CANADA EVIDENCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of
Justice) moved for leave to introduce bill No.
74,	to amend the Canada Evidence Act.
Mr. GRAYDON:: Will the minister explain?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: This is to introduce into the Canada Evidence Act a provision under which declarations and affidavits made before Canadian foreign trade representatives abroad will avail as if made by commissioners especially appointed to receive affidavits. There are similar provisions in most if not all of the provincial statutes dealing with evidence governed by provincial law.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. INCOME WAR TAX ACT



AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO COMMUNICATING INFORMATION

[Stage Direction]
Mr. S. H. KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre) moved for leave to introduce Bill No.
75,	to amend the Income War Tax Act (communicating information).
Gordon Graydon: Will the hon. member
explain?
Mr. KNOWLES. This bill would add to the
appropriate section of the Income War Tax Act these words:
Provided that nothing in this subsection shall operate to prevent a minister of the crown from communicating to the Senate or to the House of Commons any information obtained under the provisions of this act.
It is quite conceivable that the restrictions as to secrecy imposed by subsection 1 of section 81 as it stands at present might have the effect of preventing a minister of the crown from giving the senate or the house such information as might be legitimately asked for and given. This amendment would also affect the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, since sections 40 to 87 of the Income War Tax Act are by section 14 of the Excess Profits Tax Act made to apply thereto.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
QUESTIONS	'
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)



WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD-COMPTROLLER

Mr. BOUCHER:: 1.	Who is the comptroller of the wartime prices and trade board?
2.	What is his present annual salary?
3.	What other position has he held in government departments or government affiliated organizations, with period of service and rate of remuneration in each case?
4.	By whom was he employed before entering the government service? At what annual salary?
5.	What are his qualifications to exercise control over the expenditures of an organization such as the wartime prices and trade board?
6.	How many men in the branches or divisions of the wartime prices and trade board under the comptroller's direction are of military age and subject to call for military service?
7.	Has deferment for military service been requested by the comptroller or any other officials of the -board for any of these employees? If so, what are the names of each of the persons concerned, the date of the original call and the present status of such deferment in each case?
8.	What grounds are advanced, in each of such cases, in asking for deferment?
9.	Was any attempt made to obtain appointees with satisfactory qualifications before deferments were requested? If so, what were they?
10.	Were any of these cases discussed with officers of the national selective service? If so, with what result in each case?
11.	Is the personnel division of the wartime prices and trade board under the direction of the comptroller?
12.	What is the name of the chief of personnel?
13.	What salary, including all allowances, is he now being paid?
14.	On what date did he first become connected with the wartime prices and trade board?

Questions

15.	With what concern was he formerly employed?
16.	What salary was he receiving from his former employer, prior to becoming attached to the wartime prices and trade board?
17.	What was the nature of his work, and his official position with his former employer?
18.	What experience had he had which would qualify him for his present duties?
19.	Has he been called for military service? If so, on what date?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	A. M. Henderson.
2.	$8,000. [DOT]
3.	Employed by the foreign exchange control board from January to October 1941 at $6,000 per annum.
4.	Hiram Walker-Gooderham & Worts Ltd. Salary paid by this firm not of official- government record1.
5.	Qualified chartered accountant and general business experience.
6.	Five.
7.	8, 9, 10 and 19. In giving answer to questions, it is not considered in the public interest to disclose information regarding the deferment from military service of particular individuals merely because they are government employees. Deferment is applied for by the employee at the request and with the support of the board. The decision as to whether deferment is given or not rests with the various mobilization boards.
11.	Yes.	.
12.	C. T. MaeKenzie.
13.	$4,200.
14.	November 24, 1941.
15.	Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
16.	Not of official government record.
17.	Selection and management of personnel, Canadian Pacific Hotels.
18.	General business experience in dealing with personnel.



EXCESS PROFITS AND INCOME TAXES-CERTIFICATES FOR AMOUNTS REFUNDABLE

Mr. PARENT:: 1.	Will a certificate be given to each company paying excess profits tax, showing the amount received, and the amount the government will repay after the war?
2.	Will a yearly certificate be given by the government to taxpayers subject to compulsory savings, showing the amount received, and the amount the government will repay after the war?
3.	If so, will these, certificates be by way of
a promise to reimburse the amount mentioned, or simply an acknowledgment of payment?


Mr. GIBSON:: 1.	The taxpayer will receive an assessment notice in appropriate form, setting forth the amount of refundable tax, after payment, standing to his credit.
2.	The assessments made in respect of the income of each year will show the amount received and accordingly the amount the government will repay after the war.
3.	The income tax division gives an acknowledgment of payment. Promise to repay is contained in the statute, namely the Income War Tax Act, as amended.



MILITARY TRIBUNAL, MILITARY BISTRICT NO. 5, 1942-43

Mr. GAUTHIER:: 1.	Did the government receive the account of expenses incurred by the Department of National Defence for the military tribunal held at Quebec (military district No. 5), during the months of November and December, 1942, and January, 1943?
2.	If so, what is the total amount of same?
3.	If the accounts have not been received, what is the cause of the delay?


Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	Yes.
2.	$7,939.33.
3.	Answered by No. 1.



CANABIAN WOOL BOARD

Mr. SENN:: 1.	Is the Canadian wool hoard a dominion government agency?
2.	Who are its directors?
3.	Are they full-time employees?
4.	Are directors paid by the government?
5.	If so, in what amounts?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	David C. Dick, president; Geo. E.
O'Brien, vice-president; W. P. Walker, vicepresident; H. Brown, director; Geo. W. Fraser, director; R. Geddes. director; A. M. Shaw, director; K. W. Taylor, director; W. H. J. Tisdale, director.	.
3.	No.
4.	None of the above directors receive any salary, honorarium, allowance or other emolument from the Canadian Wool Board Limited.
5.	See answer to question No. 4.



CHRISTIE STREET HOSPITAL, TORONTO-SUPPLY OF BREAD AND ROLLS


Mr. STOKES:: 1.	Who is the chief of prices division, wartime prices and trade board?
2.	What practical experience has he had working in business organizations connected with processing, distributing, merchandising?
3.	How long was he employed, and where, prior to his appointment to the board?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Mr. Douglas Dewar.
2 and 3. Mr. Dewar is a chartered accountant by profession and has had over forty years of general and financial business experience. For thirty-four years he was associated with the international firm of accountants, Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., and for over twenty years was a partner in charge of the firm's New York office. As a partner of the firm he had relations with many Canadian business houses, paid frequent visits to this country and came in close contact with the problems of Canadian business.
Mr. Dewar retired from his profession in June, 1939, and moved to Vancouver. Immediately after the outbreak of war he offered his services to the government and served from November, 1939, to February, 1942, as supervisor of the foreign exchange control board offices in Vancouver, relinquishing that post upon the urgent request of the government to take on his present duties for which his extensive and practical background of business experience fitted him.
Mr. Dewar is giving his services to the government voluntarily and without remuneration.


WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD-PERSONNEL REPRESENTATIVE, TORONTO
Mr. STOKES:: '
1.	Who is the personnel representative of the wartime prices and trade board stationed at Toronto?
2.	When was he appointed?
3.	On whose recommendation was he appointed?
72537-154}
4.	What was his salary in his previous position?
5.	What salary is he now receiving?
6.	What was his previous position?
7.	What training, or what experience, has he had in personnel work?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Ronald Stewart Earle, Esq.
2.	Appointed assistant to the personnel representative of the wartime prices and trade board in Toronto, on February 23, 1942. Promoted to the position of personnel representative, July 1, 1942.
3.	Civil service commission.
4.	$165 per month.
5.	$2,520 per annum.
6.	In the employ of Drew, Brown and Company assisting in the reorganization of finances of Gordon Beardmore and Company Ltd., Oakville, Ont.
7.	Eighteen years of public contact work in the financial field, dealing with all classes and types of people, requiring quick judgment and assessment of personalities and capabilities.


CANADIAN ARMY-PAY INCREASES
Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	Were increases in pay for certain ranks in
the Canadian army authorized in December, 1942, said increases to be effective January 1, 1943?	.
2.	If so, what ranks were covered, and what were the amounts of any such increases?
3.	Were the above increases given to all those in the above ranks, or were such increases made contingent on any special considerations?
4.	If so, what were the above considerations?
5.	Have there been any differences in the effecting of the above increases, as between soldiers stationed in Canada and those overseas?


Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Lance corporal and lance bombardier from $1.50 to $1.60 per diem. Trooper, gunner, sapper, private, etc.: after four months' service, from $1.30 to $1.40 per diem; after six months' service, from S1.30 to $1.50 per diem.
3.	Increases to lance corporals and lance bombardiers are automatic.
Increases to troopers, gunners, sappers, privates, etc., are subject to certain conditions.
4.	Efficiency up to certain standards and good conduct.
5.	No. The qualifications required for increases in pay are the same in Canada and overseas. Due to different conditions overseas, time was required to issue uniform instructions to officers commanding units, but increases are retroactive to 1st January, 1943.
Questions


R.C.A.F.-INSPECTION OF WATER AND SEWER SERVICES, ROCKCLIFFE AIRPORT
Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: 1.	Is an inspector, or inspectors, employed by the R.C.A.F. at Rockeliffe airport in connection with water and sewer services?
2.	If so, what are the names of the parties so employed?
3.	What were their previous occupations?
4.	What remuneration is paid to them?
5.	Are any of the said inspectors of military age?


Mr. POWER:: 1.	No.
2,	3, 4 and 5. Not applicable.


WARTIME INFORMATION BOARD-PAUL READING
Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: 1.	What position does Paul Reading hold with the wartime information board?
2.	What salary is he paid?
3.	What are the duties attaching to his
position?	_
4.	For what reason does he spend his time in the gallery of the House of Commons taking almost continuous notes of the proceedings?
5.	Is it the view of the wartime information board that proceedings of parliament are not adequately covered by the members of the press gallery?
G. Is Hansard distributed to the wartime information board?
7.	If so, why is it necessary to assign a highly-paid member of the staff of the wartime information board to cover the proceedings of and debate in the House of Commons?
8.	To what official of the wartime information board does Paul Reading report?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	Executive officer in- the reports branch.
2.	At the rate of $500 per month.
3.	Special editing assignments.
4 and 5. Announcements and discussions in parliament are naturally of war-time interest. The wartime information board maintains offices outside Canada, and it is important that these offices should be promptly and fully informed on significant items. Brief news announcements in the press may well lead to questions at these offices, which cannot depend on these brief press accounts for their sole source of information, nor can they wait for Hansard. Furthermore, an announcement in the house often acquires added significance from the discussion following it, and it is therefore desirable that the proceedings as a whole should be covered.
6.	Yes.
7.	See answer to question No. 4.
8.	Head of the reports branch.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-DIRECTORS
Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Who were the directors of the Canadian National Railways in 1941 and 1942?
2.	How much did each director receive in salary, fees and expenses, in 1941 and 1942?


Mr. MICHAUD :: 1 and 2.
S.	J. Hungerford	
B.	L. Daly	
Wilfrid Gagnon	
(a)	R. J. Moffat	
J. A. Northey	
C.	H. Read	
H. J. Symington, K.C	
(a) Died February 12, 1941.
(a)	S. J. Hungerford	
(b)	R. C. Vaughan	
B.	L. Daly	
Wilfrid Gagnon	
J. A. Northey	
C.	H. Read	
H. J. Symington, K.C
(c)	E. J. Young	
Salary	Expenses
$5,000	Nil (as Director)
5,000	$175 45
5.000	Nil
595 24	100
5,000	277 35
5.000	913 73
5,000	Nil
Salary	Expenses
$3,750	Nil (as Director)
1,250	u tt ft
5,000	$144 60
5,000	Nil
5,000	235 20
5,000	615 95
5,000	Nil
3,903 22	136 10
(a)	Appointment expired September 30, 1942.
(b)	Appointed October 1, 1942.
(c)	Appointed March 20, 1942.
tMr. Ralston.]

Questions as Orders for Returns


NORTHERN PACIFIC REGION-JURISDICTION OVER CANADIAN TERRITORY-AGREEMENT WITH UNITED STATES
Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: 1.	What is the agreement between Canada and the United States regarding the Canadian-American joint economic committee, in regard to the northern Pacific region?
2.	Has the government of Canada relinquished any part of Canada sovereignty in this region to the United States?
3.	Has any agreement been concluded between the government of Canada and the United States of America giving jurisdiction over Canadian territory in this region to any foreign power?
4.	Have any agreements been made between the government of Canada and the United States of America of which parliament and the Canadian people have not been informed?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	The joint economic committees of Canada and the United States were established as a result of discussions between the two governments, and the members of the Canadian committee were appointed by order in council PC. 4500 of the 20th of June, 1941, under instructions "to study and report to their respective governments on the possibility of
(1)	Effecting a more economic, more efficient and more co-ordinated utilization of the combined resources of the two countries in the production of defence requirements (to the extent that this is not now being done) and
(2)	Reducing.the probable post war economic dislocation consequent upon the changes which the economy in each country is presently undergoing."
In accordance with the latter term of reference, the committees have undertaken a study of the north Pacific region.
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	A number of agreements on defence matters have been made between Canada and the United States relating to the north Pacific region. For security reasons these cannot all be made public at the present time.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-AGRICULTURAL EXPERTS- CAPTAIN K. D. ANDREWS
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Is Captain K. D. Andrews employed in the Department of National Defence at Ottawa?
2.	If so, (a) since when; (b) in what position; (c) what is his age?
3.	What is his military record?
4.	What experience has he had as an agriculturist, where, and for what period?
5.	Are there other agricultural experts employed in the Department of National Defence?
6.	If so, (a) what are their ages; (b) what is their military record; (c) what agricultural experience have they had?


Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) 8th December, 1941; (b) Staff captain; (c) 47 years.
3.	Jamaica Militia Artillery 1913-15. British West India Regiment 1916-19. Royal Regiment of Canada since August, 1940. Saw active service during 1914-18 in Egypt, Belgium, France and Italy.
4.	None, so far as is known.
5.	No personnel are employed for the purpose of serving as agricultural experts.
6.	Answered by No. 5.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. CHURCH:: What are the details or breakdown of the following items of the cost of the last victory loan, shown in sessional paper No. 170, tabled March 1, 1943,	(a) salaries, (b) travelling
expenses, including hotel expenses, (c) expenses of organization meetings, including sum spent on entertainment and dinners, (d) advertising and publicity, including radio expenses and the sum spent on decorations, (e) commissions to salesmen, (f) remuneration to approved dealers?


PURCHASE OF LAND FOR L'ANCIENNE-LORETTE, QUE., AIRPORT
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaCROIX (Quebec-Montmorency):
1.	What is the total amount paid for land in connection with the airport at l'Ancienne-Lorette, Quebec?
2.	What was paid to each landowner, and what was the amount of the option in each case?
3.	Who was the person commissioned by the government to receive options in respect of such lands?
4.	Who was the person commissioned to purchase such properties?
Mr. POWER:: Return tabled.


INTERNMENTS-RATIONING
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	Are internees rationed as to butter, sugar, tea and coffee?
2.	If so, is their ration the same as the civilian ration?
3.	If not, what ration do they receive?


Mr. RALSTON:: Return tabled.


WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD'-BROCKVILLE -35-MILE DRIVING LIMIT
Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: 1.	Have any extensions been granted to drive beyond the 35-mile limit, to private commercial vehicles, in the district of the wartime prices and trade board at Brockville, under administrator's order A 314?
Business of the House

2.	If so, how many, what are the names of the parties securing the extensions, and the particulars of the extensions?


Mr. ILSLEY:: Return tabled.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES-ASSIGNMENT OF PAY AND ALLOWANCES
Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	Are men who enlist in the armed services specifically advised, at the time of enlistment, with respect to all matters relating to the assigning of pay and dependents' allowances?
2.	If so, by whom, and in what manner?
3.	Are men who enlist specifically advised that in order for a dependents' allowance to be awarded, it is necessary (under certain conditions set out in assigned pay and dependents' allowance regulations) to assign not less than fifteen days' pay of rank per month?
4.	Are men who enlist specifically advised that no dependents' allowance can be awarded for any period not covered by such an assignment of pay?


Mr. McLARTY:: Return tabled.


WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD-EMPLOYMENT CERTIFICATES TO A. FORGET AND MISS L. FORGET
Mr. LALONDE:: 1.	Has the employment certificate issued by the civil service commission to Mr. A. Forget, local manager of the wartime prices and trade board, at Mont Laurier, been cancelled, annulled, deferred, or renewed? If so, upon what date?
2.	Has the employment certificate issued by the civil service commission in favour of Miss Lucille Forget as clerk, grade 1, in the office of the wartime prices and trade board, at Mont Laurier, been cancelled, annulled, deferred, or renewed? If so, when?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Return tabled.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: Before the house -rose for the Easter adjournment the Prime Minister undertook to give after the recess some indication as to the full programme of legislation from now until the end of the session. I wonder if the Prime Minister would take this opportunity of doing so.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I shall not make mention of any of the measures already indicated on the order paper or referred to in the speech from the throne, nor of any of the measures which may arise out of reports of committees.


