the Germans by throwing stones at them. We must have something better.
My reason for rising at this time is to ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ralston) or the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) if he will give some assurance along these lines. If that is done, I believe the people would respond. They would then feel that something worth while was being done. Give us the assurance that a national registration will take place as soon as possible. It is something that could be done quickly and cheaply.
There is another matter I intended to deal with, something that concerns the Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty). We are now beginning to pay the price for the cost-plus contracts which were given out by the Department of National Defence. Under these contracts the profit is based entirely on the cost of production. What has happened is that in a desire to speed up production, certain industries are going to other industries and coaxing
men to come and work for them at wages far in excess of what they are getting. Men are being taken away from industries which have government contracts obtained by tender and are being employed in industries with cost-plus contracts. The result is that certain industries are being slowed up in their war work. A national registration would give us some idea of what industries men could best be employed in and also provide some means of allocating labour to the different industries.
There is no one more willing than I to see men get more wages than they are getting at the present time, but we must remember we are in a war. It is not a Liberal or a Conservative war; it is a war that concerns every man, woman and child in this country. This matter is something the Minister of Labour should take cognizance of and see what can be done. I urge the government as strongly as I can to have a national registration immediately so that the people will feel that they are being given an opportunity to see what part they can play in this war.


Mr. CLEAVER:: Mr. Chairman, four Conservative members of this house have risen in their places and suggested the resignation of our Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). I think the time has come when private members on the government side of the house should express their views.
Before dealing with that, I should like to answer briefly the arguments advanced by the speaker who has just taken his seat and who has complained that Canada has been doing nothing about the manufacture of shells.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I did not do anything of the kind.


Hughes Cleaver: I would refer him to the
speech-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Wait a minute. The hon. member is not going to put into my mouth words that I did not use. I said nothing about not manufacturing shells. I said that we ought to speed up the manufacture of shells.


Hughes Cleaver: If the hon. member was not complaining, I should very much dislike to hear him when he is complaining.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: You will one of these days.


Hughes Cleaver: I would refer to the speech made by the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) on May 22, part of which I will read to him.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I have read it.


Hughes Cleaver: The minister said, at page 130 of Hansard:
Eight Canadian plants are at present engaged in the manufacture of 2,250,000 shells. These plants have been equipped with modern shell-

Government Loan-Mr. Cleaver
making equipment. Within a few days an additional 2,250,000 shell order will be placed. Thus within a few days twelve or more Canadian firms will be engaged in the manufacture of 4,500,000 shells. I might say by way of comparison that in the seventeenth month of the great war-
Not the seventh but the seventeenth month: -Canada shipped 5,380,000 shells to England.


An hon. MEMBER:: We have not shipped any yet.


Hughes Cleaver: The minister went on to say:
The shells which Canada now makes or will make in the immediate future include 40 millimetre, 18-pounder, 25-pounder, 3-7 inch, 4-5 inch, 6 inch and 9-2 inch shells.
Then the hon. member complained that we have not yet had deliveries of Bren guns. 1 did not think any member of the present Conservative opposition who sat in the house in the last regular session and urged the cancellation of the Bren gun contract would have the temerity now to rise in his place and criticize this government for maintaining that contract in force. The people of Canada are grateful to the government for retaining the Bren gun contract, and that we are now in actual production instead of having a year's delay.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Let us have another
political speech.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We might as well have a few.


Hughes Cleaver: I believe that in this
critical period the people of Canada are demanding one thing, namely, a vigorous prosecution of this war. I do not think it can be gainsaid that unity is the first requisite if Canada is to make her maximum contribution to the prosecution of this war. Second only to the strength and size of our armies and the quality of our military equipment is the necessity that the morale of our soldiers and of the public should be maintained. I say in all seriousness, Mr. Chairman, that any citizen of Canada or any member of this house who without justification attempts to undermine or weaken confidence in the government's prosecution of the war is positively guilty of sabotage of the nation's war effort- sabotage just as real and just as detrimental to the prosecution of the war as the sabotage of an alien enemy who destroys plant or equipment.


Ernest Lapointe: Fifth column.


Hughes Cleaver: Those words of mine are strong words. Mr. Chairman.
(Mr. Cleaver.]


John Ritchie MacNicol: Not so strong; pretty
weak.


Hughes Cleaver: But I believe that conditions to-day compel plain speaking and I intend to speak plainly, to recite facts, to draw no conclusions of my own but to ask members of this house to draw their own conclusions from the facts.
Anyone who has sat in this house during the last few days and heard member after member of the Conservative opposition from his place demand the resignation of the Prime Minister, and anyone in Canada who has read that part of our daily press which opposed the election of the present government, must fully realize the fact that there is a sinister and organized movement in Canada to-day to thwart the will of the Canadian people. The temerity and virulence of the attack are apparent to anyone who stops to think that the attack is being made within two months of an election in which our Prime Minister received the unbounded support of the people, the greatest support ever given to any Prime Minister at any time in our history. I say that such an attack is harmful to our war effort to the extent to which it has any effect either on our soldiers or on the general public. Certainly such an attack does not improve the morale of our people; certainly it does not intensify the loyalty of our troops.
Let us frankly and fearlessly look at the facts. The first member who rose in his place and demanded the resignation of the Prime Minister was the hon. member for York South (Mr. Cockeram), and what did he say? These are his words:
The record of the government since the outbreak of war is one of ineptitude and frustration. For that record he-
The Prime Minister.
-must take the responsibility. ... I solemnly implore the Prime Minister, for the good of his country, to emulate the example of Mr. Chamberlain.
That statement was made notwithstanding the fact that the war record of the government was the issue of the last election, and notwithstanding the fact that the electors of this country weighed that war record and gave the Prime Minister their whole-hearted support. The statement of the hon. member for York South was also made despite the fact that he himself did not receive even a majority vote of the electors in his own riding.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Neither did the Prime Minister in his riding, nor the Minister of Agriculture.


Hughes Cleaver: What was the one and only reason he advanced for that request? He said that the Prime Minister should

Government Loan-Mr. Cleaver
resign because Mr. Chamberlain resigned. Let us look at the two situations and see if they bear any similarity. Mr. Chamberlain took office in May, 1937. Mr. Chamberlain never at any time appealed to the electorate of Great Britain for support as leader of a government. Then, when the crisis came a few weeks ago, what happened? Out of a house of 615 members, of his supporters 130 did not vote and forty voted against the government, among them being Mr. Duff Cooper, a former First Lord of the Admiralty, Sir Roger Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet, and many other prominent private members. The result was that out of a house of 615 members, while the Prime Minister received a majority on the division, he received a minority vote of the house, for only 281 members out of 615 voted for the government.
What about the position in Canada? We have a Prime Minister who has just received an overwhelming vote of confidence from the people, and not one of his followers in the house is in revolt. Is there any parallel between these two situations? The only persons, the only groups of individuals, the only newspapers in Canada to-day who are asking for the Prime Minister's resignation are those who opposed him as bitterly as they could in the recent election. I sometimes wonder if these gentlemen really realize that we have had an election and that the people have spoken.
Let us come to the next member of the Conservative opposition who demanded the resignation of the Prime Minister, the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce), and let us examine the reason he advances for asking for that resignation. I will read from his speech:
I come now to a part of my remarks which is going to be very distasteful to me. I have been a friend of the Prime Minister of Canada for many years and have admired his many excellent qualities. He was prepared, as few in this country have ever been, by long years of education and training in state-craft for public life. He is a man of high character, a man of peace.
And now here is the ground for asking for his resignation.
I wonder whether these qualities, which are so admirable in times of peace, are not the very qualities which disqualify him now in time of war.
Let us examine this argument. As I understand it, the hon. gentleman says simply this: We do not want a man of high character to lead us in time of war. From the bottom of my heart I thank God that we have a man of high character at the head of our government. I will say this. Certainly the Prime Minister has not changed his disposition and 95826-24
his character since the election. To use his own words, while he is a man of peace he believes that peace can best be attained through a vigorous prosecution of the war. In any event, the Canadian people knew full well the character and disposition of the Prime Minister on March 26 last, and I believe that it was precisely because of his high character that the Canadian people chose Mackenzie King as their war Prime Minister. But as a preface to his demand for a change in leadersliip, the hon. member for Parkdale stated that what he was about to say was distasteful to him. He said that he had admired the Prime Minister and that the Prime Minister had many excellent qualities. He was educationally better fitted than any other man in Canada for the post. I say that either the hon. member who made these stater ments was sincere, or they were just as full of hypocrisy as the kiss of Judas.
Let us look over the record. I call as my first witness a certain Doctor Bruce who spoke at Massey Hall in March last. I ask hon. members to read the verbatim report of his speech in the Toronto Globe and Mail of March 19. He sat on the platform and listened to Colonel Drew making the most disgracefully virulent personal attack on the Prime Minister that, in my opinion, has ever been known in Canadian history. Did he upbraid that gentleman for making that attack? No; he doubled the offence. Let me read some of the remarks which Doctor Bruce made-and bear in mind that this is the same gentleman who, a few days ago from his place in the house, paid such a glowing tribute to the Prime Minister. Doctor Bruce gradually built up his courage until he could say what he wanted to say. He first accused the Prime Minister of "impertinence," of "domination of his own personal political machine" and of "four years of vacillation and side-stepping," and then when he got warmed up to the proper pitch, this is what he said:
Mr. King has created the impression that if war came Canada would not be standing behind the empire.
That statement, as to the truth or as to the loyalty of which I leave the house to draw its own conclusions, was made just six months after Mackenzie King had let a united Canada into war with an enthusiasm never before equalled in our history. Doctor Bruce then went on to say:
After being forced into war Mr. King for a full three months left the impression that Canada's contribution would be as slender as he could contrive to make it.
Those are the words of a friend.
The scuttling of parliament was the act of a desperate man who has been masquerading as a statesman too long.



Government Loan-Point of Order
And just three days ago the same hon. member said in this house that he was a friend of the Prime Minister, that the Prime Minister was the man best fitted in Canada for public life.	And listen to this final
touch:
I do not believe that Mr. King is sincere in his professed desire for Canadian unity unless he has a colossal capacity for self-deception.
I say that Canada gave an emphatic answer on March 26 to the Colonel Drews and to the Doctor Bruces of this country; and now this same Doctor Bruce-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman.	I do not think any hon.
member has the right to refer by name to another.


The CHAIRMAN:: The hon. member is going too far. The rules of the house are well known. In debate hon. members must refer to an hon. gentleman as the hon. member for so-and-so. In speaking as he has just done, the hon. member should have referred to "the hon. member for Parkdale".


Hughes Cleaver: There is some misapprehension, Mr. Chairman; I was referring to the Doctor Bruce who spoke in Massey hall.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member is quite in order in referring as he has done to the hon. gentleman, who was not then a member of the house. The hon. member was quoting from press extracts of remarks made by a gentleman who was then Doctor Bruce and is now the member for Parkdale.


Thomas Vien: The ruling has been given. The hon. member made two references to the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce). The first reference was to a speech by the hon. member for Parkdale before he was elected a member of parliament. That was in order. But later he referred to the hon. member for Parkdale after his election, and there he was out of order.


Hughes Cleaver: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand your ruling to be that the Doctor Bruce who made the speech in Massey hall before he was elected to this house is the same gentleman who is to-day the hon. member for Parkdale. And with that Massey hall speech still fresh in his memory as it must be, with those virulent attacks on the Prime Minister still fresh in his memory as they must have been, he rose in his place in this house and said:
I have been a friend of the Prime Minister of Canada for many years and have admired

his many excellent qualities. He was prepared, as few in this country have ever been, . . . for public life. He is a man of high character


An hon. MEMBER:: Dispense. Keep to the motion.


Hughes Cleaver: In my opening remarks I said I would not draw any conclusions of my own but would leave it to -hon. members to draw their own conclusion, and I now ask them to do so.
Throughout the years we -have heard a good deal of the so-called loyalty of the Conservative party. I confess with shame that as a young man before going overseas during the last war I was deceived into voting for Union government. But to-day when I see the workings of these self-styled loyalists, these conspirators who are seeking to undermine the unity of the Canadian people-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member has no right to refer to any other hon. members as conspirators. If the hon. member wants to make political speeches, I will meet him on any platform in the country.


Hughes Cleaver: I withdraw . the word
" conspirators." The hon. member came to my riding-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Mr. Chairman-


Thomas Vien: The hon. gentleman who has the floor just said he was withdrawing the word " conspirators."


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I did not hear him.


Hughes Cleaver: I withdraw the word
" conspirators," and I say the men who conspired together.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I rise to a second point of order. The hon. gentleman has made matters worse. I ask that those words be withdrawn, because in effect it is charging lion, members on this side with being conspirators. Let us have decency and a little decorum.


Ernest Lapointe: I listened to the hon. member very attentively; he did not refer to any member of the house just now. As a matter of fact, I know and hon. members know that if there is a conspiracy it starts from somewhere outside the house.


Hughes Cleaver: I do not want to offend the sensibilities of Conservative members, and I will withdraw the word " conspired " and say " communed " together. In reply to the hon. member for Waterloo South who challenges me to meet him on a platform, I should like to tell him and hon. members of the committee that he came to my riding

Government Loan-Mr. Cleaver
during the election, spoke at the town of Milton, and gave tne the largest Liberal majority ever turned in by that municipality.
These gentlemen who have communed together, these self-styled loyalists, provoke in me such scorn and contempt for their tactics as parliamentary rules do not permit me adequately to express.
I would have respected the hon. member for Parkdale if he had used words like these: " I have been a staunch Conservative all my life. I have received in the past high honours at the hands of my party; I have always opposed Mr. King; I have permitted unfair personal attacks upon him to go unrebuked; I have myself made bitter partisan attacks on him; I tried to defeat him in the last election, but I miserably failed. Notwithstanding all that, I am still willing to try to force him out of public life, even if it does affect the war effort of our war leader."
There is another thought. The Conservative members demanding the resignation of Mr. King have suggested that Colonel Ralston should take his place. I ask hon. members, if Colonel Ralston should become Prime Minister-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hughes Cleaver: If the Minister of Finance should become Prime Minister, just how long would he have the support of the Conservative opposition? Twenty-four hours? I do not think so. Has the Minister of Finance ever suggested that he could make a better contribution to our war effort in any other post than the one he so ably fills to-day?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: He is too modest.


Hughes Cleaver: Has the Minister of Finance ever suggested or hinted that his war effort has been thwarted or injuriously affected in any way by the Prime Minister?


James Layton Ralston: Quite the contrary.


Hughes Cleaver: And I ask this further
question: Just when did it become the duty of the Conservative party to pick a leader for the Liberal party? I frankly admit that they have had plenty of practice in picking leaders recently', but I would not say their efforts have been marked with conspicuous success.
I say to the opposition: Let us quit this quibbling. If you doubt that the Prime Minister has the support of this house, be men, have the courage to put the question to an issue. Let us have a vote. Then accept the result of the vote and get on with the war.
If I read public opinion aright, it is thoroughly disgusted with the exhibitions of
95826-24J
partisan criticism on the part of some hon. members-I do not say all-of the Conservative opposition. If we keep this up, and do not settle this question once and for all, these criticisms will do positive harm to our morale and our war effort.
While Canada demands that our war effort shall be prosecuted to the full limit of our ability, to those who say we should not count the cost I say that we would be doing a serious disservice to Canada's war effort if we committed Canada to financial obligations in excess of our ability to pay, and as a result, brought on a financial crisis.
In conclusion, let me say to the government: We are behind you to a man. In the light of the present crisis we believe that perhaps you have not done quite as much as we would have liked you to do, but go ahead with your task, and whatever sacrifice you demand of us will not be too great.


Thomas Langton Church: The hon. member for
Halton (Mr. Cleaver), who has just resumed his seat, has preached the parliamentarian's religion of the line of least resistance. I went to law school with his respected father some years ago, and I am not surprised at what the hon. gentleman has said. No doubt, in view of the political speech he has made he will qualify for some preferment or portfolio before the war is over, under the present pacifist, isolationist policy of this government.
I have taken a non-political stand, since I came to this parliament in 1921, on the question of defence and foreign affairs. I am a British imperialist, and I am not ashamed to say so. I am an unashamed Conservative as well; I ran as one in the last election. Since I have been in this house I have not adopted the policy of following my leader at all times, and that your leader is your policy, as the previous speaker does; I do not believe that is a policy consistent with our democratic parliamentary form of government. That policy has been found wanting in Ontario. I realize that everything we have to-day in this country in the way of liberty and freedom, we owe to the mother country. Just a year ago His Majesty the King departed from the city of Ottawa. As he went across this country the tremendous popularity of the monarchy was shown everywhere, and the love and affection the people of Canada hold for their king and queen. In my opinion, however, the popularity of our own form of government is not so great. We have been slow to notice the decline and decay in popularity of our parliamentary institutions and of the House of Commons during the last few years, brought about by the way in which the executive have usurped the functions, rights and privileges of

Government Loan-Mr. Church
the private members of this house. We have been slow to see also the way in which the great dominions have been drifting away from the mother country since the last war. I re' ferred to this during the debate which was opened last session under the auspices of the government, by a government member, the hon. member for Selkirk, through his motion regarding the status of Canada in war time, that parliament should decide the question of war, just as if we were a separate country and could remain neutral if we wished, in a war on Great Britain. I do not like to refer to it, as the hon. member is not here.
What is the situation? In the last war Germany fought the whole civilized world for four and a half years. At that time we had allies such as Italy and Japan, whom we never should have lost to please another country; and towards the end of the war the United States came in on our side. To-day Germany is far stronger than she was in 1914, when only the efforts of the mother country and her glorious dominions, and France, and towards the end of the United States, were sufficient to beat her. I was not a member of this house at that time, but we were slow to appreciate the change brought about by that war. The present generation, and many of the last generation, forgot that nothing was ever the same after Germany convulsed the world in 1914. That fact has been overlooked by the professional politicians who, like the Bourbons, learn nothing and forget nothing. Politicians we are and politicians we shall remain 1 The politicians in this house receive tumultuous applause at the hands of their supporters in this house and the hangers-on outside. The country does not expect Canada to beat Hitler by keeping the lights of the parliament buildings burning until midnight. We will not beat Hitler by the way we have been carrying on recruiting, on again, off again, on again. We will not beat him by majorities in parliament, by desk thumping or by yes-men, by nodders and pacifists in our country who caused this war. We will not beat him by parliamentary repartee or by blindfolding the public, as we have done for the last five years in regard to the real state of affairs throughout the world in respect to defence and foreign affairs. We in Canada, in parliament, have allowed the public to know just so much of the facts as they could learn through those who lead this government, or from those who write columns in the newspapers; the government have refused to give the people the facts.
The object of a newspaper, as I see it, is to give the people all the facts. What was said by the editor of the great Yorkshire Post

when he retired last year, about the press of England having kept from the public the real facts about what went on in parliament? He said that the acid test of a newspaper was the way in which it reported the .proceedings of the House of Commons, the way in which it let people know what was going on in the country's parliament. This House of Commons, together with the other chamber, is the only forum in which the grievances of the public can be brought up and remedied, and where the public can learn all the facts about this war and about the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite. It is the only place where we can get a proper explanation of the actions of the government on their policies, and the reply of the opposition to it all. We have never had an adequate explanation of the *policy of this government with regard to defence and foreign affairs. The staff of the Department of External Affairs have conducted the business of that department as though it were their own private business, and have told the public only what they want to let them know.
I am not blaming the press; I blame parliament. Probably the speeches here are not worth reporting, as one editor told me a few years ago. But there is another agency I blame even more; that is the radio, which is competing with the press to-day in the dissemination and distribution of information. I have paid tribute in the newspaper bill to the press of this country as a thoroughly honest, reliable body. I have paid tribute to them for the way in which they carried on both before and after Munich, in spite of the heavy costs of getting news, and publishing; but I really believe parliament is the only place where the people may find out what is the policy of the government, of the opposition, of the groups to my left, and all that sort of thing, and the public rely on the press for it. Mr. Chamberlain in January, 1939, told the House of Commons that if the people were not allowed to know the facts, but were told only so much as their rulers allowed them to know, then the government was embarking on a course that in future would be fraught with great danger to the country. I quoted this on a motion to go into supply, on March 21 last, criticizing the defence policy.
I have nothing to do with who may be the leader of the government; he has been elected by the people, and that is for them to say. The people deserve the form of government they voted for and got. I have no desire to criticize the Prime Minister. Far from it; I have known him perhaps longer than any other hon. member in the house at this moment, and I can say that he 'has always acted the part

Government Loan-Mr. Church
of a gentleman to people, and has been most courteous and kind in debate. There have been one or two exceptions, so far as I am concerned, but that is all. It is not for me to criticize the Prime Minister; he has been elected by the people who placed him where he is. But I point out that it is no disparagement of the front benches of the government to say that there are many men who as ministers have done most excellent work in peace time, yet in war time some are not suitable, do not take the needed action, and delay things. Criticism in France and Great Britain has been most useful. It has served as a tonic to governments, and sometimes it has been a blessing to them.
I am not reflecting on the government when I say that I believe our political executive have fallen down badly throughout the world since the war started. A different form of administration and a different manner of facing problems are required in war times from what is necessary in peace time. In my opinion the Prime Minister has been too much of an analytical intellectualist, and does not know how to combine or cooperate, or to decide promptly, and he does not know how to create a plan for the future or for the immediate prosecution of so great a war, nor does he see the significance of the policy of his drift in war, which was so severely condemned by Napoleon and by other great military leaders of past years.
He has conducted defence and foreign affairs as if this was a secret war, and has kept the information not only from members of parliament but from the country at large, as if it were his own personal business. Certainly we cannot get any information along defence lines, such as is given in the British parliament. He is conducting a limited liability war and a secret war. Even in respect of recruiting one is led to the conclusion that it is a secret war. Recruiting has been interfered with by the policy of exempting large bodies of people, to begin with, and by proceeding in an on-again, off-again, on-again manner. That has been followed to such an extent that we have the announcement of third and fourth divisions ten days ago, but when young people go to the recruiting offices this week to enlist in the air force, army or navy, they are met with the response, "We do not need you; we need only skilled craftsmen." Those young men cannot get jobs, cannot get relief, and cannot join the army, with the result that many of them find themselves in the awkward position of going back to panhandling and riding the rods, although ablebodied. If the government of the day had not brought about these recruiting delays, Canada would have 600,000 men in the
army to-day, from coast to coast under a voluntary system. That is the best system, if the people can get the facts, and it is the one which appealed to me and to others during the last war.
I believe, however, that the government have misjudged the whole question of manpower and have refused a national register. Three years ago I asked a question respecting man-power, food, industrial and economic power, and suggested a survey of large and small plants so that we might know our economic possibilities. I do not like to say anything respecting the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) when he is not in his seat, but the fact remains that some time ago, in 1937-39, when I saw war coming, I asked if he would establish food reservoirs in England, in view of the submarine menace which existed during the last war which almost starved out England in Easter, 1917. He was in England, but nothing was done. To-day he has made a political speech which will mean little or nothing to our troops overseas, but which brings joy to the government following in the house, while brave men are risking their lives.
Do not let us forget that on the eve of closing the session last May and June, I called the attention of the government to commitments given by Great Britain in 1939 which would, before the end of summer, mean war to Canada. I pointed out that on March 15, 1939, the Germans by force seized Bohemia and Moravia. On March 22, 1939, the Germans took Memel. On March 31 the British Prime Minister gave a pledge to Poland, in these words:
If Poland is attacked, in such a way as made it necessary for her to resist, his majesty's government would feel themselves bound at once to lend the Polish government all support in her power.
I pointed out that on April 7 Albania was attacked and occupied by Italy, as Italy had become a vassal German state. On April 13 the British Prime Minister addressed parliament in these words:
Britain has given formal assurances to the Greek and Roumanian governments that if they were attacked Britain would lend them active support.
I pointed out that on April 26 the British Prime Minister adopted conscription, when over 300,000 youths under twenty were called to the colours. Only two per cent of them registered as conscientious objectors.
I pointed out all those commitments, and then asked the government to state its policy because the dictators were after Canada, and we would be involved. What is the policy of hon. members opposite? We have eighty-five

Government Loan-Mr. Church
new young members in the house, and one might say that they are our hope. Yet the applause means they follow their leader. I did not agree with what was said on defence and foreign affairs by many hon. members who sat in the last parliament, but we must remember that we have these eighty-five new members, and we may hope that they will instil a little more life and spirit into the proceedings of the house. I would say to them, " Go not with the multitude to do wrong " and trust the people and they will trust you. And so I say to them and to members of the government: What was the policy of the government when those commitments were given by the British government? War was then in sight by a few weeks. The Prime Minister in England told the House of Commons last May that Great Britain would have to be prepared to sleep on its haversacks during the coming summer. Somewhat later I asked, through a newspaper article in the Globe and Mail of Dominion day, July 1, 1939, on the same lines:
Where, oh, where, is Canada? Is she still asleep? The Department of External Affairs is asleep. Our Canadian parliament were meeting all the above months this year and were kept in the dark, and the press silent also on Canada's pai't on all these commitments on such a world-wide front. Also re Japan and the Pacific.
Is Canada secure? No. We may have the awful horrors of war on our own soil, yet this year, while the Rip Van Winkles at Ottawa are asleep. If a storm comes on any of these fronts from Germany, Canada will be involved at once and all Canada's merchant ships on the seven seas will by German law be considered as belligerent.
To meet all this, Britain has only a small army-a regular army of 224,000 men only; below this strength even.
A territorial army of 325,000. Some new recruits still untrained. Anti-aircraft defence force only 96,000, and Britain has 2,000 less ships to carry food than in 1914.
Then I commented on the submarine menace. What did the government do? It did nothing, right down to the hour of the war. It did nothing after Munich. At that time we had what amounted to almost an explosion in Canada, in the press, on our unpreparedness on land, sea, and in the air. In that dark week in September. 1938, and even after Munich the government of the day did not bring down any policy, and had none but neutrality, dependence on the league and collective security, isolation, separatism and pan-Americanism.
After parliament closed the Prime Minister came to Toronto, and while there, in April, 1939, made a speech at the Royal York hotel. I have a copy of several pages of the meeting, but in it I find no real reference to defence

or the war-only a few lines-and that was less than thirty days before war was upon us. I ask the people of Canada what they think now of the public men in all parties who have been responsible for the helpless and defenceless position of this country when war came. I ask that question, because for the past four years I have been non-partisan in the matter so far as defence of the empire goes. When war broke out, what did our people think of our public men in this government who kept them in the dark and had no defence policy up to the very hour of the war.
As head of the Department of External Affairs, in season and out of season the Prime Minister has been teaching what? He has taught that peace pacts and protocols and peace agreements could take the place of service and sacrifice and rearmament. May I point out to him that in the whole history of the world that has never been so, and it is not so to-day. We see results of it at the present time, to our great humiliation as a people. The weakness of our army, navy and air force when war broke out led the dictators to believe that the dominions would never fight. That was the belief in 1914, when Germany thought that the empire was through. The pacifists and peace societies talk in and out of this house of sovereignty and collective security, and psalms of the like have led Hitler to believe that the British dominions would be neutral. In every instance since I have been here I have supported increases in the estimates for defence purposes, and in that connection I would refer hon. members to questions and answers placed before the House of Commons on February 14, 1938.
Where was Canada when Great Britain was asking the dominions to do something about the Singapore base, that great base in the Pacific ocean? New Zealand and Australia know what it means to them. British Columbia knew what it meant, and forced the government of the day to come down with a policy. On February 14, 1938, I asked the following questions of the Prime Minister:
1.	Has Canada been yet invited by the British admiralty to the ceremonial opening of the new giant dry-dock at Singapore on February 11?
2.	Is the government aware that the United States. New Zealand and Australian warships have been invited and have accepted the invitation according to dispatches from London, England?
3.	Does Canada contribute anything to maintain maritime freedom in the Pacific or to the cost of this Singapore base-past or present- and what agreement was ever in existence about it, if any?
4.	Who will represent Canada's navy if an invitation is extended to Canada?