Gordon Graydon: The Prime Minister has referred to anything mentioned in the speech from the throne. Of course the speech from the throne covered so many matters with

respect to social security, health insurance and so on, that it would not be a very good explanation if we were to leave it at that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am referring only to specific measures there indicated. There will be a -bill to give effect to the extradition treaty with the United States; that comes under External Affairs but will be sponsored by the Minister of Justice. From the Department of Finance there will be the Canadian National Railways Financing and Guarantee bill; amendments to the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, and possibly an amendment to the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, or a separate bill. From the Department of Justice there will be amendments to the criminal code and a possible amendment to the Exchequer Court Act. From the Department of Labour there will be a bill to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act; from the Department of Mines and Resources a bill to ratify an agreement with the province of British Columbia regarding the administration of minerals within Indian reserves; from the Department of National Revenue come amendments to the National Revenue Act and from the Department of Naval Services there may be a slight amendment to the Naval Service Act.


Gordon Graydon: So far as the government knows at the moment, this is all that is in contemplation from now until the end of the session?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. I should say, of course, that as long as parliament is in session there is the possibility of some measure being introduced of which there has been no previous notice, but I have given my hon. friend a list that covers the ground so far as I am able to ascertain it at the present time.


Gordon Graydon: This means, then, that the health insurance bill will not come before the house this session?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That depends on what report comes from the committee. That matter is before the committee at the present time.



TABLING OF DOCUMENTS-ARVIDA DISPUTE- NATIONAL WAR LABOUR BOARD HEARINGS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLD WELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the Minister of Labour tabled- a report by Mr. Bernard Rose with respect to the Arvida dispute of last-

Business oj the House
December. Was that report accompanied by a transcript of the evidence, as ordered by the House of Commons? The minister did not say.


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: No, it was not.


Thomas Miller Bell: Will the minister table a transcript of the evidence?


Humphrey Mitchell: I should like to point out to my hon. friend that the report is not yet before the department. That is information given to me by my officials. These reports of the commissioner to myself are confidential reports, in conformity with the wording of the order.


Thomas Miller Bell: Should that not have been drawn to the attention of the house? The motion which was passed ordered the tabling of this transcript of evidence. The house ordered it to be tabled.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: What
objection could there be to tabling the evidence?


Thomas Miller Bell: The house passed a motion ordering the tabling of the transcript. It is something in which I am particularly interested.


Gordon Graydon: Will the minister answer the question?


Humphrey Mitchell: Surely. The answer is the same as the answer I gave before.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And what is that?


Gordon Graydon: That is not an answer at all.


Humphrey Mitchell: The reports of this commissioner are in the nature of confidential reports to the Minister of Labour.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The evidence was not confidential. As I understand it, it was given in open court.


Humphrey Mitchell: The evidence was not given in open court, as I understand it; that is the difference.


Gordon Graydon: Who .paid for the
evidence? Was it the people of Canada, or the minister? And if it was the people of Canada, then we ought to have it tabled.


Thomas Miller Bell: I understand that
copies of the transcript of evidence have already been made public. I think I could put my hand on a copy of the transcript. If certain members of the public have copies
of the transcript, and if the house orders that it be tabled, then the order of the house should be obeyed. Unless a recission is adopted, it seems to me the minister has no option but to table it.


Gordon Graydon: Arising out of what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) has said, may I ask the minister a further question? It appears that at the present time one of the most important hearings held in Canada for some time is in progress, namely that conducted by the national war labour board. Will'the transcript of proceedings of that hearing be tabled from time to time, so that members of the house may have an opportunity to read, study and digest what has been said from day to day before the national war labour board? This is a matter of tremendous significance and importance, and I was wondering if the minister had in mind any procedure through which members would have that evidence available to them.


Humphrey Mitchell: I see no objection to it. It is the subject of a public inquiry, and is being carried in the public press. It is different from the Arvida commission, wThich was set up under order in council.


Thomas Miller Bell: I rise to a question
affecting the privileges of the house. I take it that no minister can rise in this house and say that when a motion is passed in the house for the production of evidence, the evidence will not be produced. I place the matter before you, Mr. Speaker, as guardian of the privileges of the house.
Mr .HANSON (York-Sunbury):	I would
draw the attention of the Prime Minister to a situation which I think is unique in parliamentary history in Canada. The House of Commons having by unanimous vote passed a resolution ordering the tabling of certain public documents, a minister of the crown takes it upon himself to refuse to table those documents. There was no reservation at all in the matter. I ask the Prime Minister to state his position on the principle involved.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did not
understand the minister had refused to table any document. He made a reservation that he thought was of importance. But I agree with the opinion that is expressed, that specific documents ordered tabled by the house should be tabled-certainly.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I wish to say just a word about privileged documents.
Business of the House


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If ordered by the house, of course.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Orders go through for the tabling of general correspondence. It is important, in the event of there being dozens of letters as is sometimes the case, to find out whether those letters have an intimate bearing on the transaction. Or, if a general order goes through the house stating that all correspondence must be tabled, particularly as to complaints respecting infractions of the law in connection with the wartime prices and trade board, must I then do something which is plainly contrary to public policy and prejudicial to the operation of the government's policy? I think everything must be taken subject to the qualification that if, by practice of the house, a matter is in its nature privileged or confidential, it would have to be left out.


Gordon Graydon: That is understood, is it not?


Thomas Miller Bell: I referred specifically to a single document. The matter mentioned by the Minister of Finance is entirely different. This is a specific document which the house ordered tabled, and the Prime Minister agrees that once that is done it should be tabled.


Gordon Graydon: I should like an answer from the Minister of Labour with respect to making available to members of the house from time to time all the evidence taken at the present hearing before the national war labour board.


Humphrey Mitchell: I thought I made it clear that I would be quite prepared to do that.



OPPORTUNITY FOR CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC BILLS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: The Prime Minister has indicated what may be expected in the way of legislation at this session. I should like to call his attention to the fact that public bills and orders have not been dealt with for three years. The first bill under this heading was introduced by me and it stands now for second reading. This is the third year this bill has been on the order paper. It is desirable legislation, and its consideration would take little time, because it is only a simple amendment to an existing act. If the house could be allowed the short time necessary to consider this bill, I think it would be appropriate to do so.
[Mr, IlsJey.t


Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):: As one interested in public bills I should like to support the hon. member for Yukon. I believe these bills are of much more importance than a number of private bills that are being discussed and which should have been discussed in other parts.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Government measures are the most important of all measures. When we have made the progress that we have to make with them, there will then be an opportunity to discover what further time should be given for the consideration of other measures. In the meantime my hon. friend is three years farther ahead than he was.


Thomas Miller Bell: Should they take
precedence over divorce bills?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think so.


Robert Fair: That is what I had in mind.



DISTINGUISHED VISITORS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: Some time ago the Prime
Minister indicated to the house that in all probability Canada would be honoured by a visit from Madame Chiang Kai-shek, and that during her visit she would be invited to address members of the houses of parliament. Is the Prime Minister in a position to indicate when we may expect China's first lady to pay us a visit in Ottawa?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: During the Easter recess we had a very brief visit from Doctor T. V. Soong, Minister of Foreign Affairs of China who, as hon. members are aware, is a brother of Madame Chiang Kai-shek. Doctor Soong told me that Madame Chiang Kai-shek very much hoped that she might find it possible to visit Canada, but that he could not say definitely when the visit might take place, since necessarily it would depend upon the state of Madame Chiang Kai-shek's health. At any rate the visit will not be before the month of June.
I might say that we were expecting a visit on Wednesday next from Doctor H. V. Evatt, the Minister of External Affairs of Australia. I received word from Doctor Evatt this morning that his visit of necessity has been postponed. I am looking forward to receiving him here a little later; his visit is only postponed. The house may have also seen by the

Parliamentary Assistants
press that a very distinguished visitor General Enrique Peiiaranda, President of Bolivia is to arrive in Ottawa next week. The president of Bolivia is making an official visit to Washington, and is going to visit Canada and spend a day in our capital before his return to South America.


Gordon Graydon: Will an opportunity be
given members of the house generally to meet and discuss with these distinguished visitors matters of mutual interest between this country and theirs?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The President of Bolivia arrives at 8.30 Wednesday morning next. I am sure the president would be pleased if hon. members were at the station to meet him on arrival. What opportunities there will be for conversations with him will depend upon the time at his disposal during his visit. Unfortunately the visit concludes in the afternoon at four o'clock.
I cannot say what time Madame Chiang Kai-shek may have free for conversation, but I shall endeavour to ascertain that as soon as she arrives. I understand an invitation has been extended- to Doctor Evatt by the Parliamentary Association to be present at a luncheon, and that arrangements will be made to have Doctor Evatt speak to members of both houses in th-e railway committee room, during the time of his visit. More than that I am unable to say at the moment.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. H. KNOWTLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: I should like to ask a question of
the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Munitions and- Supply. Has the government feecived a request from the Winnipeg city council for the release of sufficient materials for the erection of at least 500 houses in Winnipeg, under the National Housing Act, this year? If so, what answer has been given by the government?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions hnd Supply):: I received a letter from the
city clerk of Winnipeg regarding the report of the dominion government to the effect that priority assistance would be extended to building projects involving 100 houses. In our reply we stated th,at that assistance could be extended if the following conditions were met: (1) Applicant must have a construction permit from controller of construction; (2) the price range of the houses to be built must be
72537-15S
within the limits fixed by the current regulations under the National Housing Act;
(3)	applications must be for lots of houses of not less than 100. It was also pointed out that there was no restriction in the number of houses that might be included in the application-that is, above 100-if the other conditions were met.



PARLIAMENTARY ASSISTANTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: During the recess the
following appointments were made as parliamentary assistants to cabinet ministers, the appointments to date from the 1st of April.
Mr. D. C. Abbott, the hon. member for St. Antoine -Westmount, to be parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance.
Mr. Lionel Chevrier, the hon. member for Stormont, to be parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Munitions and Supply.
Mr. W. C. Macdonald, the hon. member for Halifax, to be parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence.
Hon. Cyrus Macmillan, the hon. member for Queens, to be parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence for Air.
Additional appointments will be announced as made.


Gordon Graydon: Are there to be other appointments this session?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Gordon Graydon: The ten?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot say how many.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will these gentlemen be called to the privy council?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That depends, among other things, upon the record they make in the course of time.


Gordon Graydon: Is it the intention to give these parliamentary assistants special consideration in the seating arrangement of the house, or will they continue where they are?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: For the present the}7 will remain where they are. As matters develop we shall find out how far it may be necessary to have special seating accommodation for them. Arrangements will be made for the parliamentary assistant to be at the side of his minister when he is discussing certain matters. For the most part the parlia-

Mutual Aid Bill

mentary assistants will be able to answer questions or speak in debate from their seats as arranged at present.



THE SPEAKER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Stanley Howard Knowles: As a former student of the university of Manitoba I should like to take this opportunity of extending to Your Honour heartiest congratulations upon the honour which is to be conferred upon you and upon this house through the announcement that an honorary degree is to be conferred upon you at the forthcoming convocation of that university.



UNITED NATIONS MUTUAL AID


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide:
1.	That sums not exceeding one thousand million dollars ($1,000,000,000) be granted to His Majesty for the purpose of making war supplies available to any of the united nations.
2.	That the governor in council may determine the terms and conditions upon which such war supplies are made available to any of the united nations and may require in certain cases payment or repayment in kind or property or reciprocal action or provision of supplies or other direct or indirect benefit as may be deemed appropriate.
3.	That there be established a Canadian war supplies allocation board to carry out the purpose of this resolution, and that such board be authorized to employ officers, clerks and other employees necessary for the proper conduct of the business of the board.
4.	That the governor in council may be empowered to raise by way of loan under the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, 1931, such sum or sums of money not exceeding in the whole the sum of one thousand million dollars ($1,000,000,000) as may be required for the purpose of defraying the expenditures herein mentioned and for purchasing or otherwise acquiring or procuring war supplies in Canada, the principal and interest of any such loan to be a charge upon and payable out of the consolidated revenue fund.
Gordon Graydon: I do not desire to address the house at the moment, but I should like to ask the minister if this perhaps is not the proper time for him to elaborate upon the general explanation which he made with respect io this bill on February 8.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I now propose to do so at some considerable length.
fMr. Mackenzie Kinjj.]
The house is already familiar with the general nature of this proposal. I outlined the substance of it in a statement to the house on February 8, summarizing several financial measures that were to be placed before parliament this session. To-day, on moving the resolution, I wish to summarize briefly the policy which it is proposed we follow and the general nature of the measures to implement it. I think we might conveniently leave discussion of the details until we are considering the bill itself and hon. members will then have the text of the bill before them. The resolution with which we are now concerned asks parliament to approve the provision of a billion dollars for the purpose of providing Canadian war supplies to our allies, and paves the way for the bill to make this appropriation and to establish the machinery for putting it into effect.
The general policy which it is proposed to follow in this Mutual Aid plan may be summarized under the four following points:
(1)	We wish to provide the war supplies which we are able to produce, over and above the requirements of our own forces, to our allies on the basis of strategic need, and we do not want any shortage of Canadian dollars on their part to make it impossible for them to obtain such supplies. In the term "war supplies" we include farm products and raw materials, which are necessary either for the production of munitions or for the maintenance of the services or civilian population of our allies.
(2)	We propose to enter into whatever reciprocal arrangements are practical, under which our allies will furnish us with supplies or services in return for what we provide, and we also take power to stipulate for the return to us after the war of any supplies or equipment furnished under Mutual Aid which appear likely to have a post-war usefulness. We do not propose, however, to provide aid only in those cases where it is possible to arrange for reciprocal aid, because in some cases this may be impracticable or undesirable. As I explained in February, it is an essential feature of this proposal that we may regard it as good and sufficient consideration for transferring war supplies to other united nations that such supplies are to be used in the joint and effective prosecution of the war.
(3)	We desire to avoid either piling up huge war debts by selling our supplies to our allies for payment after the war, or creating indefinite and uncertain post-war obligations which might arise out of transfers conditional upon undefined post-war considerations. It is for this reason that we have set out clearly in the

Mutual Aid Bill
bil! the essential feature which I have just mentioned, that is, that the effective use of the war supplies in the prosecution of the war may be deemed good and sufficient consideration for their transfer. Moreover, we intend where any terms and conditions are provided for to have these clearly specified at the time of transfer.
(4)	We propose to deal directly with the various countries requiring Mutual Aid from Canada and not to provide such aid to one country through the agency of another.
The working out of this Mutual Aid plan will not require the creation of much new governmental machinery. The bill will provide for the establishment of a board to make the necessary decisions or to recommend decisions to the governor in council. This board will consist of five cabinet ministers-the Minister of Munitions and Supply, the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Justice, and the Minister of Finance. It w'ill act as a committee of the cabinet under the chairmanship of the Minister of Munitions and Supply. It is expected that it will have a small administrative staff, but that most of the work resulting from its decisions and operations will be carried out by existing agencies. In procuring the war supplies to be transferred to allied nations, it will depend on existing procurement agencies, including not only the Department of Munitions and Supply but the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Fisheries and other agencies which have placed contracts or assisted in placing them with Canadian producers. The board will receive requests from various countries for Mutual Aid and consider the terms and conditions under which aid can be given to each country. May I say that when I use the term "Mutual Aid" I use it with capital letters, because the term has acquired in conversation somewhat of a technical sense. It really means aid, but we call it Mutual Aid; that is, the aid provided for under this bill.


Gordon Graydon: If I may interrupt, the minister speaks of Mutual Aid having acquired somewhat of a technical sense. How did the technical term Mutual Aid arise, and why is it being used with capital initials?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The bill is called the Mutual Aid bill, that is all. I announced that a month or two ago, and aid under the Mutual Aid bill is referred to in conversation as Mutual Aid.