Government Loan-Mr. Church
The Prime Minister replied:
1.	No.
2.	No official information; press reports have been noted.
3.	Canada has made no contribution to the cost of the Singapore naval base. The government know of no agreement in this respect. The expenditures upon measures for the naval defence of Canada, as approved by parliament from time to time, are shown in the records of the house.
4.	Answered by No. 1.
That was the reply of the government on a matter as important as that. During this debate we seem to be forgetting the lessons of history. We must remember history when dealing with these people. Canada as one of the overseas dominions is fighting the German people, and why should that fact not be brought home to them? Why are we depending on only one division, now in England, when we should have 600,000 men, ready and equipped? Over in Germany they have raised an army, largely on the western front, of 6,000,000 men. The question now is: Can the French army hold the line until Britain is able to obtain proper reinforcements? There is no fortification yet built that can stand forever. There comes a time when a break occurs. Should the dictators get to the channel ports, then it is all over as far as Canada and the United States are concerned, because Britain and France are our first defence. Germany will trample on Britain the way she did on Belgium during the last war, and the way she has on Czechoslovakia, Poland, Finland, Holland and Belgium during this war. When dealing with these people, we should not forget that the Prussianism of modern Germany has cost Europe the loss of 12,000,000 lives in four wars. Those wars were planned long ahead after she had lulled her prey into false security. She first spread by poisonous propaganda hopes of a peaceful end and secured the wide sympathy of professors and ill-informed columnists that no war would result. That is an example of what happened in 1914. Prussianized Germany chooses her victims by pagan methods. In 1864 her victim was Denmark; in 1866 it was Austria; in 1870 it was France, and in 1914 it was France and Serbia. She adopts the same methods as those of the pirate and assassin. She begins by vilifying her victim and then mobilizes her forces. She declares she has only peaceful ends in view and attempts to hinder any preparedness that might be going on. She waits until her victim talks and then calls the answer a gross insult to German honour. She then attacks her prey in a ferocious, bloody and pagan attack.
I am tired of reading in the Canadian press that the German people are not fighting us. They are fighting us. A great editor of the Toronto Telegram said during the last war in answer to the babble of pacifists that "we are not fighting the German people", that "everyone in Germany was fighting us from the scavenger on the street to the kaiser". Today everyone in Germany is fighting us from the scavenger on the street to Hitler. What are we doing to-day? We sit here in this chamber and talk party politics as if it was a past war, and not a real war. We hear a lot about majorities and we spend time listening to parliamentary repartee and all that kind of thing, but that will not win the war or beat Hitler. I am rather surprised at the action of the government of the day. It has been said that criticism is a tonic which stimulates governments to action. Britain has learned this to her sorrow from experience and has learned that constructive criticism prevents governments from relaxing into blunders which are nothing but suicide. So long as criticism is honest and founded on facts, so long as it is not inspired by any political motives, then is it most helpful. This applies more to times of war than to times of peace.
The Minister of Agriculture has taken part in this debate. He was one of those who preached pacifism, neutrality, and dependence on collective security and the league. He agreed with the policies of the hon. members to my left, namely, that pacifism, collective security and depending upon such sands as the League of Nations and Washington would enable us to weather the storm and prevent our being drawn into the conflict. All this has proven not to be so. As I said the other night, I prefer to speak not as a member of this house but as a private citizen, and I am ashamed of Canada's war effort so far. I do not say that any one party is to blame but the government in the main are, for refusing to face the facts. I am ashamed when I receive blue books from Australia and New Zealand showing what those countries are doing. New Zealand was represented at the opening of the Singapore base, and that country had a dreadnought in the great war. Her ships along with the Achilles took part in that thrilling attack on a German craft.
The press contained a story of the capture of a German boat by a Canadian destroyer, but the fact came out later that this boat had been captured by a British warship and the Canadian destroyer was simply acting as a tugboat to bring it into port. Then the Canadian press announced under an eight column head-line that Canada was guarding
36S
Government Loan-Mr. Bruce

the Dutch West Indies. This story also fell through when it was shown that a Canadian destroyer was simply acting as a ferry boat to transfer 500 soldiers to the shore. I think we should be receiving information different from that kind of thing.
In 1938 the people on the Pacific coast suddenly became alarmed at the unprotected state of their long coast-line of 600 miles. The Minister of National Defence then brought down a defence policy based on a possible attack upon the United States by a transpacific power. In 1935 the United States under its present president adopted a naval policy whereby she was to have a navy equal in strength to that of the British navy. In 1938 our minister, when bringing down a measure for a certain amount of protection, stated that the existence of a first-class naval base on Puget sound demanded that any enemy be prevented from establishing advance bases within effective flying range of approximately 600 miles. The most northerly of the Queen Charlotte islands is within 600 miles of Seattle. He stated that it would be our responsibility as a neutral to prevent advance bases being established on Canadian territory.
From whom were we getting our protection at that time? We were getting it from the mother country and the British fleet alone, and all our defence, as in 1812, was relying on Great Britain. There are four things over which we can rejoice, all of which help to keep the dictators from our shores. First, there is geography. Second, we must give thanks for the Royal Navy which protects Canada and the United States. Third, we must give thanks for the glorious French army and, fourth, we must be thankful for the Royal Air Force. If the glorious men who serve in the Royal Canadian Air Force had been given an opportunity through the 1937 scheme, they would be over there now. In 1938 the per capita contribution of the mother country for defence was thirty times that of Canada, and Canada was $1.25 a head. In 1935 Canada's permanent active militia consisted of 3,000 officers and men and we had four destroyers. The naval forces comprised 88 officers and 781 ratings. These figures were given in a return which the minister brought down to the house.
The economy axe did fall heavily in 1930 because of the depression and other conditions and because the government of the day was listening to the prattle of the pacifists, who were depending upon pan-Americanism. To the credit of the minister I want to say that in 193S he brought down estimates doubling the per capita cost of our contribu-

tions for defence, and four modern destroyers were acquired. But they are not modern to-day; naval personnel was increased by 65 per cent, mine-sweepers by 65 per cent, and there was provision for mechanization of the forces. That was all very well as far as it went, but the policy of Canada remaining neutral and depending on pan-Americanism, the Monroe doctrine and the policy of isolation was not right, nor was the policy of the government in following such farces as the League of Nations and listening to the babble of the pacifists who caused this war. If we had got away from these things and away from the pacifists who caused this war, we would be in a much better position to-day to defend this country.
I did not know this question was coming up to-day, but ever since I have been a member of the house I have, in season and out, opposed these policies of neutrality, isolation and dependence on Washington for our defence, and supported cooperation and coordination and rearmament with Britain,


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to delay the committee for more than a moment or two, but I feel that if I sit quiet in my place my silence might be misconstrued.
Since coming to this house I have heard many references made to an election that was held on March 26 last. I have made no references to anybody's political speech during that campaign and I have no intention of doing so now. I entered the campaign from purely patriotic motives. I did not enter it as a partisan. I offered myself as a candidate for National government because I thought that that was the form of government best suited for Canada in this time of war. I think the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Gardiner) has given to the house the very best evidence to show that I was not and am not to-day a partisan when he said that I had an association with the Leadership League. That league was founded by a gentleman in Toronto, Mr. George McCullagh, purely from high patriotic motives. He was and is a supporter of the party which is now in power. I joined him when, after efforts of many months, he was unable to carry on. I have no apology to make to the house or to the country for anything I did on that occasion, nor have I any apology to make for what I have done in the service of Canada since I was old enough to do it.
I should like to say to the members of this house and perhaps to a larger audience outside that the day after war broke out I offered my services in any capacity to the then

Government Loan-Mr. Ross. (Moose Jaw)
Minister of National Defence, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie), who is now sitting in the house. Again when he was superseded by another Minister of National Defence (Mr. Rogers), thinking perhaps that the second minister might not know of that offer, I again offered my services to my country in any capacity but specifying particularly that I had certain qualifications for service with the Canadian army medical corps. I therefore offered my services specifically as a consultant to the Canadian army medical services of Canada. I received a very polite answer but nothing more happened. I should like to ask hon. gentlemen here, how many of those who have to-day been so noisy have yet offered their services to Canada?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Shame.


An hon. MEMBER:: You would be surprised.


Hughes Cleaver: I have.


An hon. MEMBER:: Many of us have.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I know that some of them have and I admire their patriotism. I know that many who are here served gallantly in the last war. I do not intend to make any further reference to that.


An hon. MEMBER:: You had better not.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I have no apology to make for any services I have given to Canada since the last war. I am in this house, Mr. Chairman, for the one and sole purpose of adding my small contribution, whatever it may be, towards the maximum effort by this government to win the war. At this solemn time when our hearts are heavy, when some of our fellow-countrymen are probably giving their lives in France, I will conclude by saying:
The tumult and the shouting dies;
The captains and the kings depart:
Still stands Thine ancient sacrifice,
An humble and a contrite heart.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Chairman, when we came to this parliament a few days ago, none of us expected that there would be any political battles on the floor of this house. However, the opposition has made it impossible for members on the government. side of the house to see and hear the leader of the government attacked day after day without replying. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) wisely selected an election date at a
time when there was no war hysteria in this country and the people had a chance to vote coolly and calmly on the issue. The slogan of the opposition was that " King must go." The election was fought on this issue- whether Mackenzie King and the Liberal government should lead Canada through the war or whether the National government should take their place. The most decisive defeat in the history of Canada was sustained by the National government forces and by those other forces who stood up against Mackenzie King in that election. The greatest mandate, the greatest vote of confidence ever given by the Canadian people was given to Mackenzie King and the Liberal government in the last election. The people of Canada surely thought that the matter was settled for at least four years and for the remainder of the war if it should exceed that period. I thought when I came here that there would be no politics, that all members would endeavour to assist the administration at this time; but although the Tory party was decimated in the election, the members of that party still have the Tory mentality that they are born to rule. They cannot understand that the people have a right to speak-and the people have spoken most emphatically.
The Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) this afternoon said that throughout the two months of the election campaign the Tories had tried to get in by the front door and that now they are endeavouring to get in by the back door. I think it is by the parachute route they are trying to get in. With a war fever on, with some of our people somewhat jittery at the present time, the Tories in this house, the newspapers supporting them, and their political organization throughout the country are all endeavouring to undermine the government at this very moment-a thing that almost borders on treason. Their love of country, so loudly shouted, cannot wait for their lust for power. The wounds inflicted upon them by Mackenzie King will not heal; they must have their revenge even though it jeopardizes the very life of Canada and of the empire to-day.
A united Canada is behind Mackenzie King. He has led wisely and well for many years; his foresight has been outstanding. For fifteen years I have seen old politicians and young in this house, on his own side and on the opposition, disagree with his judgment. He has invariably been right and they have invariably been wrong. His leadership is being challenged now-by strong men? No. There are no strong men in the opposition to-day. There sits facing the government to-day, Mr. Chairman, the weakest opposition that has
370	COMMONS
Government Loan-Mr. Ross (Moose Jaw)
ever faced a government in the parliament of Canada; and arrayed against that opposition is the strongest government with the strongest following, not only in numbers, because the new men who have come in since the election, so far as the government side of the house is concerned, are of the highest quality and compare favourably with any men who have come to this house since confederation.
The Tory organization, the Tory press, the Tories in this house cry for a new leader. I will admit that they need one, and almost anyone brought in would be outstanding at the present time. A gentleman in a high position in another place calls for a new leader. His judgment has been rejected on many occasions by the people of Canada. Perhaps the ease with which he holds a seat in the parliament of Canada by appointment has made him forget the difficulties he had in getting into it by election. The hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) asks for leadership. Well, 'he knows something about it; he led his party in Ontario to oblivion. The hon, member for Danforth (Mr. Harris) shouts for a leader. Well, he could not get twenty men out of thirty-eight to support him in that, and they knew him much better than the people of Canada.
Last and least is the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce). He symbolizes leadership; he is the last vestige of the Leadership League. When he started to lead it, he put his head high in the air. He never looked back, and he has not realized to this day that he is the only one left of the many thousands who formed the organization at one time. But his criticism of the leader of the government appears to be natural. He has before attempted to oust and succeeded in ousting men from high places. He spoke this afternoon of the Canadian Army Medical Corps. During the last war there was considerable grumbling in the Canadian Army Medical Corps, and it finally culminated in real dissatisfaction when some of the units of the Canadian Army Medical Corps were sent to the Mediterranean. The reasons were not apparent on this side of the water. Those in charge here did not clearly understand why, and the man who is now the hon. member for Parkdale was sent overseas to investigate. Personally I know little of the incident, so I go to an undoubted authority for my information. I shall read from the History of the Canadian Forces, 1914-19: Medical Services, by Sir Andrew Macphail, beginning at page 165:
It was not so easy to convince Canadians of the propriety of sending medical units into areas where no Canadian troops were engaged. Vos. 1, 2 and 5 stationary hospitals had been

dispatched to the Mediterranean and this afforded a new point of controversy. A piteous and moving letter to Major-General Jones from Sir Alfred Keough, director general of the army medical service, silenced all but the most unreasoning criticism: " I had not any hospitals at the moment. 1 called upon you for assistance. You gave me hospitals. They saved the situation. They were good hospitals, containing good officers. I shall always be indebted to you for the help you gave me at a time when I was very hard pressed. The only alternative was to send home wounded in transports, which might have been sent to the bottom of the sea if you had refused the help I asked. You were quite entitled to refuse to send Canadian hospitals where there were no Canadian troops. I am very glad you did not."
The inspector, after an investigation that lasted six weeks, issued his report on September 20. To this the medical director issued a reply. Both documents were reduced to comparative abstracts by a practised lawyer, and on October 6, 1916, all was placed before a body in London known as the acting overseas sub-militia council. This body was largely composed of "business men," the term that was used in those days to designate persons who were infallibly wise in giving decisions upon subjects of which they knew nothing. The report was approved, and the council advised that the necessary reorganization of the medical service be made to give effect to the recommendations.
The council then set forth formally that "whereas the investigation had already seriously interfered with the administration of the service under Major-General G. C. Jones, the council recommended that Colonel Herbert A. Bruce, the special inspector-general, be appointed acting director in his stead." Upon this resolution a poll was taken. All the members approved except Brigadier-General Leckie who declined to vote. Possibly the resolution was too strange and subtle for the mind of a soldier. The result of these deliberations was conveyed to Ottawa. The minister approved. By formal letter he wrote to the council, "Kindly give the necessary authority to Colonel Herbert A. Bruce, special inspector-general, to proceed with the reorganization of the medical service, as recommended in his special report to me." Colonel Bruce accordingly began his great work. His first step was to transfer the title of acting director, which the council had conferred upon him, to another officer, "as a temporary measure until a suitable man could be found." Such a measure, and the use of such derogatory words may be ascribed to inexperience and lack of aptitude.
In the leisure of office, if the new director had studied the abstract of the two reports, his own and his predecessor's reply, prepared for the council by the deputy judge-advocate general, lie must have been astonished to read that of the fourteen recommendations he had made his predecessor concurred in eleven, partially concurred in one, concurred in another apart from the expense in carrying it out, and disagreed with only one. From this it appears that General Jones was conversant rvith the whole situation. In his reply he explained the difficulties in the way; and with the curious irony of events the new director encountered those very difficulties in the task which he undertook so bravely.
On November 20 he complains bitterly, "All I can do is to make known the requirements to

Government Loan-Mr. Maybank
those in authority over me, and to suggest the most effective way of carrying them out, leaving to those authorities, whose province it is, the duty of taking the necessary steps." At this time he also records the discovery-a mistaken one-that "the whole matter of providing hospital accommodation is in the hands of the quartermaster-general." This experience is not unique. There is nothing in the army so difficult for an officer as making his superiors perform their duty.
In spite of his good intentions the new director found himself roughly taken to task for failure to have those matters settled which he had already explained were no affair of his -after he had made a report upon them. In his own defence he was obliged to write on November 20 to the overseas minister "that he had repeatedly and vainly brought them to the attention, both in writing and verbally, of the sub-militia council and the responsible heads." He protests that action on his part was not delayed, but that on the contrary he had placed the matter before the sub-militia council on four separate occasions-the same council which had judged so sapiently between himself and the previous incumbent. Again he is writing direct to the overseas minister, who recommends him to operate through the usual channels. He was obliged to confess that after writing letters since August 26 at "the present moment the venereal situation is most serious and is becoming more so." Indeed he is more critical of the service under his own direction than he was when it was under his predecessor.
Within a month of assuming office he was writing: "Administrative work of this character is distasteful to me." Inspection, criticism and reporting was much easier. Administrative work is distasteful to all soldiers, but they do it. The irony of a soldier's life is that he enters the army to escape from books, and if he succeeds the remainder of his life is spent amongst files, which are books of the most desolating kind. When a military board was called on November 16 to review the report he had made he cabled to the premier protesting against its membership and asking to be relieved and sent home. To this request no answer was received, which was a sign that a new system had come into being. He was relieved of his appointment December 30. 1916, and General Jones was reinstated in his stead.
Now, Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend brought up his service in the medical corps this afternoon, and I just wanted to read that statement from an undoubted authority. The hon. member has ousted people from high places before and had his own nominees put in their places. On this occasion I am certain that he had unbounded confidence in the man that he had placed in General Jones' position. It is men of this kind who are trying to wreck a government in the greatest crisis in Canadian history. But they will not succeed. They are the light brigade-in name only; very light. This government has the strongest support in the country that a government ever had in Canada. This government has the strongest support in the house that it or any government ever had. This government has the wisest and strongest leader that ever sat in this House of
Commons since confederation. No man has ever earned or received the whole-hearted support from his party so much as has Mackenzie King, the present leader of the government. In addition, he holds the respect and friendship of those outside our borders, a situation which is very important for the British empire at the present time. I did not think we had to come here to answer the gibes of the opposition. I think it is time we stopped this political sniping in this house. We have an important job to do, which will take our best thought and all our time.


Joseph Henry Harris: Let us get at it.


John Gordon Ross: That is right; let us get at it.


Mr. MAYBANK:: Mr. Chairman, I do not think I need say anything to this committee in order to convince hon. members that I am not likely to pay court to any person, to speak in complimentary terms of any person or anything of that sort merely because some person else may have done so. I have maintained, as I propose to continue to maintain, an attitude of what I believe to be healthy independence. But in view of the remarks that I made a few days ago in this house, I must say that I have been appalled at the attitude taken by some hon. members, particularly those of the Conservative opposition, during the last few days. To-day we have had a sort of field day in the way of reply. Some bitter things have been said. I do not propose to follow along that line, but to the two hon. gentlemen who have been singled out in particular to-day I must say this. They have no one but themselves to blame if they have been dealt some rude blows here this afternoon. The hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce) ought to know, if any person should, that by the speeches he has made in this house he has not been advancing the war effort of this country. Surely if there were to be a reorganization of the government, his proper place in it would be as a minister of misstatement. And the oratorical exhibitionism of the hon. member for Dufferin-Simeoe-well, it has been forty minutes plus forty minutes plus forty minutes plus forty minutes of delaying the game, delaying the work of the house. That is the contribution he has made.
I do not propose to deal at any length with the absurdities by way of misstatements made by the hon. member for Parkdale-I almost said the minister of misstatement-particularly with reference to the tanks he would manufacture. I wish to get away from that immediately, Mr. Chairman, and to say to the committee that we have before us a resolution stating that authorization should be given to raise a certain amount of money by way of

Government Loan-Mr. Maybank
loan, and all this is related to getting on with the war. I am going to propose, more particularly to the members of the opposition, but to all other hon. members as well, that we impose upon ourselves, in connection with any measure coming before the house concerning the war effort of Canada, a self-denying ordinance and speak for not more than ten minutes, without insisting upon the right of private members to speak for forty minutes. Of course that which would form the subject matter of the speech would be a question of taste, and judgment, but it seems to me that we can boil down what we have to say to mere factual statements and get away from all the turgid oratory of the kind we have been forced to listen to in the last few days. If we do not do that, Mr. Chairman, or something of the kind, we will have first one person on one side of the house making a statement which will provoke some person on the other side of the house, so that we will advance almost not at all.
Having said that I think we ought to confine ourselves to statements as short as possible, I feel that it is time I myself should stop.


Mr. JAQUES:: I do not think we in this , group can be accused of playing politics, but I should like to say that I believe most people outside this house will agree that the fate of this government or of parliament itself will depend not on the amount of thumping we give our desks but on the thumping we give the common enemy. In view of certain statements that have been made as to the policies of this group, I should like to read two planks from the platform we used in Alberta during the election campaign. The first plank is:
We believe that Canada should finance her share in this war by the creation of the necessary debt free credit and currency, with definite price regulations to prevent any inflationary rise in prices, thereby enabling the dominion to give the most effective support without the nation incurring huge debts by borrowing or resorting to exorbitant taxation.
We strongly support the just demands of Canadians for the greatest possible equalization of sacrifice, including adequate measures to ensure the present and future economic security of all our people. We affirm that the conscription of finance, without expropriation of individual's property or money, should precede the conscription of man-power.
The other plank is:
We are opposed to any private or corporate monopoly of money and credit. Until the active control of the creation and issuance of all money and credit is taken over by the federal government, no real democracy, general prosperity or economic security can be enjoyed by our people.
This measure is similar to one which a year ago was the subject of a long debate in this house, followed by an inquiry con-

ducted by the banking and commerce committee into our banking and financial system. That inquiry brought out some useful infor-[DOT] mation which not only has not been publicized but has been denied in the press generally. In fact we in this group have been accused of misstatements when we have stated them on the platform and in the press. I should like to read one or two questions and answers which occur at page 285 in the evidence of Mr. Towers. I might add that the bulk of the questions were put by an hon. member who sits on the government side of the house. Here is one:
Q. Ninety-five per cent of all our volume of business is being done with what we call exchange of bank deposits-that is, simply bookkeeping entries in banks against which people write cheques?
A. I think that is a fair statement.
Q. When you allow the merchant banking system to issue bank deposits-with the practice of using cheques-you virtually allow the banks to issue an effective substitute for money, do you not?
A. The bank deposits are actually money in that sense.
Q. As a matter of fact they are not actual money, but credit; bookkeeping accounts, which are used as a substitute for money?
A. Yes.
Q. Then we authorize the banks to issue a substitute for money?
A. Yes I think that is a very fair statement of banking.
And another statement which has been denied so often is this statement of Mr. Towers:
The banks cannot, of course, loan the money of their depositors.
And then, follow these questions and answers:
Q. You will agree with the statement that has been made, that banks lend by creating the means of payment?
A. Yes, I think that is right.
And then, with respect to financing a war there is this statement:
So far as war is concerned to defend the integrity of the nation there will be no difficulty in raising the means of financing whatever those requirements may be.
We have been told-in fact the vast majority of people believe-that the efforts which can be made not only in war but in peace are confined to the money which the government can. borrow from savings or raise by taxes. But Mr. Towers answered that question differently when he said this:
The limit of the possibilities depend on men and materials.
Had that fact been fully grasped, not only by the people at large but, I will venture to say, by this government, and had it been acted upon, I believe that we should have been able by this time to have made a very much greater contribution to the war than has been made up to the present time. When

Government Loan

Mr. Jaques
I say that, I have no political meaning whatsoever. I am not blaming this party or that party; I am merely condemning a system of finance which both parties administer.
Finally-and I offer this from page 771 as the most illuminating of the answers to the questions:
Q. Would you admit that anything physically possible and desirable can be made financially possible.
A. Certainly.
I have before me an extract from the report of a royal commission which was set up to inquire into the monetary and banking system of Australia. This commission, which sat in 1938, found as follows:
Because of this power the Commonwealth Bank-
Which corresponds, of course, to the Bank of
Canada.
-can lend to governments and to others in a variety of ways, and it can even make money available to governments and to others free of any charge.
And that is amplified by this statement:
The statement in the paragraph mentioned is to the effect that as a matter of power the Commonwealth Bank can make moneys available to governments or to others on such terms as it chooses,-even by way of a loan without interest, or even without requiring either interest or repayment of principal.
Now, as a consequence of the financial system which, I might say, controls not only this parliament and government, but all other parliaments in democratic countries, taxation becomes so burdensome that it is impossible to finance the necessary things which should be done. I should like to quote from a speech made in the House of Commons in England by Mr. Lloyd George on February 12, 1931, in which he said this:
I want to urge the chancellor again not to be frightened of the city of London.
And I might say that the city of London means, of course, the Bank of England.
Since the war the city has been invariably wrong in advising the government. Deflation was wrong and it had most injurious effects. They have been wrong every time, and there is no doubt they w-ere using the whole of their tremendous influence for the purpose of restricting the raising of money for national development. Take the cause of the depression throughout the world at the present time: There is not a man who has examined it who will not tell you that a very large part of it is due to the mishandling of monetary questions on the advice of the money barons. These men who have mishandled this monetary question not merely advise what to do but establish a veto upon every proposal which is made for national development. If you go to the city of London, what is their remedy for the depression? Their only remedy is by placing artificial barriers to prevent plenty from reaching want.
And I say this, that not only has our failure so far been one of not doing what we could have done in aiding in the prosecution of the war, but I believe that the very war itself was brought about by those conditions. And I believe that so long as you have the policy of nations controlled by the money-lenders, there is not much hope for us.
When the then Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) introduced the war budget last September, he said that no matter how the war was financed, the real costs must come out of current production. That is true. The real costs of the war are precisely the blood, the sweat and the tears which must be shed in the fighting of the war. When the war is over, the real price has been paid. But we are still paying for the last war. In Great Britain they are still paying for the Boer war and even for the Crimean war. I ask hon. members to consider the debt which will be accumulated by this war. I ask them to add it to the debt accumulated by the war of twenty-five years ago and then ask themselves what will be the total debt of this country and what taxation will be necessary to service that debt.
At general meetings which were held in Montreal and Toronto throughout the winter, our bankers expressed the opinion that when we have won this war we can.look forward to generations of hard times. I should like to direct the attention of the proper minister- I do not know whether it would be the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe)-to the fact that such statements have an adverse effect upon recruiting in the country and the enthusiasm of our people for war. A number of people have said to me that apparently it does not matter whether we win or lose, we are going to be ruined anyway. I do not think there is any need of having generations of hard times. It must be because these people, as Mr. Lloyd George has said, control the policy of governments. I think that sort of thing has done more harm than the statements of these people who have been put under restraint.
If our present system of government cannot prevent generations of hard times, then it cannot survive. We shall have to get some other form of government which will give us some measure of prosperity instead of generations of hard times. I should like to quote a statement by Mr. Philip A. Benson, president of the American Bankers' Association, made during a speech delivered at Milwaukee on June 8, 1939. He is quoted in the New York Times of June 11, 1939, as follows:
There is no more direct way to capture control of a nation than through its credit system.
Government Loan-Mr. Pouliot

We believe that it is possible to finance this war without piling up this enormous debt. If debts are piled up during this war as they were during the last, then I cannot see how we shall survive the peace. If we win the war, we certainly shall have deserved a better fate than generations of hard times. I suggest respectfully to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ralston) that he continue the sittings of the committee on banking and commerce. Experts should be called in to see if there is no practical possibility of financing this war without creating a debt which will throttle the life from the nation.