Gordon Graydon: In other words the legal title of the bill will be the Mutual Aid bill. Is that it?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, exactly. The term is appropriate enough, because the principle underlying the bill is that this is aid to ourselves as well as aid to our allies.
In making these transfers the board will obtain advice on strategic needs from the appropriate military authorities. In judging how far a country is able to pay for what it requires from Canada, the board will obtain information regarding its balance of payment with Canada. All the details of the board's procedure and functioning are naturally not yet worked out in full, but I do not anticipate very much delay in its coming into operation once parliament has approved the necessary legislation.
This Mutual Aid plan is the logical conclusion of the development of our previous financial policies. From the beginning of the war we have been providing our allies with war supplies of various kinds, including raw materials and foodstuffs, in large volume. From the first few months of the war we have had to take special measures of one kind or another to enable our allies to obtain these supplies from us. This Mutual Aid plan is the latest of such measures and follows logically from the others.
Up to the present we have dealt primarily with Britain in giving this aid to our allies. AVe have provided assistance to Britain not only to meet her own requirements but also to meet those of the rest of the sterling area, which is composed chiefly of the British dominions, India, the British colonial empire and certain other middle eastern areas. The dollar exchange resources of Britain and the rest of the sterling area are pooled. Parts of the sterling area which receive a surplus of dollar exchange from operations with Canada turn that surplus in to this pool and when they require dollars for expenditures in Canada they obtain them from this pool. The foreign exchange control systems of the various parts [DOT] of the sterling area are more or less unified for this purpose. Consequently in the past it has been convenient to provide dollar exchange to Britain which places it in the pool of dollar resources available for the use not only of Britain but of other parts of the sterling area. Moreover, we have provided goods to Russia through Britain inasmuch as Britain, made direct arrangements with Russia very soon after Russia came into the war to supply Russia with various munitions of wrar and raw materials, and we have provided Britain with some of these supplies which she in turn has passed on to Russia in accordance with the terms of her protocol.
We are now proposing to deal directly with these other countries rather than through
Mutual Aid Bill

Britain as a channel. These other countries will include not only various British dominions but also Russia, China and other united and associated nations which are in need of this type of assistance. We have now direct diplomatic and supply contacts with Russia and China as well as with the various British dominions concerned.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbmy):: Is it intended that this flow of supplies to Britain shall cease and not come under this arrangement?


James Lorimer Ilsley: 
Gordon Graydon: So that the whole of the balance is used up now?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes; it was exhausted at the end of last December.
The balance of the deficit was met by temporary arrangements which I shall describe in a moment and which applied to the later months of the year. During the nine month period of the billion dollar contribution to Britain, that contribution and the other means of financing the sterling area payments to Canada enabled us to transfer to the ' sterling area munitions, war equipment and defence services to a total value of $740 million; foodstuffs $242 million; and raw materials and other commodities amounting to $288 million.
, In the several months that have elapsed since the billion dollar contribution has been completed, the sterling area deficit has been covered by means of two interim arrangements which were available only as temporary sources of funds until we could get this Mutual Aid plan into operation. The first of these interim methods used was payment by Britain of her Canadian dollar deficit for a short time by the transfer of United States dollar balances which Canada was able to utilize in the United States. The second method is one with which the house is familiar. We purchased from Britain her investments in Canadian war plants which had been made through the capital assistance programme of the Department of Munitions and Supply. It will be recalled that $200 million was voted for this purpose in the supplementary war appropriation for the last fiscal year. These funds have been paid over to the account of the British government and have met their requirements in the last month or two, and will probably carry them through a considerable part of this month.
The house will also recall that Canada has undertaken to meet the full cost of maintaining thirty-five additional R.C.A.F. squadrons overseas and to meet the full cost of the pay and allowances of R.C.A.F. personnel serving in R.A.F. squadrons overseas. This increase in our expenditures in Britain and the rest of the sterling area will reduce by about $40 million per year a sterling area
deficit of Canadian dollars. It is also expected that our military expenditures in Britain will be considerably higher this year than they were in the past. This increase in the sterling expenditures of our armed forces will probably be considerably greater than any increase in British payments to Canada this year over previous years, particularly as a larger proportion of our war production in Canada is now going to our own forces rather than to the British forces. Consequently the probable excess of the sterling area's payments to Canada over its receipts of Canadian dollars will be substantially less this year than they were last year.
While, therefore, the interim measures that we have taken have tided over the period since, last December and the increase in our expenditures abroad will reduce the deficit to be covered to more manageable proportions, nevertheless a quite considerable problem remains in providing supplies not only to Britain, Russia and China, but ' to other British dominions and to other parts of the sterling area as well. It is to meet this continuing and general problem that the Mutual Aid plan is proposed.
This system of Mutual Aid will enable our great productive power, industrial and agricultural, to be most fully and effectively used in the prosecution of the war. It will enable us to exert a balanced effort in accordance with the nature of our own resources-the type of effort that we are best able to make quickly and effectively.
Because of our natural resources, particularly in agriculture, and our great industrial capacity which has been so rapidly increasing in the last few years, and also because of our relative safety from direct enemy attack, we are able to produce far greater quantities of war supplies than our own forces require. These can and should be furnished to our allies. It would be inequitable and wasteful from the point of view of the united nations' war effort as a whole if our allies were unable to obtain what they require from us and we attempted to reduce oUr production to the point where we ourselves utilized all that our allies were not able to buy from us with the cash at their disposal.
The products of our factories and our farms, of our mines and forests and refineries, should go where they are most immediately effective in wining the war-where they will be most effective in saving our lives and the lives of our allies. The disposition of these supplies to the places where they are most useful should not be prevented by any inability on the part of our allies to pay Canadian dollars for what we should send to them. To the extent that
Mutual Aid Bill


Gordon Graydon: The minister speaks of the relationship of this country to others in the sterling area, and among our allies. Has this point which he raises been the subject of any conference among the allies or on the part of those in the sterling area?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, not so far as I know, certainly not by governments.
There is another advantage of this Mutual Aid measure in that it makes clear and emphasizes the real and vital importance of war production. It emphasizes that production is just as necessary, just as much an obligation of a belligerent as furnishing armed forces. We do not dream of charging our allies for the services of our army, our navy, or our air force merely because these may operate in or from the territory of an ally. Our allies do not charge us for the vital assistance that their forces render to Canada in battling against our enemies overseas.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You
could not measure it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No one would ever try.
It is our enemies whom the. Chinese have fought so desperately and at such terrible cost year after year in Asia. Their sacrifices undoubtedly will have saved thousands of Canadian lives. But we do not share even the material cost of their forces let alone the terrible misery that they have endured. Surely in these circumstances we should not be niggardly in fixing the terms on which we supply to China what we can and, I must add, what can be transported to her.
This Mutual Aid plan which the government is proposing is similar to what is being done now by other countries which are in a position to furnish supplies to their allies. We are all familiar in a general way with the Lend-Lease Act and the aid which the United States is giving under this act to nearly all the united nations. This epoch-making measure was conceived by Mr. Roosevelt and enacted by the United States congress while the United States was still a neutral. Our Mutual Aid plan is somewhat similar in principle. I hope it will prove a little simpler in application. It is naturally different in some respects because our plan is introduced while we are at war, with the American experience as a guide, while theirs, as I have said, was introduced before they were a belligerent.

Mutual Aid Bill
I think it would interest the house to recall some of the salient features of the United States Lend-Lease Act, the reasons for it, and the results that have been achieved under it. I think I can do this best by quoting a short passage from the report to congress by the lend-lease administrator, dated January 25, 1943.
This report begins with these words:
The Lend-Lease Act was enacted by the congress as a measure of national defence on March 11, 1941, nine months before the threat of axis attack upon us materialized at Pearl Harbor. Full and lengthy public hearings and debates on the issues preceded passage of the law. Recognizing the threat against us, the United States in substance affirmed that:
(a)	It was essential to our security that all possible material assistance be furnished to those nations then fighting or threatened by the axis.
(b)	It was in our interest that the flow of weapons and other supplies furnished to permit the defence of the United States should not be interrupted by a lack of dollar exchange.
(c)	Since aid was being furnished in our own defence and it was important to avoid the international debt experience of the last war, payment might be made in kind or property or other benefits, rather than in dollars.
A little further on:
Under the act, the President is authorized by congress, "in the interest of national defence," to procure and provide "defence articles" and "defence information" for the government of any country whose defence he deems "vital to the defence of the United States." Defence articles and defence information are defined to include all types of goods and services necessary for the waging of total war. The act provides that "the terms and conditions under which any such foreign government receives any aid . . . shall be those which the President deems satisfactory, and the benefit to the United States may be payment or repayment in kind or property, or any other direct or indirect benefit which the President deems satisfactory."
Lend-lease is not a loan of money. Nor has it ever been an act of charity. The lend-lease programme of providing goods and services to nations resisting the axis aggresors was undertaken for the defence of this country and has been carried out in the interests of the people of the United States. We have aided peoples under lend-lease because their interests coincided with our interests.
When the lend-lease act was passed, there was still the possibility that by putting the full weight of our economic resources behind those countries fighting the axis, the defeat of the aggressors might be secured before we ourselves were attacked. Pearl Harbor ended that possibility. The axis attack upon us vindicated the wisdom of lend-lease policy.
By beginning the lend-lease programme when we did, we greatly strengthened ourselves. We strengthened the nations w'hose fight was keeping axis aggression from this . hemisphere. We strengthened _ our inner defences as well.
Great Britain, then standing rjone, was assured of a continuous and mounting flow of arms and food from the United States. China,
[Mr. Ilsley.l
then in its fourth year of heroic resistance to Japan, was assured more American supplies over the Burma road. After the Soviet Union was attacked, lend-lease support was assured the Red armies then battling desperately before Moscow.
Then a little later:
The basic war strategy of the united nations is to combine all their material and man-power resources in such a wrny as will achieve the maximum possible impact upon the enemy in the shortest possible time. Lend-lease is a principal means by which the United States combines a share of its material strength with the material strength and man-power of our allies in order to carry out this strategy.
When a General Sherman tank smashes through an axis emplacement, the enemy is hurt just as much, whether the action is before Stalingrad or on the axis flanks in Libya and Tunisia. An American-made fighter plane strikes effectively in the cause of the united nations whether it is strafing the Japanese in occupied China or the nazis in occupied France.
American steel shaped by British machine tools into 25-pounder guns at a factory in the English Midlands adds to the total fire power of the armies fighting the axis. The same is true of American tools machining Indian steel into shells in a factory in the central provinces of India.
American foods shipped abroad bring the day of victory closer by providing the calories necessary to sustain the energy and strength of those fighting our enemies, whether it be a soviet soldier from Tiflis pushing forward against the nazis through snow and ice-or a dockyard worker who went through the London blitz and is now unloading supplies for United States forces in Britain-or a British mother whose children are entrusted to a day nursery while she takes a man's place at a lathe in a shellmaking plant.
Lend-lease supplies in the hands of the other united nations serve the war effort of the United States.
And a little later:
Lend-lease transfers have been authorized of goods and services procured from regular army, navy and maritime commisison appropriations up to a maximum value of $35,970,000,000.
That is the total authorization up to the date of this report by Mr. Stettinius. Then a little later:
The total value of lend-lease aid in 1942 amounted to $7,009,000,000, consisting of goods transferred in an amount of $5,637,000,000, and services rendered in an amount of $1,372,000,000. This was more than five times the total for 1941. In the last three months of 1942 alone, the value of lend-lease aid was $2,482,000,000, twice the total for all of 1941.
Tfic cumulative value of lend-lease aid from March 11, 1941, to December 31, 1942, was $8,253,000,000. Of this amount 79 per cent Was for goods transferred and 21 per cent for services rendered.
Then later on:
Measured in terms of money spent, lend-lease represents about one-eighth of the total United States war effort. This country spent for all war purposes $63,408,000,000 from March 1, 1941, to December 31, 1942. The value of lend-

Mutual Aid Bill
lease aid during the same period was $8,253,000,000 or 13 per cent. 1942 munition exports, including both those made under lend-lease and those by direct purchase, were 19 per cent of total United States munitions production. For the last six months these exports have been running at about 15 per cent of production.
We have sent considerably more than 19 per cent of certain combat weapons to the other united nations. Of our 1942 production of tanks and combat planes, excluding cargo planes, trainers, etc., we have shipped, both under lend-lease and by direct cash purchase, about one out of every three to our allies. These weapons were most urgently needed on the battle fronts of 1942. On the other hand we have sent less than 15 per cent, or none at all, of many other items.
And later:
Agricultural products, most of them foods, exported under the lend-lease programme from March 11, 1941, to November 30, 1942, were valued at $1,329,000,000.
I think that is sufficient to quote from that report, but I wanted to read that to the house to show the extent of the aid the United States is giving on principles similar to those laid down in this bill, and the reasons they have given publicly for putting their aid in that form.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think the minister might have quoted from that or some other authority to show the return aid the allied nations have given to the United States. I have some very interesting data on that myself. It is not always a one-way traffic.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mutual Aid Bill


Mr. J. H. HARRIS (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, the view taken by large numbers of our Canadian people respecting this legislation is that they are anxious to support it to the limit, and to do everything possible to ensure that those giving service at the front are backed by the production of those of us who are at home. My purpose in rising at this time is to see if we cannot engender into the cold facts and figures a spirit which will be reflected in enthusiasm in the minds and hearts of our people on the farms, in the forests and in the factories, and which will affect all those who provide those extra supplies so badly needed.
May I say frankly that I am disappointed in the minister's statement. It does not go far enough. It does not give us enough detail. It does not tell us how many tanks and planes are being supplied, how much foodstuffs is being supplied, or anything of the kind. There is no break-down of figures. From last year's bill the minister had a model to follow, because at that time we gave SI,000 million to the United Kingdom. He said in his statement that already the machinery is set up from last year to proceed with allocating the present $1,000 million to the united nations. Well, if that machinery is set'up why are there not produced to this chamber the results attained by last year's expenditure, when that $1,000 million has been completely spent? Why have we not some detail, as we had when we dealt with the balance required for war expenditures? I believe war expenditures were set out in Voles and Proceedings of March 2.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I should like to interrupt the hon. member. I have not been able up to this time to clear that matter with the censorship officials; but when I can, I shall give the details.


Joseph Henry Harris: I appreciate the minister's difficulty, and I must say I am in accord with a certain amount of censorship. But if we can find from United States records what has been done under their lend-lease appropriations, and if we use those figures to engender enthusiasm in the hearts of our people, by pointing out that one dollar out of every three dollars went toward the purchase of tanks for the united nations, then why can we not do something of the kind in describing Canada's appropriations? Why can we not point out, for instance, that one dollar out of every three has been spent in the production of tanks, the production of aeroplanes or the like, for the benefit of our allies of the united nations?
The point I am making is that we need facts of this kind to satisfy and engender
I Mr. Ilsley.]
enthusiasm in those of our people who are responsible for the production, those who are doing the work. It is not enough always to speak negatively. It is not enough for the minister to suggest that the production of bacon and cheese might be cut down. We must look at the positive side of the picture at every opportunity and encourage our people to produce more and more. We must not be content to look at the negative side. I am in accord with the four points raised by the minister. I believe the house will agree with him. But I am anxious to point out to our people that we are really doing something worth while, and intend to do more, provided of course that there is no shortage of Canadian dollars.
How satisfactory it would be if we could rise in our places and point to the experience we had in respect of the $1000 million credit which was exhausted in December last, and say to our people in the farming community, "You provided one-third of that S100O million credit. You made it possible that China might be fed. You made it possible that North Africa might be fed." How satisfactory it would be to be able to say that those goods went to Britain. We know that Britain had a protocol with Russia, and she was able to make financial arrangements by transferring our goods, in turn, to Russia. At the same time, not through our- generosity but simply in carrying out our duties to civilization, we let sterling balances accumulate in London and negotiated an interest-free loan. That was the very least we could do. How satisfactory it would have been if we could have had the facts with respect to that situation. That was a reciprocal arrangement. We are now on the debit side. Even $1000 million is not enough to pay for . the blood and energy that is being expended on the fronts holding the enemy back from our shores. In a business sense it is quite all right to have these reciprocal arrangements. But we have had experience, in that we gave $1000 million last year. We must give some explanation with regard to that arrangement, and the apportionment of the money, if we are to satisfy those of our people who take such a narrow view in respect of present world conditions. We must have something tangible to show for any reciprocal arrangement or for materials given. That being so, let us have the facts, and we can answer them. Thank God there are only a few such people in Canada, only a few who are worrying as to whether we are getting dollar for dollar. If in our discussions we could give facts respecting these transactions I believe they would prove helpful.