Mr. POULIOT:: Mr. Chairman, after listening to the horn member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Jaques), I have come to the conclusion that he is the victim of an illusion. He is confounding an accessory with a principle. As everyone knows, currency is simply an accessory which makes up the difference in trade and barter. In the view of the hon. gentleman this country should issue a different kind of money. Then our soldiers would be paid with little pieces of paper, similar to this piece I am exhibiting, which is torn from an order paper. That would satisfy my hon. friend and the members of his group. Such paper would be worth nothing, but my hon. friend would be satisfied. He would have reached his goal.
I know the hon. member for Wetaskiwin as an intelligent citizen, but I cannot understand his scheme. I have listened to members of his group expounding their theories in the house and quoting Lloyd George and Doctor Schacht, reading extracts from speeches delivered in Milwaukee, quoting speeches by Mr. Aberhart and by the illustrious Mr. Herridge.


Norman Jaques: And Lloyd George.


Jean-François Pouliot: Lloyd George has outlived his usefulness.


Norman Jaques: Mr. Lloyd George saved the situation twenty-five years ago. He is possibly the most illustrious Liberal alive and his ideas are good enough for me.


Jean-François Pouliot: I call the hon. gentleman to order. If he desires to ask me a question, he must rise in his place and ask my permission. I do not intend to be intex'rupted by the hon. gentleman. I know the history of England just as well as he, and I have read many of the books written by Lloyd George as well as many of the articles which have appeared in the yellow press. He has outlived his usefulness, and that is why Mr. Churchill did not invite him to be a member of his cabinet.
We hear quotations from remarks of Mr. Lloyd George and from statements by many other people whom the hon. gentleman does

not know. This is all a complete waste of time. I should like to ask: Is political economy a science? The answer is "no", for a very good reason. A science must be based upon facts and definite rules. A science is objective, not subjective. A science cannot be formed from the queer views expressed by the hon. gentlemen who form the social credit group. All they have is a conglomeration of views which scream because they have been brought together. These hon. gentlemen are always busy taking notes which are never read by anyone and yet they think they are saving the world. They are trying to find a utopia. We know that currency should be worth something on the markets of the world. During the French revolution the government in power issued assignats, which were similar to the certificates issued by the Aberhart government. Everyone must use his tongue to stick a little stamp no bigger than a diamond on the back of these certificates.


Ernest George Hansell: That is what we shall all be doing pretty soon.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then the hon. member will be wasting his saliva. I shall be wasting mine by trying to describe further this utopia.


Ernest George Hansell: I am referring to the time when the Minister of Finance begins to issue his stamps.


Jean-François Pouliot: Those stamps will be worth something, but the others just provide a foolish exercise for the tongue. I must congratulate the leader of the social credit group, the hon. member for Wetaskiwin and the other members of that group for not advocating a new leader for the Liberal party, especially when their own leader, Mr. Herridge, suffered a most humiliating defeat at the polls. I understand Mr. Aberhart is giving him the cold shoulder, which is so much the better for Mr. Aberhart. But for a time Mr. Herridge was accepted as the Moses who was to lead the Canadian people into the promised land. Of course Mr. Herridge *was to have a candidate of his own in every constituency of this country, but there was none in mine. Very few of his candidates survived, and those who did succeed in being elected can tell him now that he was wrong. That leader of that new group got what he deserved. He has been defeated, and I hope he is out of the public life of this country for good.
Now I look at my hon. friends who are in front of me, and may I tell them that during the last campaign my slogan was: "No Union Government." Their leader then was Doctor Manion, who is a personal friend of mine. He came into my constituency last summer

Government Loan-Mr. Pouliot
and made an interesting speech. He said that he used to spend some time at Riviere du Loup, my home town, and along the shores of the St. Lawrence river, and that when he went in bathing he found the water there very cold. But what was colder than the water was the reception that he got from my electors. He said some more insignificant things like that, as did the others who accompanied him, and after a short time the rain started to fall and the meeting was over. Doctor Manion was the leader of a great party, but 'he was dropped like a hot potato by all the hon. gentlemen who are in front of me. I was very much surprised when the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black) suggested Doctor Manion as a "one dollar" man. Is he not worth more than that?
May I remind hon. gentlemen of the Conservative party who are here for the first time that their party had a great leader, another Moses who was to bring the Canadian people to the promised land, the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, and I remember the day, sir, during the special session of 1930, in the month of September, when that leader of the Conservative party, who had just been elected by a large majority-not on account of the bad policies of the Liberal party but just because he had told the people that he would make gold out of butter-sat here in his seat as Prime Minister of Canada. I remember his perfect sartorial attire, and his importance-


Joseph Henry Harris: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. The point of order is that the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) is not speaking within the confines of the resolution before the chair, and that his remarks are entirely out of order. And I would ask how much longer this farce is to go on.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I do not see any point of order in what my hon. friend has said.


Joseph Henry Harris: Mr. Chairman-


Jean-François Pouliot: Just a minute, please.


Thomas Vien: I understand that the hon. gentleman is speaking to the point of order.


Jean-François Pouliot: Speaking to the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I can see no point of order because although my hon. friend is gifted with the most powerful voice of any member of the house, I did not hear a word of what he said.


Joseph Henry Harris: If I may have the privilege, Mr. Chairman, of restating the point of order which I desire to raise in this honourable chamber, it is this, that the hon.
member for Temiscouata is not speaking within the confines of the resolution which is presently before the chair. I made one further observation: How much longer is this farce to go on in this serious time?


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I draw the attention of the hon. member to the very important fact-


Thomas Vien: The hon. member must now speak to the point of order.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, sir, I now do. Speaking to the point of order, I draw the attention of the hon. member to the important fact that by what he has said he shows that he has never read the rules of the house. My remarks, I submit, Mr. Chairman, are perfectly relevant, and I hope that this day I shall not suffer the same injustice as that which I was the victim of the other day. I want to tell you, sir, that any member of this house has the right to follow hon. gentlemen opposite on the path which they have chosen for war.


Thomas Vien: Does any other hon. gentleman desire to speak to the point of order? If not, I draw the attention of the committee to the fact that the resolution calls for an authorization-

to raise by way of loan under the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, 1931, an amount not to exceed in the whole the sum of seven hundred and fifty million dollars for paying or redeeming the whole or any portion of loans or obligations of Canada and also for purchasing unmatured securities of Canada and for public works and general purposes.
I consider, in the first place, that the resolution is of the nature of a motion to go into supply, and that has been the construction put upon it, I think, since the beginning of this debate, when the widest possible latitude has been given. I believe, therefore, that the hon. gentleman in speaking as he does is within his rights.
I would further draw the attention of the committee to this, that if it were proposed to restrict the discussion, that step should have been initiated a little earlier in the debate. At this stage I think we must give the utmost latitude to hon. members, as if this were a debate on the address or on the budget.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I have just a wmrd to add. My hon. friend the member for Danforth (Mr. Harris) was a member of the last parliament; and when Mr. Bennett left Canada, the hon. member was not one of the two members of the Conservative party who said good-bye to him at the station here in Ottawa. He preferred to stay in his room
Government Loan-Mr. Pouliot

at the Chateau Frontenac, although the house was not sitting at the time. He was not regretting his leader any more than that.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Chateau Frontenac?


Jean-François Pouliot: Nor was the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) at the station either. It was only the member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), and my dear old friend from Parkdale, Mr. Spence, who, I regret, is now dead.


John Ritchie MacNicol: All I suggested to the hon. member was that when he said the Chateau Frontenac he probably meant the Chateau Laurier.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is all right. But my statement as to the hon. members not being there is correct.
There is another point. The present leader of the Tory party in the Senate has been mentioned as a possibility for the leadership of a Union government.


Thomas Vien: I would draw the attention of the hon. member, as of all other hon. members, to the fact that it is not permissible in this house to refer to the upper chamber except as "another place". The Senate cannot be mentioned by name.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is all right, sir. The leader of the Tories in the other place was speaking on that subject, and I have only this to add. It is that what is left of his ashes has been exposed in the ash tray of the Rideau club-I mean the Ottawa Journal -and is politically dead. I attach no more importance to him. Every member who has spoken has mentioned his platform during the last election. My platform, as I have said, was "No national government". Of course, that government existed only in the fertile imagination of Mr. Manion; it existed only for the time of the campaign; but I said to my electors, "If we have such a union government, we may have Mr. Manion as prime minister, a gentleman who says he is against the amalgamation of the railways, a gentleman who says he is against conscription, but who will be flanked by Mr. Arthur Meighen, who has always been defeated when he has gone to the polls and has submitted his views to the electorate-the man who is responsible for the War-time Elections Act, the man who is responsible for conscription, the man who is responsible for the insidious and awful campaign that was waged against you, Mr. Chairman, in the county of Lotbiniere when you ran there in 1917, and against all the liberals who were with Laurier on that occasion, the man who is known for his famous ciphered

telegram in which he asked for his share of the soldier vote". They knew all about it, and it was enough to mention the possibility of that choice of Mr. Meighen by Mr. Manion to secure for us Liberals the votes of many Conservatives, well-thinking and sincere Canadians.
And afterwards there were others. There was another genius who was never elected to this house but who belonged to the infamous Anderson government, t'he KKK government of Canada, the glorious MacPherson-Mac-Pherson, KKK, Saskatchewan. Again, it was sufficient to mention that man's name to inspire fear in the minds of all good Canadians who listened to us, and I congratulate my good friend the hon. member for Regina (Mr. McNiven), upon his great victory over that gentleman, who I hope will never be returned in an election either in federal or in provincial politics. And there was another one still, Sylvanus Apps, who was easily defeated in Brant by my good friend George Wood. Mr. Apps was bold enough to say that in his opinion only one language should be spoken in Canada, the English language; and he was if anything bolder in saying to those who heard him, "Some of you may not like it, but I don't care." Well, he was defeated and it was a good thing for this country. And I warmly congratulate my hon. friend the member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) on the great victory that he won over the former leader of the Conservative party.
All the leaders of the Conservative party are now have-beens. I have known several of them. When I was first here, Mr. Meighen was here. Gone-dropped like a hot potato. Guthrie was here afterwards, acting. Gone- he too was dropped like a hot potato. Then came R.B. Dropped again like a hot potato; nobody to accompany him to the station. That was why he wept so much; he felt that he was an orphan; he felt that all those to whom he had given patronage were heartless, ungrateful, that they did not remember the days when he did so much for them. Abandoned. That is perhaps why he felt that Canada was no longer his home and why he left for England, although he was born in Hopewell in New Brunswick. Then came poor Doctor Manion. He thought he had a good job as leader of the Conservative party. He went before the people and was defeated. Gone- dropped by his supporters like a hot potato. He asked for two days; "Wait until Wednesday before giving your decision," he said. And the day after, they said to him, "Go away; we don't need you any longer."
The hon. member for Cumberland says "Hire his services for one dollar." The hon.

Government Loan-Mr. Pouliot
gentleman had a different view on the Monday before the session started when he had to decide about the matter.
Now we have the hon. lecturers in front of us, those who lecture us and tell us what we have to do. We know what we have to do. We are acting in accordance with the trust given us by our electors, who told us, "When you go to the house you have only one thing to do; you have to continue to support the government which you are now supporting in the election campaign, in order that we may have no amalgamation of railways, in order that there shall be no conscription, in order that none of the crimes that were committed by the Union government shall be committed again." Why did Doctor Manion mention National government? It was because everyone in this country remembered what had been done by the Union government. Everyone remembers it. But at that time, sir, everything was done under the guise of patriotism. It was under the guise of patriotism that Foster used to sell his old war horses, horses thirty years old, for $300; it was under the guise of patriotism that butter was thrown away; it was under the guise of patriotism that a famous shovel was invented by a Miss McAdam, Sam Hughes' secretary, as a piece of armour. All that was done in the name of patriotism. We all remember that. We remember the scandals of those days. At that time there was a union of bad Conservatives and bad Liberals to form the Union government. Now my hon. friends opposite cannot suggest such a plan because there are no bad Liberals on our side.
My hon. friend opposite does not like it, but I will tell him something more. The present leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) is a former minister of the Bennett government. He was in that cabinet. The hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling), who sits next to his leader, is also a former minister of the Bennett government. The hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) is also a former minister-without portfolio, thank heaven. The hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce) is a former lieutenant-governor who was appointed by the Bennett government. My hon. friend the member for Danforth (Mr. Harris) is one of those who supported the Bennett government with his harmonious and sweet voice all the time that government was in power. My good friend the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) was chairman of the convention which committed the great blunder of selecting Mr. Bennett as leader of the Conservative party. There are a few other members who were here banging their desks when Mr. Bennett was here. Let me say to them
in all sincerity and with sympathy that the fact that they either have been ministers of the Bennett government or have supported the Bennett government when that government was in power, disqualifies them completely for gaining the confidence of the people in the years to come until the next generation. Sir, those views are not only mine, but those of my constituents and of the great majority of the Canadian people
We want a government that is responsible for its policy. That is essential. We have it now. And the duty of the opposition is not to make futile, stupid and absurd criticisms, and stupid and absurd suggestions; it is to give constructive criticism. This is how an opposition can help a government, according to the old parliamentary tradition. An opposition can be very useful. Those gentlemen can serve their country very well by studying what is being done by this government and making fair criticism of its policies. This can be done even by private members who support the government.
Let me give three examples of what was done during last year's session by one private member. Take, first, the national defence purchasing board. There was a member of parliament who said at that session that it was absurd for the Minister of Finance to have that board under his control-and I could tell much more of what was done at that time. His contention was that in the first place the Minister of National Defence should be responsible for the expenditures in his department, and that in the second place such a commission was nonsense; that what was necessary, and the right thing to do according to British tradition, was to create a ministry of supply. At the time that member stood alone. The then leader of the opposition, Mr. Manion, agreed with the government on that. Constructive opposition had to come from a private member who was a supporter of the government at the time. And the thing was done in due course, because it was evident that it was the only way to deal with the enormous purchases which had to be made in war time.
Again, there was the mortgage bank, instigated by a man who had so much interest in insurance companies, was director of so many insurance companies, the Sun Life, the North American Life and many others, that I was suspicious when he brought in the mortgage bill. I think our people in the province of Quebec would want to take advantage of that legislation, but it was not to apply there. I congratulate the government on having appointed some officials by virtue of that legislation. But that legislation
37S


James Garfield Gardiner: Just by way of correction, Mr. Chairman, I did not at any point in my remarks say the people of Ontario were anti-American.