Mutual Aid Bill
It would be desirable to have information with respect to the return of goods in the post-war period. And not only that; I should like to see a return to this country even now of those businesses and manufacturing establishments in Great Britain which have been wrecked, but which in all probability will not be rehabilitated over there. Why not begin bringing them to Canada, right now? For example, why not bring a score of technicians who are over sixty-five years of age? If they are not essential to industry in Great Britain, have them brought to Canada. Let us bring to Canada too the people who have increased their agricultural production, but who, perhaps because of a shortage of supplies and lands, have found that they are not operating economically. Let them produce foodstuffs in Canada. In this country they could produce twice as much at the same cost and by the expenditure of the same energy. If the problem were presented in this way I believe our people in Canada could be stirred to even greater effort.
We know from experience of other days that a lot of post-war debts are not collectable. I think it would be far better to have any post-war debt in the hands of the United Kingdom than in the hands of others with which we have not had as much experience. In her dealings with Russia, in her dealings with China, in her plan of dealing generally, protocol or whatever you may like to call it, in her commercial actions, in her trading, in her shipping and what-not, the United Kingdom is in a much better position than we are. I cannot see why this change has been made, why we switched from the United Kingdom to the united nations.
If it is going to be of some benefit in connection with the activities and goodwill and the live and let live policy, or the other philosophy which the minister so often mixes in with his speeches, then it is all right; I am satisfied. But I am still of the opinion that the United Kingdom is in a better position to distribute our surplus production of one kind and another than we will be under this united nations plan. So far as the collecting of sterling balances in sterling areas is concerned, the United Kingdom knows where they are. She is dealing with these matters in greater magnitude than we are, and I suggest that we should let her do it.
If we consider we have risen to nationhood and are going to do this ourselves, many of us are of the opinion that the sterling balances which we may accumulate from New Zealand or from Australia, where the currency is on a little different exchange base from that established in our United Kingdom agreement
last year, will mean another set of bookkeeping, another set of settlements. So far as commonwealth sterling balances are concerned, if necessary we should be ready to make interest-free loans to those countries which are not able to export back to us sufficient goods to create their own Canadian balances. I am of the opinion that many of these countries will not be able to do this.
I gathered from the minister that this $1,000 million to the united nations probably will not be enough, because in all probability the United Kingdom itself will require more than it had last year. Last year the United Kingdom exhausted its $1,000 million by December. If that is so, we must not under any circumstances stop or halt in our stride; we must not slow down in any way. Do not let it be thought, among our agricultural communities particularly, that we might not be able to export whatever agricultural surpluses we have because the division of this SI.000 million among the United Kingdom and the other component parts of the united nations may not permit them to buy all our surplus production.
I am in accord with direct dealing if it will stimulate and invigorate our people and bring about greater production. I do not like to mention the rumours that are abroad, but the government should spike one rumour. It is being said that Great Britain resold to some of the other component parts of the united nations, perhaps at a profit, some of the goods she obtained under the gift of $1,000 million which was made last year. A statement should be made by the administration dispelling that rumour. The gossips say that New Zealand and Australia felt that they had to pay a premium for some of the gift of Canada that found its way to them.
In my opinion we should have a breakdown of the $1,000 million. Not that we are niggardly-I do not like to use that word here; not that we want to deal harshly with the united nations. That is not our idea. Far be it from any one in this chamber to get into that frame of mind. Just the reverse is the case. We find in Votes and Proceedings the following statement made in connection with the total expenditure of $4,558,000,000:
Payments for the account of the government of the United Kingdom to enable it to purchase in Canada aircraft, tanks, mechanical transport vehicles, guns, ammunition and other munitions of war, foodstuffs, raw materials and other commodities and supplies essential to the conduct of the war and the maintenance of the people of the United Kingdom, and to defray other expenses incurred in Canada arising out of the war, $1,000,000,000.
Mutual Aid Bill

Then on the next page we find a breakdown of the amounts advanced to the following departments and branches:
Auditor General's office; Civil Service Commission; External Affiairs; Finance; Fisheries; Justice; Labour; Mines and Resources; Lands, Parks and Forests; Surveys and Engineering; Immigration; Munitions and Supply; National Defence-army services; National Defence- naval services; National Defence

air services; National Harbours Board; National Research Council; National Revenue; National War Services; Pensions and National Health; Public Works-chief architect's branch; Public Works -chief engineer's branch; Royal Canadian Mounted Police; Trade and Commerce; Transport.
There is page after page of this break-down, and the detail in certain cases is given down to $1,000. We should have a detailed breakdown, not only of this estimate of $1,000 million, but of the United Kingdom billion as well. Then, as I said at the beginning, we shall be able to encourage our people to more and more production. We shall be able to tell them what they have done, not only for the United Kingdom but for China, for Russia and ' for the other component parts of the united nations. We can exhort them to do even more, particularly the farmers who at this time of year are thinking about what they are going to produce in the coming season.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I was rather hoping that the debate would be adjourned this afternoon so that we might have an opportunity of looking over the complete statement the minister has made. However, I take it that we shall be able to go into the details of this appropriation when we are discussing this resolution in committee or on the bill itself; consequently if we confine ourselves to general remarks we shall be doing all that is necessary at this time. I noticed that the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris) confined himself to a few major points.
On behalf of the party with which I am associated I should like to say that we support unhesitatingly the idea of a gift to the united nations. We believe that Canada is in a favoured position. So far throughout the war we have been remote from devastating air raids and we have suffered relatively little from the impact of war. True, we have lost a number of splendid boys in the air, on the sea and in the army, but none the less the civilian population of this country has been exceedingly fortunate in escaping the difficulties and hardships which others of the allied nations have had to encounter.
I notice that the minister, in reply to a suggestion of the hon. member for Danforth

that we should go into the details of the gift made last year and what it is proposed to do this year, said he would be prepared to do so, or words to that effect, provided that the censorship regulations would permit. If that is the case, if in this house we are to be subjected to a censorship of discussions of expenditures of funds that have been raised by parliament for the purposes of war; if we cannot discuss these expenditures publicly, I submit, Mr. Speaker, that we have a real case for a secret session at which these expenditures can be brought before the house and the house judge as to the necessity for publicity or otherwise. My own opinion is that we are not in this parliament sufficiently well informed as to the policies that are being pursued, both in relation to our external affairs as a nation and in relation to some of the commitments and the expenditures that we are making. I suggest that if there is any doubt whether the minister can give information because of the inadvisability of revealing anything of value to enemy countries, steps should be taken to ensure that this house can get that information in the only other manner in which it can get it, in a closed or secret session.
I too have noted with a good deal of misgiving not only rumours as to what occurred last year in regard to certain proportions of our gift to Britain, but criticisms and statements in the public press of this country. I have before me a copy of a widely read national magazine, Maclean's of March 15, 1943. When I read this article in Maclean's I was disturbed, because this statement is made, and I would ask the minister to say something about it at the appropriate opportunity when we are in committee:
The fact is that Canada's position under the old billion dollar gift was rapidly becoming intolerable.


Gordon Graydon: Is that an editorial?


Thomas Miller Bell: No, it is from "Backstage, Ottawa", written by "The Man with a Notebook". It appears on page 14.


Gordon Graydon: Who is he?


Thomas Miller Bell: I cannot answer that any more than the hon. member who asked the question, but I think I recognize the style of the author of this series of articles. He says:
We were giving large amounts of war material and supply to Britain which in turn were being handed over to Russia, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, et cetera on terms which Britain, not Canada dictated.
For instance, because Australia had large sterling credit balances in London, Britain was

Mutual Aid Bill
actually charging her, in sterling, for war goods received under the Canadian gift. Now Canada will handle her own gift negotiations direct and get whatever credit is due to this country for her realistic and generous policy of distributing war surplus on the basis of "Mutual Aid."
I thought that was a serious statement which, if unexplained, might undermine confidence in the making of this annual gift to Britain. I hope that the minister will see that an explanation is given to the house and the country.
Again, in the same connection, as the minister said in the course of his remarks this afternoon, we have sent large volumes of supplies to some of our allied countries, supplies which amount to many hundreds of millions of dollars, to Russia, for example. We all w'ish that we could send more goods than have been sent both to Russia and to China-China, which is in even greater need than our Russian ally. But these gifts, as I understand it, have all gone forward on British account, and Canada has not received the credit which she should have received for the gifts we have made. .1 disagree with the member for Danforth that we should rely on the making of this gift to Britain and allow Britain to distribute the Canadian	gift.	I suggest	that we	are	no
longer in that stage of our development; that Canada is a nation and must assume her obligations as a nation. What we do as a nation we should do as a nation. We cannot always expect, if I may put it in this way, to hang on to mother's apron strings. The time has come when we should adopt the more direct policy which the minister has suggested this afternoon.
I do not agree with the minister that we should not repatriate Canadian securities that [DOT] are now	held	in Great	Britain.	Let	usremember that the repatriation of these securities	will	make no	difference	to	thecommon	people	of Great	Britain. It might
make some difference to certain financial institutions and individuals in Great Britain, but for the life of me I cannot see how it can make any difference so far as the British people are concerned. I know that this is a gift, and therefore I am not suggesting that against this gift the securities to which I have referred should be hypothecated. But in the course of his remarks this afternoon the minister made a brief reference to Canadian securities held in Britain. Last year we gave one billion dollars to Great Britain, and were glad to do it. We are giving another billion dollars this year, and we are glad to do it. In addition we made a loan last year of S700.000.000 to Great Britain, without interest, for the duration of the war, and we were glad
to do it. But it seems to me that in our own public interest we should be seeing that against the loans, not against the gifts,' we should be devising ways and means of getting out of debt as a nation and as institutions.
I personally think that in making financial arrangements we should protect the country to that extent. That is our duty, I take it, as members of this House of Commons. I should be prepared to go beyond the billion dollars in the way of a gift. I do not mind, when we are assuming our share in this war, giving all that we ought to give, but in making loans I believe that we have a right to protect the interests of this country, both in regard to the loans and in regard to the securities that are now held across the seas.
I have noted what has been done in this connection by several of our sister dominions and the great dependency of India-India, which, let it be remembered, is still under British authority, the portfolio of finance being I understand in the hands of a British appointee and citizen. India none the less has repatriated securities to the extent, it is stated, that during the coming year she will have repatriated all her securities that have been held across the sea and will be free of external debt.
There are certain securities which I think it would be in the interests of Canada to get and for the Canadian government to hold. I refer particularly to the securities of the Canadian Pacific Railway company, stocks and bonds to the total amount, I believe, of between five and six hundred million dollars. To my mind it would be in the public interest if these stocks and bonds were repatriated to Canada and held by the Canadian government. It would enable us to settle some of the transportation problems which may beset us after the war is over. In a recent debate reference was made to the expansion of Canadian Pacific Airways in this country, and it seems to me it would be an admirable idea and a splendid chance to get these securities back into this country and into our own hands.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does the hon. member consider it advisable from the point of view of the national interest that this or any other government should control the Canadian Pacific Railway?


Thomas Miller Bell: Yes, I do consider it to be in the public interest that the people of Canada should control their own transportation systems.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is another matter.
244S
Mutual Aid Bill


Thomas Miller Bell: I do not say that these systems should be amalgamated. We know that even in Russia one set of factories is very often in effect the rival of and competitor with another set of factories. There is nothing incompatible in the ownership by the government of Canadian Pacific stock or bonds, for instance, and the running of the two railways as competitive institutions within a state-owned set-up. Those of us who have lived in western Canada any number of years know that it is a dangerous thing to leave a great transportation system in the hands of private individuals, and the Canadian Pacific in the old days in western Canada was in many respects anything but an asset to the people of that part of Canada. May I also remark that if we add up all that they have received by way of lands, grants and subsidies, we have paid already very handsomely for the Canadian Pacific Railway.
Therefore I should like to see the bonds and the stocks of the Canadian Pacific back in Canada and held in trust by the government, and not sold to private investors. You have in the same position the Hudson Bay company, which holds large blocks of our Canadian land. There is no reason in the world why we should not regain control of the lands which are now owned by that company. Then, we have given vast sums one way and the other to Canadian Industries Limited, a great monopolistic organization in this country controlling chemicals. There is no reason why we should not use this opportunity to gain a proper control of that organization. You have Lever Brothers, Courtaulds and others whose stocks and bonds could, I think, well be repatriated in the public interest.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Does not the hon. gentleman think his position is a little too much like this, that England's extremity is Canada's opportunity?


Thomas Miller Bell: No. As one who was born and nurtured in Great Britain I have as great a love for Britain as anyone in this house, but we are not helping Britain in leaving these securities overseas; we are helping a small group of financiers and capitalists, who will benefit through these stocks and bonds and other securities being left in Great Britain. If it were a question of giving these to the common people of Great Britain, I would take another view. But we are simply, it seems to me, allowing the control of these great organizations by a group of private absentee capitalists who have exploited both the Canadian and the British people throughout the years. I have no hesitation therefore in saying what I have said this afternoon, and in urging

that we try, when the opportunity is at hand, to free our people to that extent from exploitation.
There are several questions which I intended to ask the minister in connection with these securities and their taxation position. I put some questions on the order paper-I filed them last night-and when the time comes and we are in committee we can elucidate these points.
While I have expressed this point of view this afternoon, we of this group and this movement are in favour of granting all the aid that we can grant to Great Britain and to our allies. We should give more than we have given, but in giving, we divorce from our thinking the question of the control of institutions in this country by various financial and capitalist groups in Great Britain. I divorce entirely the people of Britain from the group to which I have referred this afternoon.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Are there no small holders?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Thousands.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think so.


Thomas Miller Bell: I do not believe that is true.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, the hon. member does not know.


Thomas Miller Bell: And the hon. gentleman does not know either.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do know.


Thomas Miller Bell: Well, I do not think the hon. member does know.


Richard Burpee Hanson: All right; the hon. gentleman will accept my statement that I do know because I have seen the list of shareholders.


Thomas Miller Bell: Then if the hon.
gentleman will put the figures on record I will accept them. I will accept the figures when he puts them on record, but not before.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I suggest that the hon. gentleman must take my word. He cannot refuse to accept a statement which I make when I pledge my word that I know certain things to be facts. To do so,, I think, is effrontery and an insult to the members of this house.


Thomas Miller Bell: I do not believe I have to accept the hon. gentleman's word that what he says is a fact when I am perfectly sure it is not a fact. If the hon. gentleman agrees to produce the figures I will accept them, but I will not accept his word under these circumstances.

Mutual Aid Bill


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not know how far that goes. I cannot verify the truth of the statements I have seen, but I say that I have seen the figures; therefore I suggest that the hon. member must accept the statement I make in good faith as to my own knowledge.


Thomas Miller Bell: The hon. gentleman has just said that he cannot verify his statement. Should I be asked to accept a statement which he himself cannot verify?


Richard Burpee Hanson: A statement as to what I know.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The issue between the two hon. gentlemen seems to be clear. It is a question of conflict of evidence, not a question of disputing the word of an hon. member or of accepting any evidence which may be submitted.


Thomas Miller Bell: That, I think, is quite in accordance with the traditions of this chamber. I am quite prepared to accept a correction within the knowledge of an hon. member, but I was disputing the factual knowledge of the hon. member.
I do not wish to say more this afternoon, because we shall have an opportunity of studying the statement. We should give all we can to the allied nations, and particularly Russia, which has borne the brunt of the war in the last two years; and not only to them, but to China. I do not know how we can get more supplies to China, but in my opinion every effort must be made to do so. I had the privilege not long ago of meeting a group of well-informed Chinese gentlemen from Chungking, and I know perfectly well that they are in dire need. It is no secret that their food supplies are entirely inadequate; it has appeared in the public press; therefore I repeat that the rise in price of rice, their staple article of food, amounted by last December I am told to something like 800 per cent in the past few years. It is indeed fortunate that we have vast supplies of grain, vast supplies of foodstuffs, if we could only get them to those who need them.
In closing I would emphasize again that these great supplies of grain, which seemed to so many like a millstone around our necks, are to-day one of our greatest assets, one of the greatest assets of our common cause. Those of us who have been out west during this Easter vacation and who have seen vast heaps of grain lying in the open, who
have seen combines working and threshing machines going, because there was inadequate help last autumn to gather in the crop, know how vital these food supplies will be and how fortunate we are in having them in such abundance in our midst.
Let us give food, let us give munitions, let us give the things which it is within our power to give. I am quite in accord with the minister in his statement that when we speak of giving a billion dollars we are not in a sense giving dollars, just as, in a sense, we are not fighting the war with money. We are producing goods, but we express the value of these goods and services in the form which we can understand, and this form is in dollars. We shall have more questions to ask and more to say when the resolution is in committee.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not rise to enter into any controversy with the hon. member (Mr. Coldwell) who has spoken with respect to certain British-owned securities, except to make one observation before I express my opinion with regard to this government measure. I hope the day will never come when the people of Britain, not the government of Britain but the people of Britain, will not have some financial interest in Canada. Canada is to-day, and I apprehend will be for a considerable period of time to come, a debtor nation. She always has been. Her natural resources, her commercial life, and her progress have been stimulated from time to time, and in many instances they have survived by reason of the financial support that she has received from abroad and particularly from our blood brothers across the sea. I hope the day will never come when the people of England will not have a very substantial interest in the commercial undertakings of Canada.


Thomas Miller Bell: They have not now.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The hon. gentleman says they do not have it now. I do not think his remark means anything or is based on anything but a desire, as I understand it, to play the demagogue before the people of Canada. With that I intend to leave that question.


Thomas Miller Bell: I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman has no right to imply that one is taking the position of a demagogue. That word, I believe, was ruled out long ago. The hon. gentleman has the habit of implying that other people are the very kind of men that he is himself.
Mutual Aid Bill


Richard Burpee Hanson: That of
course is a gratuitous insult. The hon. gentleman has aggravated the insult by making that statement.


Thomas Miller Bell: I want the speaker's
ruling.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am
speaking to a point of order. Be good enough to take your seat.


Thomas Miller Bell: I raised a point of order.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have the floor at the moment.


Thomas Miller Bell: Then speak a little
louder.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I will suit myself about that. I want Mr. Speaker to hear me, and I am not particular about anything else. Let me say this. If I consider a statement made by an hon. member of this house as savouring of demagoguery, I submit it is not out of order. That is the position I take. I did not call the hon. gentleman a demagogue, but his statement certainly savoured, to me at any rate, of demagoguery, and I think I am within the rules of the house. I leave myself in the hands of Your Honour.


Thomas Miller Bell: I think the hon. member used these words, that the hon. gentleman's only reason was a desire to play the demagogue.


Thomas Vien: It is rather difficult to distinguish between the statements made by both hon. gentlemen, but I gathered that the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) did imply that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) was a demagogue, and then the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar replied in kind. The honours seem to be even, and I suggest that both hon. gentlemen should withdraw their statements.


Thomas Miller Bell: I withdraw.


Richard Burpee Hanson: One cancels the other. I withdraw.
I should like to suggest this to the membership of the house as the basis upon which this measure might and should be justified. The ultimate objective of this measure is the destruction of the common enemy, and for that reason I intend to support the resolution before the Chair. I deprecate the idea that this is a gift. I suggest that it is a contribution to the common cause, and as such it is entitled to our wholehearted support. I regret that there are certain schools of thought, not many I hope in this fair Dominion of Canada,
who are not receiving the idea in that sense. I am not going to be specific about this, but I have read certain controversies in certain parts of Canada suggesting that this country should not contribute, in the common cause, to a nation that was perhaps wealthier than ours.


Humphrey Mitchell: Nations, plural.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Or nations that were wealthier than ours. I do not think that is the basis upon which the billion dollar vote was made last year, nor do I apprehend from the minister's statement to-day that it is the basis upon which this contribution is being made. We are making it for our own protection and defence, and I should like to remind hon. members of the stand I took last year in connection with the grant, or gift, or whatever you wish to call it-the previous legislation which authorized the raising of one billion dollars in the common effort. Speaking on that bill on March 18, 1942, I expressed the hope and wish that the measure would receive the unanimous support of the house and the country. I said that the proposal before us was much more than a gesture; it was a tangible recognition of an obligation the payment of which was long past due by Canada. And as the tragic struggle has proceeded in the intervening period of time, as the tempo of the war has increased, it is but natural that the government of this country, giving to the country the leadership so absolutely necessary in a time of stress and strain, should promote measures which would have the effect of aiding the common cause in the best possible manner through the best means that we can provide to that end. I suggest that the true principle under which this measure should be justified is to regard it as a contribution to the common cause for which we are all fighting. On that basis I intend to support the measure.
When the proper time comes I shall deal with some of the statements contained in the resolution itself and with the statements made to-day by the minister. The minister made a rather long and important statement. I think it is due to the membership of this house, who have not had an opportunity of studying that statement, that some little time should be given in order that we might analyse it and understand the import of some of the remarks he made and some of the basic considerations to which he referred. May I say to the minister that he made a strong argument in support of the bill, but I felt that it was a sort of apologia for the bill, that he anticipated an attack against the principle of

Mutual Aid Bill
it. I hope that was not in his mind; I hope he will feel that the united support of the people of Canada is behind the principle underlying this measure, namely that it is one more evidence that Canada will contribute to the utmost of her ability to the common cause. I hope he will not feel in any sense apologetic toward any unimportant branch of public opinion in Canada which may be critical of the principle he has .enunciated to-day.
I think we must all bear in mind that while Canada already has made great material contributions to the common cause, the fact still remains that the Canadian army has not yet been in action, that the fighting has been done by others as far as the armed forces are concerned. I use that expression in its limited sense, not to include the magnificent work of the Canadian navy and not meaning to include what I consider our most heroic contribution to the whole war to date, namely, the effort of our air force in which I include the heroism of hundreds of young Canadians who have given their lives in this strenuous warfare during the last few weeks. I am not unmindful of the episode at Dieppe and the heroism which our men displayed there. When we come to the consideration of the war appropriation measure I intend to ask some questions of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) with respect to Dieppe, arising out of a speech which he made in the city of Ottawa not very long ago before a veterans' association. I shall not pause here to refer to it, but I should like to say that I think the minister ought to have been a little more specific in his statement with regard to the principles which will actuate the ministry in the allocation of the material aid which is to be provided by this bill. I caught a few phrases as the minister went along. He said these goods were to be allotted on the basis of strategic needs; I think that was the term he used.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He said a committee of the cabinet was to be set up, which would be all-powerful in the distribution of these goods. On what theory, on what basis and for what reasons would a committee of the cabinet decide a question of strategic need? It would seem rational to assume that it would be on some basis which would not be determined here in Canada, because it would seem to me absolutely impossible that we could have the detailed information that would be necessary to decide what was equitable and just in the matter of distribution; that it must be upon the basis of information coming to us from the allied war command. In that
connection, how useful it would be if we had some sort of supreme council on which Canada could be adequately represented, which could give advice and suggestions to the cabinet committee which is proposed to be established as to the distribution of these supplies.
This is to be patterned, I gathered from the minister, more or less on the principle of lend-Iease; that is to say, there are to be reciprocal provisions the details of which have not been actually settled as yet. Well, I do not think there is any objection at all to incorporating reciprocal provisions into this bill or into the regulations which may be set up under it, but I think the House of Commons of Canada should1 know when the time comes, in committee on this resolution or in committee on the bill, just what the ministry has in mind in this connection with respect to reciprocity. What have these other people to offer us? I should not like to put the acceptance of this measure by this house or by the people of Canada on the basis that we are to get reciprocal aid. As far as I am concerned I would never vote for a measure based on the theory that because we give we ought to get something back. Let me come back to the main thesis I had in mind, that this is a contribution to a common cause, given freely by the Canadian people under leadership given by the ministry of this country charged for the time being with the responsibility of administering Canada's war effort, and that we do it because we are grateful for what others have done for us. Why, the very fact that so far our shores have remained' inviolate at the hands of the enemy is the best possible answer to those who ask why we should do this. Hon. gentlemen may recall that when the billion dollar bill was before parliament on March 18 of last year I reminded them of this:
For generations before this war began Britain has been guarding our sea lanes and our trade routes and providing protection for our very existence, all without any cost to us.
Now that Canada has arrived at man's estate, as the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) suggests; now that we are seeking to play the part of a great belligerent nation, it behooves us to pull our full weight in the great struggle now going on. I have been careful not to say anything, but I have sometimes wondered how it is that the Canadian army has not yet had an opportunity to pull its full weight in this war. I do not pretend to allot responsibility, but the fact remains that the Canadian army as such has not been in action as yet. I know how-restless some of the personnel of the Canadian army are because of that fact, and I happen to know further that it is not very pleasant for
Mutual Aid Bill

those men overseas, some of them there since December, 1939, to have it thrown in their faces that while Australia and New Zealand are fighting gallantly on the sands of Africa, personnel of the Canadian army are not there. I just throw out that suggestion in the hope that when the war estimates are up the Minister of National Defence will give the Canadian people at least some explanation why Canadian armed forces have not seen action.


Charles Gavan Power: Do you not think the air force is part of the armed forces?


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister was not here when I referred to this before. I expressly paid what I considered to be a very generous tribute to the Canadian air force, in which I am intensely interested and which has done marvellous work. The minister would not have asked that question if he had heard what I said before. I was restricting my remarks, and I referred to the navy as well. I stated I was wondering why the Canadian army had not yet been in action.


Charles Gavan Power: Because they are doing something else which is considered important, by the high command.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I will ask the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) to explain to the Canadian people why, after three and a half years in Britain, with the war going on in several theatres, no Canadian battalion, no Canadian brigade or no Canadian division has yet been in action?


Charles Gavan Power: Because they require them to remain in England.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister says so. I should like to know if that is so as a result of British action.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Or if it is the result of Canadian action, or what?


Charles Gavan Power: It is the result of British action, I can tell my hon. friend with the fullest possible authority. It was not as a result of Canadian action.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am glad to have that statement. It is the first time I have heard it.


Charles Gavan Power: It has been made before- not once, but a dozen times-in this house.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I asked for the purpose of getting information., and now I have it.


Charles Gavan Power: Now you have it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: As a matter of fact I am in full accord with the principles underlying this resolution. I have supported the government in its previous action in this connection, and I support it in this. But I do say that when we go into committee of the whole we should have a little more detail as to the modus operandi under which this is to be carried out.	[DOT]
The minister has told us it requires very little additional personnel, and that most of the methods adopted with respect to the last billion dollars will be referable to this one. In what way that is to be operative, I do not know. But I suggest we ought to be told with some degree of particularity just how these strategic needs

and I use the minister's term -are to be met, on the advice of whom it is to be done, and by whom final decisions are to be made. When a report is made to parliament respecting the operation of this legislation, and the expenditure of the funds to be allocated under it, all these points should be made clear. Having made these brief observations, may I reaffirm to the Minister of Finance that we think this is more than a gesture; it - is an active participation in a common effort for a common cause, and something the people of Canada should do.


Mr. VICTOR QUELCH (Acadia):: 
James Lorimer Ilsley: How would Great Britain get Canadian dollars?


Victor Quelch: By Canada giving Great Britain credit in this country to buy goods. That credit would be obtained by the government's obtaining a loan from the Canadian people for that purpose.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The immediate effect is the same.


Victor Quelch: Yes, the immediate effect is exactly the same. But the long-run effect is different, because in the one instance you ask the people to give up a billion dollars worth of goods, while in the other you merely ask them for a temporary postponement of consumption.


James Lorimer Ilsley: How can Great Britain in ten years' time replace these goods?


Victor Quelch: It should not be necessary to repay for the billion dollars worth of goods in one year. But over a period of time Great Britain would repay in goods, and the Canadian people would have the money with which to buy the goods, because the government would repay the loan at that time. However, I shall deal with that aspect of the matter later on. I shall deal later on with the other suggestion the minister has made, because I wish to consider in sequence the points he raised the last time he spoke in the house respecting this measure.
He took exception to the suggestion that these goods might be made available in return for securities, namely, that the country might repatriate securities from Great Britain. On the point he said this:
Some might say, well; do not take I.O.U's; do not take sterling; do not have your cash drawer full of sterling; but exact securities; strip Great Britain of any securities she has. That sounds plausible. But what would we do with the securities? If we sold $500,000,000 worth of securities to the Canadian people, our sale of victory bonds would be decreased by $500,000,000. We would not have any more money in the treasury if we did that.
That does not appear to be a very logical argument. What is the purpose of selling $500 million worth of war bonds to the people? It is to curtail the spending of the people to that extent, and it is also to obtain $500 million from the Canadian people so that the government may spend it. On the other hand, it creates a debt of $500 million. But if we repatriate $500 million of securities from Great Britain, they could be sold to the Canadian people and we would have exactly the same result as if we sold $500 million of war bonds. In the first place we would curtail the spending power of the people by S500 million and. in the second
Mutual Aid Bill

place, the government would have $500 million with which to buy war materials. And we would avoid going into debt to the extent of $500 million. The very argument presented by the minister is against his own policy. It would be of great advantage to sell $500 million of securities instead of selling $500 million of war bonds because we would be keeping out of debt to that extent.


James Lorimer Ilsley: But you would be aiding inflation.	.


Victor Quelch: I do not think so. I shall deal with some of the other points raised by the minister. I quite agree that we should make available to Great Britain or to any of the allied nations all the goods that we possibly can make available at this time. But I think that in every case where a country holds Canadian securities, those securities should first be repatriated. Then, when they have been repatriated we could continue to make goods available in the form of a gift, not merely for the duration of the war but for such time as it may be necessary to place that country upon its feet, which may be three or four years after the war.
The minister argues that it is necessary to give rather than sell in order to avoid interallied debts. But that works both ways. If it is disadvantageous to build up inter-allied debts, surely it is not to the advantage of any country to maintain debts already in existence. We should put first things first. Let us pay off the debts that exist, and then after they are paid off we can continue to make gifts so that no inter-allied debts may be piled up. The result of the minister's policy will be that at the end of the war, even though we may have given gifts to the extent of billions we may still be a debtor nation as far as certain countries are concerned. I think we should use this opportunity to pay off our debts. Then, when they are paid off, we can make goods available in the form of a gift.
The minister has stated that England holds something like $800 million of Canadian securities. From the information I have been given, I understand that these holdings are well over a billion dollars. Whether they are or not, I think we would be well advised to repatriate these securities at this time. By their being held in Great Britain instead of in Canada we are losing a considerable amount of revenue in the form of taxation which would be levied upon the holders of these securities. No doubt the minister will deal with this point when we are in committee. I should like to quote an editorial
[Mr. Queleh.l
which appeared in the Fundy Fisherman of March 3, 1943. It reads:
The only apparent reason that these investments are not brought back to Canada is that they enjoy a lesser taxation in England which is hardly fair, for there should be no holders of Canadian securities placed in a preferred position but the fault does not lie with the investor-it is ours. When substantial dividends are paid by these companies in Canada to their owners in England there are ways whereby these dividends may only be subjected to a single tax. Most of these companies are subsidiary companies, and once a tax is paid on their earnings there is no further tax that we know of, that is if the dividends remain in the treasury of the parent company.
Furthermore, even if paid out in dividends to shareholders, the method of taxing dividends in England is not nearly as severe as our method of full double taxation on dividends. Once a company pays a tax on their earnings the shareholder does not pay taxes again when the dividend is received from such company provided the taxpayer's bracket rate is lower than the company's rate. If higher, the shareholder just pays the difference.
If these securities were brought back to Canada our government could be sure of the full double taxation, the same as all Canadian investors pay. which would make taxation a little less on the rest of us.
As the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar pointed out, the British people as a whole would not benefit by these securities not being repatriated. Those who would benefit are the holders of the securities. Generally speaking, these are some of the choicest of Canadian securities, such as Lever Brothers, Eno's, Hudson's Bay, Canadian Industries and Canadian Pacific Railway. European syndicates had large holdings in the diamond and gold mines of South Africa, but Great Britain purchased those holdings with sterling and charged them against the credits of South Africa held in the Bank of England. In that way South Africa has to a large extent eliminated absentee ownership. The Minister of Finance has stated that we have a credit in England of around $700 million. This could be used for the purchase of these securities, but we have no assurance that the government is going to purchase them. As a matter of fact, according to the argument presented by the Minister of Finance, this would be the last thing this government intends to do.
I am of opinion that Canada should follow the example of South Africa and repatriate these securities at the earliest possible opportunity. If this action is not taken, what guarantee have we that these securities will not be turned over to the United States under the lend-lease act? It is all very well to state that the lend-lease act is along the same lines as this resolution, but it is possible

Mutual Aid Bill
under that act to call for repayment in various ways. It can be done by trading land holdings,
. for example. It is all very well to say that the people of the United States would not for one minute demand that England should turn over any of her colonies in payment of her debt, but I remember during the last war when people holding important positions in the United States and Great Britain said it was unthinkable that the United States would ever demand repayment of the war debt. But we all remember what took place during the past thirty years in connection with the feeling of the people of the United States with regard to the repayment of the British debt. The suggestion was made that British colonies should be turned over to the United States. We have no guarantee that in the next twenty years or so the same demand may not be made, that certain colonies should be turned over as payment for goods supplied during the war.


Mr. MARTIN:: There is no guarantee that we could not make a future settlement in respect of the present proposed gift.


Victor Quelch: But if it were made in the form of a gift we would not be able to demand land as payment. Every effort [DOT]should be made to purchase Canadian securities held by that country. Once the securities have been repatriated, then we should continue to ship goods in the form of a gift and not as a loan. There would then be no question of our asking that they turn over land holdings at some future date.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Does the hon. member think it is England's war, not ours?