Mr. ADAMSON:: The minister said the people of Toronto.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, not even the people of Toronto.


Agar Rodney Adamson: The inference was that the minister meant the people of Toronto. I want to point out to the minister that at a recent service club meeting in Toronto I, an imperialist, suggested that we might or should join the pan-American Union, and that suggestion was received favourably by the press and people of Toronto. Unfortunately, to take any step in that direction now might be construed as running for cover; we shall have to beat the Germans first. But, speaking as an imperialist, I see no reason why we as an American nation should not take our place as a member of the pan-American Union.
The matter of the Bren guns also has been brought up in this house, and I should like to read a question I directed to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Rogers) and the reply of the minister. I asked the minister:
Is the minister prepared to tell the committee how many Bren guns have been produced, and -unless he would consider this as not in the public interest-whether the Bren guns so far produced have been satisfactory?
I explained to the minister that my sole purpose in bringing this matter before the committee was to secure a favourable reply from the minister, because we in Canada, and particularly in my constituency, are very much worried over the information that we have obtained, that the Bren guns have not been satisfactory or that there has been some hitch in their production. If there has been no hitch. I would appreciate, as I know the

Government Loan-Mr. Adamson
country would appreciate, the minister making a statement. I do not want him to say merely that they are in production, because by just making the stock or the barrel or the plunger mechanism the thing can be in production; but have they been produced? I think that would go a great way towards restoring confidence in the situation.


James Layton Ralston: Will my hon. friend give me the page of Hartsard from which he is quoting?


Agar Rodney Adamson: The bottom of page 291, where the minister said:
My hon. friend is not in the house at the moment, but it is not considered in the public interest to supply the answers to these questions. I shall be very glad indeed to give him a further explanation of why it appears necessary to give such an answer at this time.
That is the question I would ask. The subject came up this afternoon. I thought I would bring to the attention of the committee again the reason I brought the matter up. I feel quite satisfied that there is production going on, but I think the country wants to know, and I see no reason why it should be thought that it would give any aid or succour to the enemy if the country were to have that information.
Then, with regard to the production of aircraft


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend has looked
at page 308 of Hansard, has he?


Agar Rodney Adamson: Yes, I have it before me. At the bottom of the page the Minister said:
I should like to thank my hon. friend for some of the suggestions he has made.


James Layton Ralston: Yes.


Agar Rodney Adamson: That is the question
and-


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend wants a favourable answer. Would he be good enough to quote the question and answer of the
minister at page 308?


Agar Rodney Adamson: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: I am taking at face value what my hon. friend has said.


Agar Rodney Adamson: The minister says they were in production?


James Layton Ralston: Would the hon. member be good enough to read what the minister did lay-or I will read it, if he does not.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I should like to thank my hon. friend for some of the suggestions he has made. May I

say something to him regarding . . . the production of Bren guns.


James Layton Ralston: No-"regarding his statement concerning the production of Bren guns."


Agar Rodney Adamson: Yes. It continues:
He has referred to a grave unrest arising from certain rumours which he has heard regarding the Bren gun. May I say to him now, in the light of the statement I made this afternoon, that I know of no cause whatever for grave unrest with respect to the production of Bren guns. On the contrary, we anticipate that delivery will be well in advance of schedule.


James Layton Ralston: Does that help any?


Agar Rodney Adamson: No.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: The first of April is the date set.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend knows it is not the first of April.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, absolutely no.


James Layton Ralston: It is the first thirty-six months.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: No,


James Layton Ralston: No, not at all. My hon. friend knows, if he has seen the contract at all, that the first thousand guns are deliverable in the third period of twelve months- that is, in thirty-six months. That is not the first of this April; it is the first of next April.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: We are supposed to be months ahead of schedule.


James Layton Ralston: Yes, and we may be; the minister says we will be.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: But we were assured it would be right at the start.


James Layton Ralston: Would my hon. friend rise in his place?


Agar Rodney Adamson: And the minister went on to say that there have been some modifications-


James Layton Ralston: It reads, "A certain modification."


Agar Rodney Adamson: Yes, it says:
A certain modification has to be made in the same manner in which it is being made in England. This is being proceeded with as quickly as possible.
Have these guns been manufactured, or have they not? That is the question which I think the minister should answer. It is only justifiable that he should answer it.

Government Loan-Point of Order


An hon. MEMBER:: I don't think you know what you are talking about.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Unfortunately I do.


Mr. DUPUIS:: Does Hitler give you the details of his production?


Agar Rodney Adamson: This is not Germany, I would have my hon. friend understand.


Vincent Dupuis: We should not give them to the enemy.


Agar Rodney Adamson: We are trying to help, not hinder, by getting this information, because there is some unrest. I know that is true. I get letters about it daily.


James Layton Ralston: And does my hon. friend think he is settling it by repeating these rumours?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Let the government be frank, and say what is being done about the matter.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend has the answer of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Rogers), and the minister indicates why he does not answer further. If any further answer can be given, I am sure he would be glad to give it. There is nothing in respect of the Bren gun situation but this, that it is much better than could have been expected because, as he indicates, delivery will be made well in advance of schedule. I should think that would be comforting to my hon. friend.


Agar Rodney Adamson: It is comforting, but I should like to know when we may expect those deliveries, and whether any guns have been made.


James Layton Ralston: I suggest to my hon. friend that he ought not to repeat in the house idle rumours. He has done it to-night again, with regard to rumours about the Bren gun. He has that assurance, at least, so that there is no justification in a rumour which would cause unrest. The fact that they are being made well ahead of schedule, I think does away with any rumour of that kind; and I suggest to my hon. friend that if he is desirous of indicating to the committee how slowly we are getting along, he should not repeat idle rumours when they have been expressly denied and contradicted by the minister responsible.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I am glad to have the minister's reply in that case.


James Layton Ralston: I knew my hon. friend
would be-and I say that seriously.


An hon. MEMBER:: Sit down, then.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I hope to have a statement when the guns are produced. Now, one more question of serious concern in Canada to-day is-


Vincent Dupuis: Why not ask it privately?


Agar Rodney Adamson: Because the information is public. I should like to point out to the government two or three facts in connection with the production of aircraft in Canada. At the National Steel Car plant in Toronto they are turning out-


An hon. MEMBER:: At Malton.


Agar Rodney Adamson: -army cooperation Ly-sanders, and they have done a good job and will continue to do so. The maximum production is four a month. I think they could improve on that. The Fairchild Aircraft Company of Montreal have a cost-plus contract for Blenheim and Bolingbroke bombers. I would like to point out to the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe), the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Rogers) and the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) that the Blenheim has been proved in recent weeks to be an obsolete type of aircraft, and heavy casualties have been suffered in the fighting because of the use of this type of bomber. I would suggest to the Minister of National Defence for Air that these planes be modified in some way so that these obsolete ships do not continue to be produced.


Vincent Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, as a member representing the constituency in which the Fairchild aircraft is produced, I strongly abject to any information being given the enemy respecting any planes manufactured there, because if there is any improvement to be made, ministers of the crown are able to see to it that it is made, without giving the information to the enemy.


Charles Gavan Power: Will the hon. member state on his responsibility as a member of parliament that the Blenheim aircraft now being produced in Canada is obsolete? I should like to have that question answered.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes or no.


Mr. THORSON:: On his responsibility as
a member.


Charles Gavan Power: Will he or will he not?


Agar Rodney Adamson: The Blenheim aircraft
that was supplied-


Charles Gavan Power: No -"that is now being produced in Canada."
3S2

Government Loan-Point of Order


An hon. MEMBER:: Answer it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: And another question:	Does he know
whether the Blenheims produced in Canada are the same as those produced in England?


William Earl Rowe: One cross-examination is
enough at a time.


An hon. MEMBER:: Let us have a Donny-brook.


Agar Rodney Adamson: It sounds like the reichstag.


Ernest Lapointe: That will go to Hitler!


Agar Rodney Adamson: We are asking for information.


Charles Gavan Power: You are not.


James Garfield Gardiner: Who wants the information?


An hon. MEMBER:: Hitler.


Agar Rodney Adamson: If this aeroplane is
obsolete, we should be told.


Charles Gavan Power: My hon. friend is now
holding a responsible position as a member of parliament. He is spreading the rumour that one of the aircraft to be used by our men is obsolete. I want him to state whether he will say that as a member of parliament. Otherwise he could have come to me privately, as he knows very well, and asked me to inquire into the matter.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I am asking for information.


Charles Gavan Power: My hon. friend insinuated
that these aircraft are obsolete. I want him to say if he believes that or if he does not believe it.


Mr. BROOKS:: Why does the hon. gentleman not give the information as Minister of National Defence for Air?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I ask the minister to say on his responsibility that they are not obsolete.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Hitler would like
to have that.


An hon. MEMBER:: Withdraw.


William Earl Rowe: He has nothing to withdraw.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I should like to get that information.


Mr. FRASER (Northumberland, Ont.):: Withdraw and talk about something you know something about.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I happen to know something about the production of aircraft.


Charles Gavan Power: Will you tell us whether
these planes are obsolete or not?


Agar Rodney Adamson: I have not been in the
factory to see the planes.


Charles Gavan Power: I charge my hon. friend with sabotage of Canada's war effort by making that statement. If my colleague, the Minister of Justice, were carrying on the work as it should be carried on, he would intern the fifth column over there.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Mr. Minister-


Mr. REID:: You are getting action now.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I am very glad indeed to get this action on this matter.


James Garfield Gardiner: Read some of your past speeches outside the house.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: You are trying to make political capital out of something about which you know nothing.


Joseph Henry Harris: I rise to a point of order.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I say-


Thomas Vien: The hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris) has risen to a point of order.


Joseph Henry Harris: The Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) has not addressed his remarks to the chair. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and the hon. member for Northumberland, Ont. (Mr. Fraser) have acted in a like manner. The leader of this house has sat in his seat and has not defended the rules and privileges of the house. He has permitted these ministers to talk directly across the floor and not to the Chairman.


Charles Gavan Power: I must say the point of order is well taken, and I withdraw anything that I may have said by way of addressing myself directly to the hon. gentleman opposite. However, I do not withdraw any of the essential things which I said, namely, that the kind of discussion which has been going on here and the spreading of false rumours are derogatory to Canada's war effort and sabotage.


Thomas Vien: My ruling on the point of order is that it is not well taken. All these

Government Loan-Mr. McNevin
hon. gentlemen have resumed their seats and the point of order should have been raised while they were on their feet. I shall take this opportunity to direct the attention of the committee to the fact that I have tried to give as much leeway as possible to all hon. members. This debate has not been in accordance with the rules of the house and I ask hon. members kindly to follow the rules. The hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson) has the floor.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I can assure the Minister of National Defence for Air that it is not my intention to do anything but endeavour to help. This information has come to me to-day.


Charles Gavan Power: Go on and do it.


Agar Rodney Adamson: This company is also producing the Hampden bomber, which is a modern and up-to-date craft.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question? What is the name of the company producing the Hampden bomber ?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: The hon. gentleman is not in order.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member asked leave to put a question and it was not refused.


Agar Rodney Adamson: The Fairchild Aircraft Limited.


Vincent Dupuis: They are producing good bombers.


Agar Rodney Adamson: They are producing some good ones, but the Blenheim-


Vincent Dupuis: Keep that to yourself.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Will the hon. member permit another question?


Agar Rodney Adamson: Yes.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Did I understand him to say that the Fairchild Aircraft company of Longueuil was producing obsolete planes for the Canadian government?


Agar Rodney Adamson: That is the information I was given to-day and I want to find out whether it is true.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Your information is absolutely and teetotally wrong.


An hon. MEMBER:: Teetotally?


Agar Rodney Adamson: I am delighted to have the assurance of my hon. friend. I am glad to have his totalitarian views on these matters.


Vincent Dupuis: Please proceed in a spirit of cooperation.


Agar Rodney Adamson: That is just what I am trying to do. The information I have received is quite considerable, and I shall follow the suggestion of the Minister of National Defence for Air and give it to him in private. This afternoon we have witnessed members of the government rising in their places one after another and criticizing things which have gone before, things which happened five or even ten years ago. I should like to draw their attention to the speech made by the Prime Minister of this country at the opening of this nineteenth session of parliament. The Prime Minister said that he hoped that this house would carry forward and forget the old sores of the past. I commend his words to hon. gentlemen opposite.


Vincent Dupuis: And to the other side also.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I commend those words to the hon. gentlemen who have been making political speeches all afternoon. I ask them to realize during the rest of this debate that we have a war effort to accomplish. Let us get on with it.


Thomas Bruce McNevin: Mr. Chairman, my sole purpose in taking part in this debate is to offer a few suggestions which I trust may be of value in prosecuting the task that lies ahead. The first item to which I desire to refer is the request which has been made for permission to organize volunteer units throughout Canada. I believe there is a large number of citizens who, by reason of age or from other causes, do not come within the category of those who can take part in the struggle now going on overseas. If they were granted permission to organize volunteer units, careful supervision would have to be exercised, but in the light of recent events it is not beyond the bounds of possibility or reason that suicide pilots might land in Canada and destroy valuable utilities and other important plants. It is also true that large numbers of our soldiers may have to be sent overseas as rapidly as possible, and from correspondence which I have received I have no doubt at all that large numbers of men are prepared to organize and to train without remuneration to deal with the menace to which I have referred. In adopting such a course we would only be following what has already been done in Great Britain, and I would therefore ask the Department of National Defence to give the matter thorough consideration.
Furthermore, as the mother country has assumed responsibility for Greenland, it would appear to me that if this dominion can give any assistance in guarding that country, we should be prepared to survey all such possibilities. We have in our northern areas large

Government Loan-Mr. Ralston
numbers of citizens who are accustomed to an extremely rigorous climate and would be well fitted to serve in Greenland.
I now come to the training of recruits for service in the tank units. Recent events have proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that the tank is the most formidable implement of warfare on the land. In our lumbering industry in Canada we have large numbers of young men who have had wide experience in the piloting of immense caterpillar tractors. These men are accustomed to driving these machines, weaving through the trees and round the stumps, hauling huge loads of logs, sometimes numbering hundreds on one load, and I believe we should encourage young men who have had that experience to enlist in the tank training units of the Canadian active service force.
There is another matter which I should like to bring up. Because one of the government-owned munition factories is located in the riding I represent, I revert to some remarks which I made in this chamber approximately twelve months ago, when I urged upon the committee of supply, then dealing with National Defence estimates, that this government-owned factory be completely reconditioned and put in readiness for the production of munitions. I am pleased to note that substantial progress has been made in that direction. Two divisions have been in operation for many months, and the shell factory will shortly be in full operation for the production of heavy shells. But I am not yet completely satisfied. I noted that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe), in discussing the other night contracts let by the Department of Munitions and Supply, which is under his jurisdiction, intimated that in several lines buildings still had to be constructed for the production of various articles. The point I want to emphasize is that we have a number of buildings in the Lindsay munitions plant which have not yet been put into production.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: May
I ask the hon. member if any shells are actually being manufactured there at the present time?


An hon. MEMBER:: Ask the minister.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The minister is not in the house.


Thomas Bruce McNevin: I believe that question was answered the other night and that the hon. member was in the chamber at the time.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The hon. member said -303 cups in his remarks yesterday, but I understand that all that the.

Lindsay plant is turning out is rolled sheets of brass. Is that right?


Thomas Bruce McNevin: That is not right. Now we have a division of that plant which might well be used for the filling of shells when shell production gets under way, and I want to impress upon the department that I shall not be content nor will the people of my riding nor the people of the province from which I come be content until the shells are completely filled in that plant. That would do away with the necessity of shipping the shells for filling to other parts of the province or the dominions.
To my mind, Mr. Chairman, there are two elements which enter into the successful prosecution of war-the elements of speed and surprise-and in that connection I point out that the enemy have a much greater opportunity to use these two elements than those who are on the defensive. In order fully to promote our war effort, I would urge that we generate, to the fullest possible extent in keeping with efficiency in the organization and training of our units, and in the production of the necessary commodities, that element of speed which counts for so much on the field of battle. It is true that this is a tlying, troublesome and difficult hour, and it may well be that before this maniac who is guiding the German hordes has been paid his just dues, every Canadian dollar, every ounce of our strength and every drop of our blood may have to be organized in a titanic effort to preserve the rights, the freedom, the very civilization and liberty that the British empire has stood for, not only for a few brief years but for centuries.
In conclusion I would suggest this-that we forget bitterness and recrimination and get on with the job.


James Layton Ralston: I should like to give some more information than was available yesterday with regard to the time during which bills of this sort have been passed. I have looked back as far as 1909, and bills have been passed since then in varying amounts. It was $500,000,000 in 1928, then $750,000,000 in 1931, 1932, 1933, 1935, 1936 and 1939. So that this is the amount that has been generally passed in the last few years. My hon. friend the member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) indicated that the interest on the first war loan of this year, 3J per cent, was only one-quarter per cent lower than in the case of the first public loan in the last war. That is not correct. The first loan in the last war was a 5 per cent issue at ten years, which sold at $97.50, yielding 5-34 which was tax exempt. So that you

Government Loan-Mr. Hansell
have, not one-quarter per cent but the difference between 3i and 5-34, plus the additional margin which would result from the fact that these bonds in 1915 were tax free.


Joseph Henry Harris: Can the minister give a break-down of the figure so as to let us have a clearer conception of how much of this money will be used for general purposes, how much for public works, how much for unmatured securities and so on? I sent a note in advance to the minister, and I hope that before the resolution gets out of the committee stage we shall have a little more information showing the break-down.


James Layton Ralston: I inquired whether there was any more information available, but I cannot give more than appears. There is a possibility of the refunding of roughly 8326,000,000 up to March 31, 1941; that is, if that callable issue is actually called in October. The balance may be used for refunding other issues that may be made in the meantime, or it may be used for deficits. I may repeat what I said last night with regard to public works. It may not be used for public works unless public works are voted, except that with regard to public works which might come under defence works and which are not the subject of specific estimates, it might be used for that purpose.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Will any of the money that will be raised under this resolution be used for the payment of any of the bills listed here as coming due in 1941?


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend sees that there is one one per cent issue, $45,000,000, due March 15, 1941. It might be used for that.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What is the purpose of mentioning 1941 at all?


James Layton Ralston: Up to March 31, 1941, the end of the fiscal year.


John Ritchie MacNicol: There are some up to October.


James Layton Ralston: Yes, I started to give the committee the outstanding issues for the year to December 31, 1941. My hon. friend is quite right: we would not use it except for such issues as are either callable before the end of the fiscal year or mature before the end of the year.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Then the only one that would be considered would be that of March 15, 1941?


James Layton Ralston: March 15, 1941.


Joseph Henry Harris: Will further
supplementary estimates be down before this bill gets to second reading?


James Layton Ralston: No.


Joseph Henry Harris: I should like to ask the same question of the Minister of Agriculture, who is now in his seat. Will any of this money be used for building more dug-outs in Saskatchewan?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is nothing specific in the vote for it. I do not think any will be.


Ernest George Hansell: I am not going to weary the committee by making any long speech. To-night we listened to the hon. member for Temiscouata criticizing this group in this comer as well as men outside the house who could not defend themselves. We heard him criticize and ridicule the premier of Alberta, who is a minister of the crown, duly elected by the electorate of that province. As I listened to the hon. member, especially as he was trying to illustrate Canadian currency, and watched him tear up the order paper, I could not help feeling that it would have been better had he tom up his speech. I am sorry I was not able to speak as soon as the hon. member had finished. I know that when people read Hansard they do not get the same reaction as we who sit and listen in the house. But another member got the floor and I was not able to follow the hon. member for Temiscouata. He is now out of his seat, I thought I saw him standing behind the curtains for a time and I hoped he would return. Whether he was hiding himself I do not know, but if I had been the hon. member I certainly would have hidden my head in shame. I deeply deplore that type of speech at this particular time. To see such a comedy enacted, while the flower of the British empire are shedding their blood upon the battlefields of Europe, is a tragedy imposed upon this committee. Hon. members to-night have mentioned Herr Hitler. I suggest to the hon. member for Temiscouata that such a speech as he made here to-night makes Herr Hitler laugh-and angels weep. I am afraid that much of to-day's proceedings in this house will form a very cloudy spot in the annals of Canadian parliamentary debate in years to come.
I was intending to ask the hon. member a question, but it is no use now because he i3 out of the house.


An hon. MEMBER:: He will read it in
Hansard.


Ernest George Hansell: But I do not suppose he will be able to answer my question. He said that the opinions he expressed were the



Government Loan-Mr. Hansell
opinions of his constituents, and his next statement was that they are the opinions of the majority of the Canadian people. What I should like to ask to-night is whether the opinions he expressed are the opinions of the government. If he reads Hansard, perhaps he could answer that privately. Or if one of the members of the government wishes to answer it he can; it would be interesting to this group.
I noticed that while some Liberals sitting behind the hon. member were laughing at his comedy, the Minister of Finance was not laughing. The hon. member is now in his place. He can read my speech so far as it has gone, but I will ask him the question. I noticed that the Minister of Justice was not laughing. The Prime Minister was not in his seat. He has been excused; if he were in his seat he would not have been laughing. The possibility is that he was wrestling with some of the greatest problems that any prime minister of this country has ever had to wrestle with. Yet some supporters of the government can rise in their places and waste the time of this committee-


Vincent Dupuis: What is the hon. gentleman doing now?


Ernest George Hansell: My question to the hon. member for Temiscouata, now that he has returned to his place in the house, is this: He said that the opinions he was expressing were the opinions of his constituency and of the majority of the Canadian people. I ask him if those opinions are the opinions of his government?


An hon. MEMBER:: How can he answer that?


Jean-François Pouliot: I will let my diminutive friend finish, and I will answer afterwards.


Ernest George Hansell: That is quite all right with me. I am beginning to wonder, if when my hon. friend speaks, he really has his feet on the ground.


Jean-François Pouliot: I said "diminutive" because the attack was small.


Thomas Vien: Order. Will the hon. gentleman please continue?


Ernest George Hansell: I have nothing else to say with regard to the speech of the hon. gentleman, except to add this. While he has ridiculed the group in this comer of the house on more than one occasion, we have told the Prime Minister that we are here to help. Any suggestions that we have made with respect to monetary matters have been made with only [DOT] one thought in mind; that is to try to help, to throw some light upon the subject. We
rMr. Hansell.]
are not here to tear down. We are here to build up. We realize that this government has had imposed upon it a responsibility such as perhaps no other government in the history of Canada has had to shoulder. We are here to help, and we resent such ridicule toward this group as my hon. friend has offered tonight. That is all I wish to say.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have something more to say. In the first place, tmth hurts. In the second place, I will read a few lines from a book everyone knows, the Parliamentary Guide. This is the biography of the hon. member for Macleod:
Educated at Bible Institute of Los Angeles and Southern Divinity School, Dallas, Texas.


John Horne Blackmore: Can you match that?


Jean-François Pouliot: No, sir; and I am proud that I do not mix politics with religion. Then it says:
Minister of the Church of Christ.
There is one thing the hon. gentleman evidently does not know; that is the commandment of God, "Love thy neighbour."


An hon. MEMBER:: Why don't you practise it?


Jean-François Pouliot: I have done so, but I hate the fallacies of utopia. I do not laugh at the hon. gentleman; I pity him, and I regret-


Ernest George Hansell: I am not looking for your pity.


Jean-François Pouliot: Silence, please. I regret that the hon. gentleman, who has studied theology and the bible-I hope he has not studied only the old testament-


Thomas Vien: Order. I should like to draw the attention of the committee to certain fundamental rules of debate which have been violated time and again during the present debate. I read from May at page 297:
The use of temperate and decorous language is never more desirable than when a member is canvassing the opinions and conduct of his opponents in debate. The imputation of bad motives, or motives different from those acknowledged; misrepresenting the language of another, or accusing him, in his turn, of misrepresentation; charging him with falsehood or deceit; or contemptuous or insulting language of any kind;-all these are unparliamentary, and call for prompt interference.
I do not like to charge one member more than another, but I would draw the attention of the committee to the fact that this rule has not been lived up to constantly during the present debate. I believe this matter is too important to have the debate carried on in any way other than by strict adherence to this rule.

Government Loan-Mr. Pouliot


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I regret very much that such remarks are made only to the hon. member for Temiscouata and are not made to those who say he hides behind the curtain.


Thomas Vien: Order. I have not
addressed my remarks to the hon. member for Temiscouata. I have addressed my remarks to all hon. members of the committee of the whole. I have drawn attention to the fact that during the course of the debate many hon. members do not seem to have adhered to the rule I have just mentioned. Therefore I do not believe that the hon. member for Temiscouata should take my remarks as applying to him more than to any other hon. member. As a matter of fact, I should have made this remark earlier in the debate, but now I think the time has come when the attention of hon. members should be directed to this rule.


Jean-François Pouliot: I understand, sir, and
I bow to your decision. I know what you said did not apply only to me, but it was said when I was speaking; and it is not the first time. On the other hand I came down to the committee to-night because I was notified by at least three of my colleagues, if not more, that the hon. member for Macleod was saying that I was hiding behind the curtain when actually I was reading my correspondence upstairs in my room. I had a friend with me, my colleague, the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Bourget), with whom I was discussing the letters I had received during the day.