Victor Quelch: I know it is our war. Surely that must be apparent when I suggest that we continue to make goods available after the securities have been repatriated, even for some years after the war if that is necessary to reestablish the country. When I say that, it can hardly be suggested that I am calling this Great Britain's war. If the people of England were receiving any benefit from these holdings, then the minister would have some ground to stand on. The fact is that the people of Britain as a whole do not benefit from them in any way, shape or form. If we were to ask for the repatriation of these investments it would not affect the amount of goods that we are making available.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. member is suggesting that the people as a whole buy the securities and then turn them over to us.


Victor Quelch: Quite.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Would that not hurt the people of England?


Victor Quelch: It would not make the slightest difference to the standard of living of the people of Great Britain. If they raised the money to buy these securities, as the minister has suggested, not one person in Great Britain would be forced to consume less food or use less clothing, et cetera.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Does the hon. member suggest that the standard of living of the people of Canada would be raised by bringing these securities back? I could make just as strong an argument, an even stronger argument than the hon. members, that the standard of living of the people of Canada would be injured by the adoption of his suggestion on account of its injurious effect on post-war trade.


Victor Quelch: It would be doing the very thing which the minister suggested Should be done, avoiding inter-allied debt.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I never said that. I said nothing about private debts to begin with, and so far as governmental debts are concerned, what I am anxious about is the size of them, not the fact of them. We have taken a $700,000,000 obligation from the United Kingdom government. That is not objecting to the principle of inter-iallied debt. It is the size of them I am concerned about.


Victor Quelch: Who is to determine ait what size a debt is beneficial and at what size it is detrimental? There is a certain point at which they are all detrimental.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Precisely, and that is the responsibility which His Majesty's Canadian advisers had to take and did take.


Victor Quelch: So far as the Canadian people are concerned, there can be nothing beneficial to Canada to owe money to any other country because wealth will have to go from Canada to pay the interest on that debt, and that means lowering the standard of living of the Canadian people. If at a later date it is decided to repatriate these securities their total value will draw wealth to that extent from this country and therefore lower the standard of living of the Canadian people. Now is the time, I maintain, to get out of debt, and after the war to avoid debt.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It may simply give employment to the Canadian people. As a matter of fact, that is what it would do.


Victor Quelch: That is what the minister has in mind, that remaining in debt to another country will provide employment in this country because we shall have to ship out goods to pay the interest on that debt.
Mutual Aid Bill

It seems to me that the minister's argument that England should be allowed to hold stock in this country is not only illogical but an injustice to the Canadian people.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: To the common people.


Victor Quelch: To the common people or the people of Canada as a whole, because it does, as I say, call for additional sacrifice, not at this time it is true, but after the war when the goods have to leave this country in payment of the interest charges on that debt. While the minister says it does not make any difference at this time, it will make a difference when we start to pay the interest charges and when we start to repatriate these securities, .as I suppose we shall at some date after the war. Why the minister should be so afraid of bringing these securities to this country I cannot understand. I am not going to raise the question whether we should hold or sell these securities, but unquestionably selling these securities at this time would not be detrimental to the war effort. It would be doing exactly what the minister is doing when he sells war bonds.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Will the hon. member permit ne one word? I say very solemnly that with the United States pursuing the policy it is, and with Great Britain pursuing the policy it is, for us to revert to a cash-on-the-barrel-head policy would be unthinkable;' it would be indefensible; it would be intolerable.


Victor Quelch: I agree with the minister, but I am not suggesting that for one minute.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is exactly what it amounts to.


Victor Quelch: I am merely suggesting that in view of the fact that we are trying to bring into existence this so-called new order, it would be very desirable to bring it into existence without there being any debts as between nations. In the first place we should do away with the debts that exist, and then we should continue to make goods available as a gift and avoid building up further debts. That is not cash-on-the-barrel-head to suggest that we should make all goods available to the allied nations in the form of a gift in excess of the amount required to repatriate the securities.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is cash-on-the-barrel-head to the value of the securities.
Mr. QUELCH t The minister has admitted that we have a credit of $700,000,000 with Britain to-day which could be used to repatriate Canadian securities, and still the

goods could continue to go abroad as a gift. So that it would not affect the gift in any shape or form, and the credit we have with-Britain at the present time could be used to repatriate $700,000,000 of securities.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is cash-on-the-barrel-head because the United Kingdom would be obliged to raise sterling to buy the securities. I say that for us to revert to that policy, with the United States doing what it is doing and with the financial relations between the United States and Canada being what they are, and in view of the importance of those relations, would be intolerable, unthinkable and indefensible, and it would be impracticable too.


Victor Quelch: The minister has admitted that the raising of sterling to buy these securities would not lower by one iota the standard of living of the people. I notice that the United States when it traded destroyers to Britain got very substantial returns from that transaction, namely, bases in various parts of the world.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There was a common advantage in that. That was not a deal.


Victor Quelch: It was a very satisfactory one to both parties.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Satisfactory to all the united nations.


Victor Quelch: There was nothing philanthropic about the United States action in that deal.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It was on a lease basis.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: And Britain permanently lost those bases.


Victor Quelch: The minister has suggested that it would be embarrassing to a creditor nation to receive payment of its debts after the war. That makes it quite clear that he is looking to post-war policies in the light of the past; that is to say, he is taking the position that the acceptance of goods from other nations would mean that goods would enter this country in competition with our own and cause unemployment. He apparently is not thinking in terms of maintaining a policy whereby we should at all times maintain effective demand for the production of the country. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to a policy that deliberately-I say deliberately because the minister has made it quite plain that it is deliberate-leaves Canada a debtor nation after the war, which means that we shall have to export wealth in the payment of interest charges, instead of in exchange for wealth, as would be possible if these securities were repatriated at this

Mutual Aid Bill
time. I shall not go any further into this matter on the resolution. There are several questions I wish to ask the minister, but I shall wait until we reach the committee stage.
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Air. Speaker, this is another very important measure. The resolution is divided into four paragraphs. The amount that is to be disposed of is $1,000,000,000, or in External Affairs language, one thousand million dollars. I do not see the importance of the distinction, but some people say that it is very important to use that nomenclature in discussing high finance.
Under the second paragraph of the resolution the governor in council may determine the terms and conditions upon which the war supplies purchased with the aforesaid sum are to be made available to any of the united nations, and the governor in council may require in certain cases payment or repayment in kind or property or reciprocal action or provision of supplies or other direct or indirect benefit as may be deemed appropriate. It is left to the governor in council to decide all that.
In the third place, it is proposed to establish a Canadian war supplies allocation board to carry out the purpose, and that such board be authorized to employ officers, clerks and other employees necessary for the proper conduct of the business of the board.
According to the fourth paragraph, the governor in council may be empowered to raise by way of loan under the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, 1931, such sum or sums of money not exceeding in the whole the sum of one thousand million dollars.
I am opposed to each one of these proposals. It is not because I do not feel that this country should do the best possible to help our allies-not at all. It is just a matter of business and sense. Last year we voted the resolution to make a gift of one thousand million dollars to Great Britain. That money was spent before the expiration of the fiscal year, and we had to vote an additional sum to complete the purchases which had been made. I stand by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), but I cannot understand why we have not a detailed account of the first gift which was made last year and the supplementaries which we voted early this session. We should know what has been bought, how much has been paid for it, where it has gone, and so on.
This is the first reason why I am opposed to the first paragraph, namely, that we have no rendering of account of what was done last year. It is not because I am anti-British. I am giving the reasons. We used to have
this kind of information before the war, but now we do not have it because we are at war. Is that a reason? Because we spend billions now, is that a reason for not having the same methods of accounting we had when we spent millions of dollars. This is why I object to it, in the first place.
In the second place, I find that the explanations which are given to the house about these tremendous expenditures, especially what was mentioned early in March, are insufficient. We need more detail. I have complained about this without much success, but I am sure the minister admits that in principle I am right. As regards the second paragraph I use the same argument that I put forward in the first place.
In the third place, I am against the third paragraph because I am against all boards. We have enough boards. This proposal is to create another. I spoke the other day of twenty-five crown companies connected with the Department of Munitions and Supply. They are of various descriptions; nobody knows what they are for. Here is one more board, and apparently everyone is willing to swallow the board with as little hesitation as they would swallow a cup of water. I am against the proposal for that very reason.
In the fourth place, I am opposed to paragraph 4 for the reasons which have already been given. I am sure that there is not a single member of the House of Commons at Westminster who would vote a thing like that without having some more information. I had the support of the former leader of the opposition-not in the first place, but he followed one of his supporters-when I asked for a rendering of public accounts. The reason is obvious. I will mention only one fact, and I will give no name, but I will give a sufficient description of the individual so that he will be known to everybody. Take the Aid to Russia movement. We are all for it: all of us admire the way Russia is fighting. But who is the president or chairman of Aid to Russia in Toronto? It is the head of Canada Packers, a company which has been found guilty before several courts and condemned to pay fines amounting to even $7,000-once, in the city of Quebec. This gentleman who is full of selfsacrifice, of self-abnegation, of Aid to Russia, is selling rotten meat from Canada Packers to Russia. I want to know, before I vote for this resolution, how much meat has been sold by Canada Packers to the government for Russian aid. I want to know how high rises the patriotism of these Canada Packers-men who preach sacrifice to the Canadian people. It would be interesting to know that. I know that in the Department of Munitions and Supply statistics
Mutual AiiI Bill

are kept of the food which is bought for shipment outside. It is the fact that Canada Packers have been found guilty of exploiting the Canadian people and have been fined by the courts, and it is precisely the boss of that company who puts on his striped trousers and his ornamental headgear to receive Mr. Willkie, " on behalf of the people," full of that great spirit of sacrifice, to win the war and hplp our Russian allies. That is the kind of hypocrite we have in this country-a big hypocrite. The facts are of record. I am not disclosing any secret. The papers were full of the news of the condemnation of Canada Packers, not only in Quebec city but throughout the country. It is the big boss of that organization who "helps Russia" by selling meat to the government. If I were Joe Stalin I would ask the Canadians to change Stanley McLean.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I may say that we have sent no meat to Russia. Mr. McLean's name has been mentioned. He is chairman of a private charity which has supplied certain medical goods to Russia as a private charity. There is no relation between this bill and Mr. Stanley McLean or Canada Packers.


Mr. POULIOT:: We will see to it at eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Jean-François Pouliot: To add a word to what was said this afternoon about Canada Packers, I am ready to offer to the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) an opportunity to repeat before the public accounts committee what he said in the house this afternoon, that Canada Packers had not been selling meat to the Canadian government for shipment to Russia. The matter could be easily studied by the public accounts committee, but I defy the so-called Progressive Conservative party to bring it before that body. It is vital, it is more important than a few rugs, but I defy them to question and cross-question Stan McLean before the public accounts committee. I do so now, and I have every reason for doing so, because when the price spreads committee was sitting I told the members of the committee that that firm was using two methods of accounting, one for themselves and one for the public at large. It was known to every member of the committee, but it was never brought up because the member to whom 
I said it had a slaughtering plant in his county. If that is not enough I will say more. I will say that one day I declared in the house that the predecessor of the present head of Canada Packers, the man who was responsible for the meat trust in Canada, was a public thief. I so accused him, and what happened? That notorious Tory stopped his subscription to the National Liberal Federation. I could say much more, and I defy both parties to bring Stan McLean before the public accounts committee to explain his sales of meat to the government for the army, or even to investigate the Russian business.
I am strictly in order and I do not want any interruption from anyone but you, sir, because the time at my disposal is very short and I am not going to indulge in any blah-blah discussion. I have something more serious to say.
It was said this afternoon that lend-lease is not a loan of money, nor is it an act of charity. I concede that. I cannot understand, however, how it can be said of the gift that we made last year. The statement was made in the United. States about the lend-lease, but last year the policy was mot one of lend-lease; rather it was to make a free gift. The question that is now before the house is vital, not only for the present time and for the obligations we are now assuming but especially from the point of view of the post-war period.
Let me quote what was said recently in the proud city of Hamilton by a prominent Canadian journalist:
Mr. Grattan O'Leary stressed the importance of export trade to Canada, declaring that we must export or we die.
That is perfectly true, and I distinctly remember the stand I had to take with the party on the Ottawa agreements, complaining that those policies were injurious not only to this country and to the other dominions, but also to Great Britain itself. What struck me this afternoon was the magnitude of our effort not only in sending materials, not only in sending munitions, not only in sending supplies to Great Britain and the other allied nations, but also in making such enormous financial sacrifices for Great Britain and the other nations as well.
I am concerned about the statement that was made this afternoon by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley), and I will tell him that a statement like that may be made to the house, but the debate must be adjourned in order, as was suggested by the member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), to give every member an opportunity to read it carefully and to understand it thoroughly.

Mutual Aid Bill
I listened as well as I could to what the minister said although it was pretty dry. It was like a budget speech. You understand a budget speech only when you read it; you cannot understand it when it is delivered. This is the same, and it was very hard to follow the minister closely. Therefore I crave your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, if my references are not strictly accurate, and if there is a shade of difference between what was said and the note I took of it.
With regard to meat, war supplies, according to the Mutual Aid bill that will follow this, include farm products and raw materials, and therefore meat is included. If meat was not shipped to Russia before, it will be after this; therefore it is in order to speak of it. In the second place, the government proposes to enter into whatever reciprocal arrangements are practicable, under which our allies will furnish us with supplies or [DOT] services in return for what we provide. This, sir, is of the utmost importance because it corroborates what was said in the United States about lend-lease. It is the principle of lend-lease itself that we do not give away something as we did last year, but that we give something with the idea of getting something else in return, which is only fair when it can be done. It has also been said that the government desires to avoid piling up huge war debts by sending our supplies to our allies for payment after the war. Effective use of war supplies in the prosecution of the war may be deemed good and sufficient consideration for their transfer. Moreover, we intend, where any terms and conditions are provided for, to have them clearly specified at the time of transfer. This also is a consequence of the principle that the lend-lease act is not charity. We may expect something in return.
It is said that we shall deal directly with various countries. Last year we dealt with Russia through England, and now we will deal directly with the countries concerned. We have done a lot. The Minister of Finance has pointed out what we have done for Great Britain and the other allied nations and it was a summary of the part played by Canada in her policy as a good ally. Part of the statement made by the Minister of Finance had a very strong smell of Rasminsky, that fellow who was an official of the League of Nations and is now assistant to the chairman of the foreign exchange control board. It smells of the League of Nations, and it smells of Rasminsky. I do not believe much in the accomplishments of the League of Nations, which had the distinction of being
twice declared dead, once by Lord Baldwin and the second time by Mr. Chamberlain, without having been resuscitated in the meantime. This has the Rasminsky perfume. The minister said:	[DOT]
We have provided assistance to Britain not only to meet her own requirements but also to meet those of the rest of the sterling area. . . .
Not only do we help finance Great Britain and the British dominions; now we include the empire of India and the British colonial empire, not only the dominions but also the colonies, as well as "certain other middle eastern areas." We are financing the whole world. Imagine that; beggars financing the world! We make sacrifices to help the cause of the allies, but this kind of finance is most dangerous because the more you do in this way, the closer you bring us to annexation. I do not want annexation; I want to stay within the British empire, but I want this country to be as autonomous within the empire as it has been described by Mr. Bennett and by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). Now we are to help the Dutch West Indies, and places like that. Then the minister said:
The dollar exchange resources of Britain and the rest of the sterling area are pooled. Parts of the sterling area which receive a surplus of dollar exchange from operations with Canada turn that surplus in to this pool and when they require dollars for expenditures in Canada they obtain them from this pool.
What kind of finance is that?
The foreign exchange control systems of the various parts of the sterling area are more or less unified for this purpose.
Not those of the British empire or of the British commonwealth of nations, but the exchange control systems of the sterling area. First it was the British commonwealth of nations, then the British empire, and now we have the sterling area that we are to finance.
Moreover, we have provided goods to Russia through Britain inasmuch as Britain made direct arrangements with Russia . . . and we have provided Britain with some of these supplies which she in turn has passed on to Russia in accordance with the terms qf her protocol.
It was not ours; it was hers. In future we are supposed to deal directly with the various British dominions and finance them. They are as well off as we are, probably better because they spend less. Then we are to aid Russia, China and other associated nations. What are those associated nations? We have a right to know. Yhat has been our financial assistance to our allies? First there was the payment before maturity of our debt to Britain, the repatriation of all