Thomas Vien: And for that reason what I have said applies to that remark as much as it does to some of the language of the hon. gentleman.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I did not use any profane language. I was speaking of theology and, with all due respect, of the old and new testaments. But, sir, I found it was insinuated that after I had spoken I was hiding myself. I have never had reason to do that; this is the first time any member of the house has made such a charge. I thought it was insulting, and that was why I came here, just to tell my hon. friend that he was all wrong in this as in all that he has said since he has been a member of parliament.
Now I come to the point. We are here to discuss a most important matter, a loan of 8750,000,000. The Minister of Finance does not go into churches to say that the doctrine of the Liberal party is a religious doctrine, but the protagonists of social credit dare use churches for propaganda. I blame them severely for that. I think it is a shame and a profanation. When I listen to the bible class of Mr. Aberhart, who speaks in a church
95826-25i
where truth is supposed to be spoken, and hear him from the pulpit telling people his political policies, I am ashamed for those who do such things. I consider it hypocrisy, and I can say that of Aberhart as I can say it of Her-ridge, who dared to say the same thing in his first speech at Ottawa, because they are all hypocrites. I do not say that of the hon. gentlemen in the far comer opposite, because they are members of this house; but I say that of their leaders, and if my hon. friends had a sense of propriety and of decency they would feel as I do. There is nothing I despise more; there is nothing more contemptuous, than a hypocrite. There is nothing I despise more; there is nothing more contemptuous, than a man who uses the church and the cloak of religion to deceive the people. One man, who was either the secretary or the president of the Social Credit party in the province of Quebec-


Mr. CRERAR:: I dislike to say it, but I
think the hon. member is taking unto himself very great latitude under the rules of the house in discussing these matters. After all, the question before us is the wisdom or propriety of giving the the government authority to raise a very considerable sum of money. I am sure the hon. member for Temiscouata, for whom I have a high personal regard, will realize that the remarks he is making at the present time are not appropriate to the resolution now before the committee.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is all right; I am
through with it. And I would add this, that we shall be very careful in respect of the theories respecting finance.
One thing I regretted to see was the moving of the gold reserve and the financial backing of the country from the east block to the Bank of Canada, and then the transfer to the foreign exchange control board. The fortune of this country is not in the east block which houses the office of the Prime Minister, that of the Minister of Finance and the council room. I know the former auditor general complained of the condition of the vaults in which the fortune of the country was kept in the east block. I point this out particularly to the Minister of Mines and Resources, for whom I have a high regard. But vaults could be repaired. Often I pass near the east block and I see government trucks carrying loads of gold to the Bank of Canada, where new vaults have been built. There might have been reason for making that transfer, but otherwise I cannot understand why that reserve has been placed under the foreign exchange control board. I know that if I ask questions about that board, I shall probably receive no answer.
38S

Government Loan-Mr. Pouliot
When last year I asked some questions respecting the mint, I was told by the previous Minister of Finance that no more reports respecting gold, coinage and the mint were published. For a time it was not a Canadian but rather an English institution. After that, control was transferred to Canada, and supervision was exercised by the Minister of Finance. However, I am wondering now if control is exercised by the Bank of Canada, the foreign exchange control board or the Minister of Finance himself. Those are serious matters.
Of course every man has his legitimate pride, and I have no doubt my very good friend the Minister of Finance knows that the hon. member for Temiscouata has studied these problems just as carefully as has the minister, and if at times that hon. member expresses personal views he does not do so with any desire to 'handicap the government. Rather it is done in order that the hon. member for Temiscouata may remain as proud of the government as he has been in the past.
I should like to have from the Minister of Finance all orders in council which have been passed regarding foreign exchange loans since July last. We have the official gazette; we -know that the information I seek appears in the Canada Gazette. I am quite ready to admit that fact. I began making a scrap book of those orders in council, so that I might understand the financial condition of the country, but I found it impossible to follow them. I am asking the minister if it is not possible to supply every hon. member with those orders in council which were passed during the recess concerning the foreign exchange control board. We must have them. At times we come in contact with regulations we cannot understand, because it is impossible for a layman who has not the up-to-date legislation by order in council respecting the foreign exchange control board to understand what is being done. This is a most important point.
Why, sir, is it impossible for me at times to go into technical details about these matters? It is because I have not been supplied with that recess statute. It is just as necessary for us to have it as to have statutes passed by parliament. And I have very good reason for saying that, because by virtue of the War Measures Act those orders in council have the same authority as any piece of legislation passed by parliament. Therefore, sir, I should like to have some help in this regard, and I hope I shall receive it in due course.

I warn the government again about the danger of experiences in the matter of finance. I have made a few observations before about the Social Credit party, but there is the modern university teaching which is dangerous in that regard. I warn the minister, as I warned his predecessor, against accepting dangerous views which come from people who try interesting experiments at the expense of the nation. I warn my hon. friend in all earnestness, and as a strong supporter of the government. If I express personal views, he will understand that I do not do so in order to create trouble or embarrassment, but rather in order that each hon. member may follow the policies of the government and at times make suggestions which might be useful.


James Layton Ralston: I shall make inquiries at once with regard to the orders in council to which the hon. member has referred. I had an idea they were laid on the table of the house, but I shall look into the matter.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is impossible to follow them, because they are all mixed up.


James Layton Ralston: I will ascertain what is published, and see if I can satisfy my hon. friend.


John Horne Blackmore: I did not mean to participate in this debate, because our group, as I think has been noticed, is endeavouring not to speak, except when we feel we can help matters along. We are not indulging in any carping criticism whatsoever respecting the government. We have come here with a frank, open, honest desire to help in this day of great peril. That is one reason why the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) became somewhat offended.
I believe it would be good for the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) to learn two or three little things. I make these suggestions to him in the most straightforward way, and I suggest that he read them in Hansard to-morrow and give them careful contemplation. If I remember correctly, he said that social credit produced a different kind of money. May I tell the hon. member for Temiscouata that he is just one hundred per cent wrong in that. No wonder he has whipped himself up to such a fury when all his information is false! Social credit uses exactly the money used by the Dominion of Canada-just exactly. The only reason why Alberta tried to use a different kind was that she did not have power to issue currency. She was trying to escape the currency laws.
The first thing to bear in mind is that there are two kinds of money being used in Canada to-day. One is currency and the other is

Government Loan-Mr. Blackmore
credit. Credit is nothing more or less than figures in a book, as was made abundantly clear in the banking and commerce committee which sat last year. As the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) now realizes much to his chagrin, currency in Canada has nothing at all behind it in the way of gold. Since all gold has been transferred to the exchange fund, there is no gold whatsoever behind the Canadian dollar. The hon. member for Temiscouata is now at his wit's end to know what it is that gives value to the Canadian dollar, because all that he thought would give it value is now gone. All this indicates that the poor man has been entirely at sea in connection with all these matters pertaining to finance and currency. Is it any wonder that he cannot get sense out of what we social crediters tell him? We are going in a straight line, but he has never gone in a straight line since he started.
I am going to mention another matter to my hon. friend which I feel quite sure he will find instructive.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The good book says,
"What is crooked cannot be made straight."


John Horne Blackmore: We still have hope for the hon. member for Temiscouata. The hon. member referred to assignats. It will probably come as a surprise to him when he learns the following facts regarding assignats. They were issued by a revolutionary government which had no power to tax. That is an exceedingly important matter. Money issued by any government so unstable that it cannot tax has the cards stacked against it right from the beginning. That is the first important fact to remember in connection with assignats. The second is that the government had no source of funds, and yet it was charged with the responsibility of governing France and beating back the countless foes who were endeavouring to overrun the country. And those foes would have succeeded but for the device of the assignat which the French government adopted in extremity. The fact that the French government came through that crisis is evidence beyond any question that the assignat succeeded.
The next important thing to remember about the assignat is that it was a treasury bill. I assume the hon. member for Temiscouata knows enough about treasury bills to know that they are not legal tender. A treasury bill is not legal tender and neither was the assignat. That was another point against it. The next important point to remember is that the word "assignat" means assignment, as should be evident to anyone who understands the French language. The assignat was a claim
to a piece of land. I ask hon. members: If you had a $20 bill in Canada which represented only a claim to a piece of land, say in Temiscouata, would you expect a merchant in Ottawa to accept that claim to a piece of land in Temiscouata when he was not in position to go and claim the land? Would he be likely to accept such an assignat at its face value? Certainly not. The assignat was simply a claim to a piece of land in no particular location. The result was that to merchants and business men it was almost a liability.
The next important thing to remember is that assignats were not issued in denominations under twenty francs. You would suffer considerable embarrassment if you set out to do business in Ottawa with, say a thousand $10 bills and there were no $5 or $1 bills or 50 cent pieces with which to make change. Your good Canadian money would soon tend to fall in value under such conditions. There was no way to change the assignats with assignats, and the people of those days were afraid to change them with other money.


Jean-François Pouliot: How is it that at one time you could buy three million assignats for ten francs?


John Horne Blackmore: Apparently the hon. member has not that keenness of perception which would enable him to see the significance of what I am saying. Does he know so little about currency that all this has no weight with him? If it does not, then I must say he is just a little above the kindergarten stage.


An hon. MEMBER:: Just wasting time.


John Horne Blackmore: You do not mind my making this observation:	It is most interesting that hon. members can rise in their places and devote thirty minutes or so to makings demands that the Prime Minister should resign without any intimation that they are wasting time, but the very minute that social crediters begin to discuss matters of such vital moment as monetary science, we are accused of wasting time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Wasting time on the hon. member for Temiscouata.


John Horne Blackmore: That is good; I did not catch the drift. I have boundless faith in men, and I have still faith in the hon. member for Temiscouata.
The next important thing to remember regarding assignats is that the first three issues, which went into the hundreds of millions, the total being more than a billion, were successful to the highest degree. Every bit of evidence that can be found bears out that statement. If any hon. member wishes to

Government Loan-Mr. Blackmore
discuss this matter with me in private, I will take him to the library and show him the textbooks which bear out this statement.
The next thing to remember is that the government of that time had no mechanism to control prices. Hon. members will recall that a few days after war was declared the price of lard and sugar in Canada shot up considerably. If a definite method of price control had not been brought into being and applied rigidly, where would our price structure be to-day? If the French government of that day had had the power to control prices, as we have to-day, it would have made a tremendous difference in the success of the assignat.
Then the assignat was used in France at a time of scarcity. The Minister of Finance and other hon. members know-I do hope the hon. member for Temiscouata knows also -that it is the goods and services that can be bought with money that give value to money. You could have the best money ever made by man on a desert island and it would have no value at all. It is the abundance of things which can be bought that gives value to money. That is what gives value to our money in Canada to-day now that our gold has been removed. In France at that time they were just emerging from a terrible civil war. Years of struggle had been engaged in by the French people during which industry had been disrupted and agriculture had been more or less compromised, shall I say? The result was a scarcity of goods and services to be bought with the assignat. We are living in an age when there is an abundance of every kind of commodity. Not only do we have that abundance, we have also the productive power by which we can greatly increase the goods and services which can be bought. There is no comparison between Canada as it is to-day and France at the time of the issue of assignats.
One more thing and I am going to conclude. The British government was blockading France while the assignat was being issued. Let the ports of our country be blockaded right now and what will happen to the value of our fine Canadian money? It certainly would not be worth as much after a few months of blockading as it is to-day.
I apologize for taking up the time of the committee, but I did want to show the hon. member for Temiscouata that he was completely wrong in his concept of what social credit would use for money. Having shown him too that he was so absolutely wrong with regard to the assignat, I believe I have shown that his judgment might not really be of much value.

Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Ralston thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 22, to authorize the raising, by way of loan, of certain sums of money for the public service.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport) moved the second reading of Bill No. 8, respecting the appointment of auditors for Canadian National Railways.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport) moved the second reading of Bill No. 10, to ratify and confirm a certain agreement respecting the joint use by Canadian National Railways of certain tracks and premises of the Vancouver, Victoria and Eastern Railway and Navigation Company, at Vancouver, in the province of British Columbia.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Perhaps
the minister will be good enough to make a statement on the bill for the purposes of the record. I know nothing about the bill myself.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, this bill ratifies
an agreement that has been made between the Canadian National Railways and the Vancouver, Victoria and Eastern Railway and Navigation Company, for the use of about fourteen miles of track between the city of New Westminster and the city of Vancouver. The bill provides for the use of this trackage as an entry for the Canadian National Railways into their terminal station at Vancouver. The matter is in evolution. Formerly the Canadian National Railways had its own track running down one of the streets of Vancouver. By agreement with the city a number of years ago, the city undertook to remove the tracks, provide a grade separation, and thereafter to enter into an agreement for the use of this particular trackage as an entrance for the Canadian National Railways. The grade separation has now been completed and the terms of the agreement have been approved by the board of transport commissioners; but as this is a permanent arrangement, representing as it does the only entrance for the Canadian National Railways into Vancouver when their own track is lifted, it is desired to make this

Wheat Board-Annual Report
a perpetual agreement, which requires the approval of parliament. If it were an agreement for twenty years only, the approval of the board of transport commissioners would be sufficient, but for a perpetual agreement the approval of parliament is necessary. This bill is simply to ratify the agreement which has already received the approval of the board of transport commissioners and all interested parties.


Grote Stirling: Does the Great Northern come into this picture?


Clarence Decatur Howe: They are not parties to this agreement. I am not sure whether they use this trackage or not, but their station is adjoining.


Grote Stirling: Does the minister mean that the three companies will use this trackage, that the Great Northern will have running rights over this fourteen miles?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not under this agreement, not exclusive running rights. This simply provides for running rights for the Canadian National Railways in perpetuity over this trackage. It does not affect any of the rights of the Great N orthem.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Nor confer any upon them?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Vien in the chair.
On section 1-Agreement ratified and confirmed.
Richard Burpee Hanson: One of the Vancouver members who is not present tonight might be interested in this bill. As it is nearly eleven o'clock, perhaps the committee might rise now.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Certainly.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, May 31, 1940.