Mutual Aid Dill


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to-night to make any prolonged remarks respecting the resolution now before Your Honour. There are one or two points concerning which some observations should be made, and in making them I should like only to generalize because the resolution before the house is very general in its terms. There are many points in connection with the whole scheme of Mutual Aid, as it was described this afternoon by the minister, which can best be discussed either in the debate on second reading of the bill, or in committee. On those occasions details can be examined, scrutinized and debated.
There are, however, one or two observations I wish to make respecting the principle of the resolution before us. After what I have heard said in the house to-day I hope I shall not be regarded as old-fashioned if I rise in my place to say a word with respect, not only to what Canada is doing in the war, but what Great Britain herself has done. I believe it is not old-fashioned to make observations of that kind, and I hope it will never be so considered.
I believe a serious question was raised when the suggestion was made that Great Britain is not appreciative of what Canada has done in this conflict. I do not suppose there is a person in the whole of the British isles who not only is appreciative but understands the position which Canada has taken in respect of its war effort, and is appreciative to the full of all Canada has done and will do. I believe truly that a realization of what Great Britain and the British people have done in this war, to date, is something more than an expression of sentiment.
As I rise this evening to take part in this debate I cannot help recalling, as every hon. member must, those dark days of the spring of 1940, and then again in September and October of that year when the air force of Great Britain, assisted as it was by those from other places, was able finally to turn back the enemy. A great statesman, the number one statesman of the world, if you like, paid a tribute to those brave men of the clouds when he said, " Never in the history of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." Those men were fighting, not just for the people of Britain, not just for the people of any particular part of the world, but for all of us. It was there where the fighting was. I think it is inappropriate to talk about balanc-
Mutual Aid Bill

ing accounts in a time of war such as this one, no matter whether it is with regard to this country or any other of our allies.
This is not the time to talk of making a bargain with those who are fighting as our partners. We are in this struggle together, and it seems to me that it is up to this country to do its utmost. The only limitation should be our capacity as a nation to provide to the utmost of our ability. That is the issue which faces us with respect to this Mutual Aid bill. May I point out again that it is not a matter of a gift by the Canadian people. I take issue with those who said last year that it wras a gift so far as Great Britain was concerned. These are not days of gifts; these are days when everyone puts forward his very last ounce of energy, whether physical, financial or otherwise. I want to announce, at least with respect to the principle of this measure, my support of the Progressive Conservative party. This is our stand regardless of what may be said with respect to the details of the measure. In so far as the principle involved in the broad resolution is concerned, I think it is our duty as an opposition to support the government to the fullest extent.
However, I wish to say to the minister and to the government that we should have a more comprehensive explanation of why this change has been made with respect to distribution. Last year the government was very loud and convincing in its arguments as to why these goods should be dispersed in the manner proposed, but within twelve months or so another scheme for the spending of this money is announced. At the appropriate time I should like the minister to give a more detailed and convincing answer to the question which was propounded and to tell us why the change envisaged by this resolution and the bill to be founded thereon was made.
When the minister makes his statement I should like him to give us some idea as to how these products and materials will be distributed. I realize that to a large extent this will depend upon the requirements of the various nations which are to be helped, but I think we ought to have some idea of what the government has in mind and where the bulk of this money is likely to go. I also wish to ask the minister-I asked him before when this matter was brought up in the house-if this Mutual Aid project is the result of collaboration between Great Britain, the United States, China, Russia and Canada. I think we ought to know whether Canada is simply acting on her own. In these days it is difficult to understand how any nation which is fighting a war in partnership with other nations can act alone.

This nation is bound up with many others which are fighting a common war and common battle for the preservation of our treasured way of life, and I should like to know wffiether conferences or conversations or discussions were held which led up to this Mutual Aid arrangement. I should like to know whether Great Britain has been consulted with respect to the change contemplated by this legislation. That is a point w'hich must be raised at the appropriate time and which must be answered by the minister.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks I rose only to place the stamp of approval of our party upon the principle of the measure which has been submitted, reserving the full right to criticize those details which in our opinion may be found faulty as the legislation progresses through its various stages. Our position is not one of opposition; it is one of support of the bill contemplated by this resolution. But in keeping with our traditional duty as His Majesty'sLoyal Opposition, we will insist upon every dollar of this money being spent efficiently and without waste and that the goods and services to be covered by the bill be distributed in the manner best calculated to contribute most to the defeat of the common foe.


Hon. P. J. ARTHUR CARDIN (Richelieu-Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, at the risk of having my attitude misrepresented in certain sections of this country and in this house, I cannot resist the desire to express at the outset of the discussion my point of view in connection with this most important measure. I would have waited for the presentation of the bill to state my own views on the matter, but the acceptance of a resolution of this kind means to a large extent the approval of the principle of the bill to be founded thereon, and therefore I feel that I should now express in a general way my personal opinion on the subject.
I am strongly opposed to the continuation of what may be called the colonial tribute of Canada. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) said this afternoon that he was glad to see that Canada was now looking after her own affairs, without going through the offices of the British government, as was done last year. I do not know whether I am pessimistic, Mr. Speaker; I may be. At all events what I have seen happening in this house and in this country since the beginning of the war induces me to think that while we may be more independent in a legal sense since the passing of the Statute of Westminster, in practice wre have made, no progress at all, not one step forward in developing our autonomy and becoming a

Mutual Aid Bill
really independent country. We may glorify ourselves in the terms and words of the Statute of Westminster, but our practice remains the same. We seem to be happy to continue in the position of a country always ready to pay tribute and unable to exercise its autonomy.
Listening to the speeches that have been delivered in this house since the presentation of this resolution, one would be inclined to think that up to the present time Canada has not made any contribution to the war, that we have been derelict in our duty, that we have not taken our proper share of the burdens of this war. Nobody has said a word about what has been done by Canada. All those who have spoken have said that we should contribute more and more. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) suggests that we have not done enough, and that we should make a greater financial effort. One hon. member said during the discussion this afternoon that one billion dollars is not sufficient; that we should give more, as though in reality Canada had done nothing at all since the beginning of the war. They forget that we have hundreds of thousands of soldiers under arms at the present time and also forget that we have on the order paper, besides this one billion dollar resolution, another resolution calling for $3,890,000,000 to cover Canada's expense this year. Adding those two together to our ordinary expenditures we have a budget of $5,600,000,000 for a small country like Canada. No wonder that Mr. Churchill is amazed when he considers the contribution of Canada to the war! No wonder that Mr. Anthony Eden was surprised and could hardly grasp the magnitude of the war effort Canada is making! No wonder that the secretary of the treasury of the United States has said that the United States is far behind Canada so far as taxes are concerned! No wonder that newspaper's all over Canada have lately established the fact that we are more heavily taxed in Canada than any other country participating in the war!
The Minister of Finance when introducing the budget said that it was not a good way of measuring Canada's war effort to compare our taxation with that of other countries. What should be considered, said the Minister of Finance, is what is left to a country after the taxes have been paid. This is the rule, said the Minister of Finance, that should be applied in appreciating Canada's war effort. I am ready to follow that rule. I am ready to judge Canada's war effort from that point of view. I say that when everything is taken into consideration there is less left to Canada
than to any of the major countries participating in this war. We have not the same interests, we have not the same advantages in sight when the war is over that other countries have. Canada has no colonies; Canada has no territory over which she exercises sovereignty. Canada gained nothing from the last war, and Canada stands to gain nothing, materially speaking, from the present war. All the other countries taking part in this struggle have much more at stake than has Canada, and, due to the courses they have previously followed are much more responsible for the conflict in which we are now suffering. Canada has been acting like a colony. In the last twenty-five or fifty or one hundred years we have never been the cause of a war. But other countries, through their policies, through their trade and their attitude may have been responsible for the difficulties in which the civilized world finds itself to-day.
Reference has been made to the League of Nations. Who is responsible for the failure of the League of Nations. Who is responsible for the development of armaments in Germany? Not Canada. Canada is not responsible for the development of her strength or for permitting her to become one of the mightiest nations of the world.
We are in this war as a result of our free decision, I admit. But speaking frankly, man to man, where is the Canadian who would tell me that Canada would be at war to-day if England had not first gone to war? I participated in the declaration of war by Canada, and I have no regrets. I thought we should do something to help the allied nations. But I maintain that there are limits, there should be limits, to our participation.
I hear an hon. gentleman say, no. I may say to him that there are limits in some of the countries which will be leaders when the treaty of peace is signed. Canada will not be one of those leaders. We shall sign the treaty as we signed the one that concluded the last war, but we shall not be responsible for the terms which will be found in that treaty. Our signature will be found upon it only in approval of what will have been decided by the four great nations the names of which always come to the lips of those who are leading those four nations.
Canada plays a secondary role in this war, and will play a secondary role when the treaty of peace is drafted, and we are paying more in taxes and more in general expenditures toward this war than any other country. We have, in proportion to our population, more soldiers in arms, and we have more extensively controlled or brought into the war service our diversified industrial activities.
Mutual Aid Bill

When I say-and nobody can deny it- that we in Canada are paying more taxes than are being paid elsewhere, is that not the best evidence that there are limits elsewhere? If there were no such limits other countries would pay higher taxes than we, and it should be so because they have a greater interest in the conflict and in its consequences.
Mr. Speaker, the motion which is presented to us is really a repetition of what was approved last year. It is a gift just the same, although under a different name. But applying a new label to a bottle does not change the contents. We were helping other nations last year; we are going to help them this year in the same way.	[DOT]
It is true that, according to paragraph 2 of the resolution which is to be considered in committee, -we shall be empowered to claim certain advantages, certain compensations, certain payments for the advances we shall make. But one had only to listen to the observations of our brilliant Minister of Finance to understand very easily that he does not count at all on the compensations which can be obtained. He does not count on the supply of any goods which could be furnished us by other nations with whom we are associated. He repeated several times that this was our contribution to the common cause, our contribution to the successful continuation of the war against the axis powers.
It is a gift that wre are making. And to my mind it is no use appointing a new commission to determine what kind of guarantees or what sort of payments we will exact for the advances we shall make. The bill cannot be two things; it cannot be at the same time a gift and a sale. In reality it is a gift, and the future will disclose that we are only repeating what was done last year.
It is to be regretted that the house has not been given the advantage of a complete list of the expenditures covered by the advance of one thousand million dollars which we made to England last year. It might have been interesting. I do not know whether I understood aright the Minister of Finance when he made this statement. He is restricted by the censorship, said he, in issuing such a statement, and he now confirms my understanding.
Well, I cannot conceive that the government of Canada will be restricted, in supplying such information as that, by a body which it has created. The censorship board, composed of employees of the government, servants of the crown, are to limit the liberties, the powers and the authority of parliament

and prevent the Minister of Finance from giving details and information as to where our money has gone! I cannot subscribe to that. Surely we are not fighting for such a system. Surely the allied nations are not fighting to establish such a practice in the world. There should be a limit to the power given to these commissions and boards which are only creatures of the government and which should exist, not to hide information, but to help to publish public information,, as is done in other countries.
Am I mistaken in saying that to-day or yesterday the United States authorities published a long statement of the payments made and goods supplied to various countries under the lease-lend act? The information was given in detail in the United States. Here in Canada we cannot obtain it. Poor old statute of Westminster, where are you? Where has it gone? I can imagine no good reason at all to justify the statement made by the Minister of Finance as regards the limitation, by a board of censors, of his power to give details of this kind.
At least, if we are to pay another tribute, another colonial tribute, let us have the courage to repatriate the Canadian securities which are held in England. I cannot admit the soundness of the proposition that we should be generous to the point of giving our national and industrial products to another partner in the war and yet be shy about asking for the transfer of our securities. I cannot understand an attitude of that kind; it is beyond my poor imagination.
If we are to give money to other countries, let us repatriate, as the United States did, as a colony did, as India did, all our securities held in England. South Africa also repatriated all securities which were held there. There was a balance in the banks of England in favour of South Africa; pounds were there accumulated, and they were used to buy for the benefit of South Africa the securities which were held in England. Nobody accused them of being unpatriotic.
In India the transaction was carried through by a man, a Britisher, coming from England, and he was proud of what he had done for the country. Moreover, when the soldiers of India go outside the limits of their territory to fight for the united nations they are paid by the British treasury, not by the treasury of India. That is what is being done by a dependency.
But in Canada, a dominion, with our statute of Westminster, we are shy about bringing here our securities to help strengthen our credit and accumulate the funds needed for the continuation of our war effort.

Mutual Aid Bill
I cannot understand such a method of reasoning; nor can I understand, as is argued, that it would hurt us if we cease to be a debtor. I am not a financier, but I believe that it is only common sense that a man or a country is in a better position when a creditor rather than a debtor. I believe that if Canada had no debts at all she would be in a better position than she is now, with a burden of debts to many countries.
As regards protecting our trade, it is argued that the people of England will be more inclined to trade with us if they are creditors of Canada. Well, the people who will deal with Canada, the people who will buy our grain, the people who will buy our manufactured products in England will not always be the holders of Canadian securities. Those who will be interested in buying our grain and our manufactured products will not care much if a handful of people in England possess Canadian securities, or if certain banks or corporations are the holders of such securities.
That is not a businesslike argument. The English people will deal, as they have done in the past, where. it suits them best-first and last. They are a first-rate trading nation; and I admire them for that. They mind their own business; they know where their advantage lies, and they go and take it when they think it is time to reap that advantage. We ought to do the same thing; we ought to imitate them and try to reduce as much as we can the burden of our indebtedness and become a creditor country. The colony of India is at the present time a creditor country; South Africa is also at present a creditor country, and nobody accuses them of being unwise, and the inhabitants are not ashamed of their respective countries. My time is running short but there will be another opportunity for discussing this matter at greater length.
I wish to close by making reference to the sentimental observations made this afternoon by the ex-leader of the official opposition (Mr. Hanson). He was inclined to blame the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) because our soldiers are not yet in the field, because our soldiers are kept in England, not having yet taken as glorious a part as the soldiers of South Africa and others have taken in the north African campaign. Well, I am proud enough of my country to be also anxious and desirous to see as much glory as possible fall upon the heads and shoulders of our sons in any battle or fight such as the one in which Canada is now engaged. But as has been said, our soldiers in England are at present performing a useful task. They are there because the military authorities have
decided that they shall stay there, and they are rendering a veiy useful service not only to England but to the allies as well. I prefer the advice and the attitude of the military authorities, who are leading the British and the United States forces, to the sentiments expressed by my hon. friend.
I am not anxious to see a repetition of Dieppe, glorious as that was, so far as sacrifices are concerned. I am not anxious to see a spearhead made of the Canadian army at present in England. It may happen. I hope, from the bottom of my heart, from the bottom of my soul, that God will prevent such a thing from happening and that circumstances will be such that our sons will not be obliged, will not be forced to take the same position, to go into the same adventure as those who were at Dieppe. I hope we shall win the war, I hope our arms will be successful, without our sons who are at present in England being forced, for the sake of glory, for the vanity of glory, to be butchered as a number of our sons were butchered on the shores of Dieppe.
I repeat, I am not as anxious as the ex-leader of the opposition to see such a catastrophe take place. If it can be delayed, the longer it is the better it will be to me; and if it never came I would thank God for protecting our sons from such an adventure and for settling the problems of the world without exposing our sons as some of them were exposed at Dieppe.


Thomas Vien: Is it the pleasure of the
house to adopt the motion?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and the house went into committee, Mr. Bradette in the chair.


Mr. DORION:: I wish to say a few words in connection with paragraph 4 of the resolution, and at the end of my remarks I will move an amendment. As I said in my speech on the budget, we are facing this year the heaviest budget we have ever had in this country, amounting to $5,500,000,000. Everyone has been wondering where the government is to get all this money. It is true that the government has not raised the rate of taxation on income, but anyone can hear numerous complaints about the large amounts deducted from weekly earnings. These complaints come especially from the heads of families, who cannot accept the minister's point of view, when he tried some time ago to explain to the people of Canada that it was not the duty of the state to provide the heads of families with the necessary means whereby to raise their children.
Mutual Aid Bill

They never thought so, but they do complain that the system of taxation is inequitable.
The first paragraph of the resolution before us provides that sums not exceeding one thousand million dollars be granted to His Majesty for the purpose of making war supplies available to any of the united nations, and paragraph 4 provides that the governor in council may be empowered to raise, by way of loan, this amount of money. The Minister of Finance has already tried to explain to the people of Canada that the effect of providing the united nations with war materials to the extent of one billion dollars is of great advantage to the country. It was said that it was better for us to give those goods rather than to sell them. I should like to be able to agree with that contention, but I always understood that when a merchant gives his goods to a customer instead of selling them it is not considered a very sound way of doing business. I also believe that after the war the representatives of this country at the peace conference would find themselves in a much better position if they held in their hands some credit notes from other nations taking part in the conference.
I wish to discuss another aspect of the question. Even if I could admit the minister's point of view, I could not set aside the fact that if the government borrows money under paragraph 4 of the resolution we shall have to pay interest on that money; taking the average rate of interest at three per cent, this government will have to pay about $30,000,000 a year in interest on this $1,000,000,000. Furthermore, according to the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act of 1931, to which this paragraph refers, we shall have to refund this money in the manner provided. Section 8 of chapter 27 of 21-22 George V deals with the *manner of raising loans, and section 9 reads as follows:
Upon authorizing the issue of securities under the last preceding section the governor in council may provide for a special sinking fund with respect to such issue, and may, at any time, provide for a general sinking fund for all such portions of the securities as have been or are hereafter issued without provision for a sinking fund: Provided that the amount to be invested in any such sinking fund shall not exceed one-half of one per centum per annum on the amount of the securities to which it relates.
This means that every year for the next 200 years the citizens of this country will have to pay about $35,000,000 on account of this loan. It also means that every citizen of this country living to-day, and everyone living in this country for the next 200 years, each week will see his pay envelope reduced to enable the

government to pay the interest on this loan. I believe the government should seek another way of raising this money if it is absolutely necessary for the success of the war in which we are now engaged. My contention is that for the duration of the war equality of sacrifice should be not only a phrase but a fact. No one should be permitted to increase his wealth through and by means of war. If during the war the government borrows five, six or ten billion dollars, it follows that somebody will hold those bonds; and according to the experience of the past the greater part of those bonds are bought and held by only a few people. A few million dollars worth are bought by the people at large, but that does not amount to very much in comparison with the whole. Not very long ago I heard the Minister of Finance complain in this house because some people had been selling their bonds instead of keeping them. Therefore I do not think I am wrong when I state that only a few people, firms, companies and societies will hold their government bonds after the war.
Further, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the government should apply the law that was adopted by this house in 1940. I refer to chapter 13 of 4 George VI, which was adopted in June, 1940, and which was known as bill No. 43. I quote from the preamble:
Whereas it is, therefore, expedient to confer upon the governor in council special emergency powers to permit of the mobilization of all of the effective resources of the nation, both human and material, for the purpose'of the defence and security of Canada. . . .
Section 2 reads as follows:
Subject to the provisions of section three hereof, the governor in council may do and authorize such acts and things, and make from time to time such orders and regulations, requiring persons to place themselves, their services and their property at the disposal of his majesty in the right of Canada, as may be deemed necessary or expedient for securing the public safety, the defence of Canada, the maintenance of public order, or the efficient prosecution of the war, or for maintaining supplies or services essential to the life of the community.
In my opinion, when it is a question of raising men, this law seems to work very well, and I wonder why it should be altogether different when it is a question of raising money. This law places the property of every Canadian citizen at the disposal of the government. Therefore I should like the government to apply this law as it stands. Why did the government ask the House of Commons to adopt this law if it is not to be applied? Why does the government apply this law when it requires men but does not apply this law when it requires money? Therefore, in accord-

Mutual Aid Bill
ance with the provisions of this statute, I move the following amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Gaspe:
That section 4 of the present resolution be amended as follows:
(a)	in substituting to the words: "Loan under the provision of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, 1931";
the following words:
"Compulsory and proportionate raising from individuals, companies, firms, societies whose net assets are over $500,000;"
(b)	in striking out the last part of said section which reads as follows: "The principal and interest of any such loan to be a charge upon and payable out of the consolidated revenue fund."


James Lorimer Ilsley: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would refer to paragraphs 440 and 441 of Beauchesne's " Parliamentary Rules and Forms," third edition, 1943, which read as follows:
440.	The fundamental terms of a money resolution submitted to the house with the governor general's recommendation upon which a committee of the -whole is set up cannot be amended. Amendments will only be in order if they fall within the terms of the resolution. The procedure in committee on those resolutions follows in principle the procedure of the committee of supply, and amendments are out of order if they are proposed with a view to substituting an alternative scheme to that proposed with the royal recommendation.
441.	During the debate on a resolution to raise by way of loan under the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, 1931, an amount not to exceed $750,000,000 for paying and redeeming certain loans and purchasing unmatured securities, a member moved in amendment that part of the loan be raised by the issue of currency by the government of Canada. The Chairman ruled the amendment out of order on the ground that it was proposed with a view to substituting an alternative scheme to that proposed with the governor general's recommendation. An appeal was taken to the house which confirmed the Chairman's ruling by a vote of 85 to 16.
442.	Amendments proposing, in a money resolution, to substitute a loan for a subsidy; to change the destination, purpose and conditions of a subsidy; attaching a condition to a subsidy; affecting the ends' and provisions of a subsidy, must be moved by a minister with the recommendation of the crown.
There may be other citations on the same page, but this seems to be pretty well within the principle of those citations. It is here proposed to substitute a compulsory loan or tax-if I understand it correctly, I believe it is a loan-on persons whose net assets are over S500,000. That is to be substituted for the payment of the billion dollars out of the consolidated revenue fund. I thought the words came in after "1931", but apparently the proposal is to take out the words, "loan under the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, 1931" and insert the 72537-157
words, "compulsory and proportionate raising from individuals, companies, firms, societies whose net assets are over $500,000." So that the section would read:
That the governor in council may be empowered to raise by way of compulsory and proportionate raising from individuals, companies, firms, societies whose net assets are over $500,000, such sum or sums of money not exceeding in the whole the sum of one thousand million dollars as may be required for the purpose of defraying the expenditures herein mentioned and for purchasing or otherwise acquiring or procuring war supplies in Canada.
In other words, a most important taxation provision is grafted on to this resolution.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is not
taxation; it is compulsion.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It appears to be taxation.
It refers to "compulsory and proportionate raising from individuals, companies, firms, societies whose net assets are over $500,000." I think it would be a tax. It is a tax on a certain class, until the billion dollars would be obtained. It is entirely unworkable, but I am not pressing that point. My point is that the proposal has been made to substitute an alternative scheme to that proposed with the royal recommendation.


Thomas Miller Bell: I wonder if the minister is right in his interpretation of the amendment. The suggested words are, "compulsory and proportionate raising from individuals" and so on. Does the hon. member offering the amendment not leave wide open the question as to whether it is a tax or a compulsory loan? I do not know just what this means, whether it is intended to be a capital levy or a compulsory loan. If it is ruled out on the ground that it is a tax, it is subject to the interpretation of a compulsory loan. I submit that the question whether it is a loan or a tax can be clarified, if the committee approves it, in the discussion on the bill. It seems to me there is some doubt as to whether the amendment, in its present terms, is out of order. Does the striking out of the words, "the principal and interest of any such loan to be a charge upon and payable out of the consolidated revenue fund," not imply that this is an interest-free loan rather than a tax?


Jean-François Pouliot: I shall read paragraph 4
of the resolution, as amended:
That the governor in council may be empowered to raise by way of compulsory and proportionate raising from individuals, companies, firms, societies whose net assets are over $500,000 such sum or sums of money not exceeding in the whole the sum of one thousand million dollars as may be required for the purpose of defraying the expenditures herein mentioned and for purchasing or otherwise acquiring or procuring war supplies in Canada.

Mutual Aid Bill

That is the paragraph as it would read if the amendment were accepted. It is suggested with respect to this resolution that, having received the approval of His Excellency the Governor General, it is impossible to change it. His Excellency has approved a Mutual Aid bill for one thousand million dollars. But if the amendment were accepted, we would have a compulsory loan. And even if it were not called a loan, it would be the means of receiving money from a certain class of individuals better able to pay than any other class, because they have the money with which to pay. Therefore it is only sensible to suggest that the money should be levied from those who have the means to pay for such aid.
In conclusion, I wish to say that it is not important whether the money is to be raised by way of loan or by way of levy; that is, as far as authorization by his excellency is concerned. The duty of his excellency is to check the expenditure of the money, and he has graciously given his consent to the providing of means to raise this billion dollars. I am sure that his excellency has paid no attention at all to whether it is to be by loan or by levy; he has simply authorized it. Under the circumstances I am sure it would be most unfair to his excellency to contend that because loan is mentioned in the resolution we should not consider it as meaning levy as well, provided it is desirable to the committee to accept the amendment.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have just a word to say on the interpretation of the amendment, and I shall leave to the minister the task of taking exception to its being in order. I think it is quite clear from a careful reading of this proposal that the hon. gentleman is endeavouring to substitute a capital levy upon certain classes in Canada for a loan; he negatives the idea of a loan by paragraph (b). The phraseology of the resolution indicates that the loan is to be repaid under the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act. The elimination of those words indicates that it is not intended that the levy shall ever be repaid. I think that is the clear interpretation of this amendment. That is, of course, a question of high policy for the government to decide.


The CHAIRMAN:: The point of order raised by the Minister of Finance is well taken. Citation 440 reads as follows:
The procedure in committee on those resolutions follows in principle the procedure of the committee of supply, and amendments are out of order if they are proposed with a view to substituting an alternative scheme to that proposed with the royal recommendation.
IMr. Pouliot.]
There are, for the government, only two ways of raising money, one by taxation and the other by voluntary loan. Surely no one could interpret this amendment as covering a voluntary loan, because it states:
Compulsory and proportionate raising from individuals, companies, firms, societies whose net assets are over $500,000.
No one could say that this was intended to be covered by the governor general's recommendation or by the budget or by any other government regulation or legislation, and for these reasons I rule the amendment out of order.


Frédéric Dorion: We appeal from your
decision.
Mr. Speaker resumed! the Chair, and the chairman of the committee made the following report:
In committee of the whole on a resolution to establish a Canadian war supplies allocation board and provide an appropriation of $1,000,000,000 for the purpose of making war supplies available to any of the united nations, the resolution stating that the amount be raised by way of loan under the audit act, Mr. Dorion moved that the amount be raised from individuals, companies, firms, societies, whose net assets are over $500,000.
The amendment was ruled out of order on the ground that it substituted an alternative scheme.
From this ruling an appeal is taken to the house.


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: I suggest that the Minister of Munitions and Supply should, when we are on the bill, give us some details as to how these munition plants which were under the British government last year, and1 which Canada has taken over, are being carried on, with reference, for instance, to the personnel at the present time, and what changes are being made.


Gordon Graydon: Will the Minister of Finance clarify at this stage some of the matters which were raised previously in debate? Two particularly come to my mind at the moment. First, was this change from last year's legislation made after consultation and conversation with the government of the United Kingdom? Was the resolution upon which the legislation will be founded brought in with some consensus as between the British government and ourselves? I think that is an important point, because it goes to the root of the second question I wish to ask: will the government through the minister tell us what, if any, were the circumstances which prompted it to make the change which hag been made respecting the legislation this year as contrasted with that which was enacted last year? The whole situation has been altered by virtue of this resolution and the legislation which will be founded upon it. Instead of the supplies being made available to Great Britain, they are now being made available to a number of nations individually and collectively through. Canada direct. I invite the minister to give a full explanation on this point.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The answer to the first question, whether this plan was worked out in collaboration with the government of the United Kingdom or of the United States, or both, is that it was not; it was worked out by the Canadian government and decided upon by this government alone. After it was decided upon, the governments or officials of one or both governments were given some intimation of what this government had decided upon. But it is the decision and the policy of this government alone.


Gordon Graydon: When was that decision made, and when was it conveyed to these other-countries?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It was made shortly before I made the statement in the house.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It was in the speech from the throne, was it not?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am not sure, but I think it was. It was made about that time. This advising of the other governments just amounts to this, that we have to keep in touch with other treasuries about financial arrangements all the time, and naturally they are curious to know what plans are being made, what the government has in mind about financial arrangements for the future. As soon as the government came to a decision they were informed that that was what the government had in mind to propose.


Gordon Graydon: I am sorry to interrupt, but I wish to keep the chain of sequence. Is there no over-all plan yet evolved, in so far as the financial end of the war is concerned, between the united nations? Is there no structure set up by which all the united nations are able to settle upon some unified scheme of which this might logically be a part?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know exactly what an "over-all" plan is. There are quite a number of united nations-thirty-two, I believe. At any rate, the principles of the United States lend-lease system, and those of the British system-which is much the same-are well understood by all these nations, and of course what the United Kingdom and the United States are doing covers most of the field in finance.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, then, there is no joint plan or consultation with respect to the magnitude and volume of Canada's war effort? Objection was raised here to-night by an hon. member that we were paying more than we ought to; and his theme,
Mutual Aid Bill

as I gathered from his remarks, to which I listened with the greatest attention, was that he wanted neither to fight nor to pay-at least to the extent to which Canada was contributing. That may be an exaggerated statement of his point of view, but in essence that is about what the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres was advocating. What I should like to know, what we on this side should like to know, is this: Is there no coordinated plan of the major united nations with respect to production, with respect to man-power policy, with respect to financial aid or contributions in the common cause? I take the ground that this is not a gift. This is not a grant of money; it is a contribution by one of the principal belligerent nations to the common cause to fight the common foe. On that theory' I support this measure. What we should like to know is: Is there any principle of consultation as to what Canada shall do, what the United States shall do, what Britain shall do, what some other nation shall do, or is it more or less left to the initiative of each one of the belligerent nations? Is there no coordinated consultation, thought or plan? To use the language of my leader, is there no over-all plan for the conduct of the war in relation to all the different features-production, food, finance, man-power and what-not? I think it would be wise for the government to give the country a statement as to whether there is consultation and, if so, what the nature of that consultation is. Does Canada participate? Have we ever been asked to participate in any of these international meetings that take place? I understand that a meeting is being held in Bermuda with some proposals emanating from the treasury of Great Britain and from the treasury of the United States, which I have read with a great deal of interest, with respect to a monetary system for international affairs after the war is over. Some official, I think the comptroller of the treasury -Mr. McIntyre, I believe, is his name-made a statement to the press in New York recently during the Easter recess which was in my opinion tantamount to a declaration of policy on the part of Canada. I must say I was very much astonished to read in such a newspaper report that a prominent civil servant of our treasury should take it upon himself to speak for the Canadian government and the Canadian nation on such an important matter as was then under review. What is the position? Surely the minister must have been more or less embarrassed by the statement of that official?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No; I authorized it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then why should the minister not speak? Why leave it to a civil servant?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I did not have time and I
was not there.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then the
official should not have spoken.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Oh, yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No; the
official should not have spoken, and if he did speak he should have made it clear that he was speaking on behalf of the nation with the full authorization of the minister. Has the time come when financial policy of great moment is to be announced by a civil servant of the country? That is not saying anything in derogation of civil servants. They have a useful field to fill and no doubt fill it with great ability. I do not know anything of Mr. McIntyre.


James Lorimer Ilsley: What was the financial policy of great moment?


Richard Burpee Hanson: A financial statement with respect to a monetary system regarding international affairs after the war. I have a review upstairs. I have not the exact terminology in my mind, but I merely mention that as illustrating the point I am trying to make, that there should be some coordination of the war effort of the nations. Canada is to do thus and so. Is there to be no limit? That is the question raised by the member for Richelieu-Vereheres.	We are
going beyond what our reasonable expectations ought to be; that is part of his text. I suggest that the minister ought to enlighten the house and the committee as to how the billion dollars was arrived at and how it is to be allocated. All these questions naturally arise on the first clause of the resolution. I wish to impress upon the minister that I am supporting his resolution, but we ought to be given the fullest possible information as to how the billion dollar figure, which after all is only a term of measurement, was arrived at, on what basis it was arrived at, or whether it is an arbitrary amount set up by the government representing what they think is the a'bility of the country to raise funds for this purpose, to be spent within Canada, to be given to our comrades in arms in the united effort, and how the amount is to be allocated- how much is to go for agricultural products to be given to our common allies, how much is to go into production of munitions and supplies, how much for man-power and for all the other various efforts that are being put

Mutual Aid Bill
forth. Under this clause we ought to have some breakdown, to show what the billion dollar figure implies, because it is a term of measurement, and the minister should be good enough to give the committee that information at this stage.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps I should answer that because I have had rather intimate relations with the planning of the munitions programmes of the allied nations. The programmes of all the allied nations are closely integrated, and they are based on the principle that every nation shall do everything that it is capable of doing in the common cause. To integrate the efforts there, are a number of boards. I am a member of the combined production and resources board. That is a board made up of three men, the other two being Mr. Oliver Lyttelton, representing the United1 Kingdom, and Mr. Donald Nelson representing the United States. We each have a deputy, and the three deputies are in continuous session in Washington studying the planning of the war production of the united nations. There is a counterpart of the board in London, each having a deputy in London, and the board is sitting there viewing the situation from London. Advice on strategic needs is obtained from another joint board, the combined chiefs of staff board, and the combined chiefs of staff board have a committee sitting continuously in Washington and another committee sitting continuously in London studying the strategy of war and reporting on the need of weapons in the various war efforts. There is a combined materials board sitting in Washington with a counterpart in London, dividing up the materials of the world as they are required by the nations in their production programme. There is another board, the shipping board. All the shipping of the united nations is pooled in one pool and is assigned by the combined shipping board to the various routes. After all, production in any country is not available in another country unless there are ships to move that production.
The question is, what can Canada do? As I say, the underlying principle is that every nation shall do all it can. Is a nation entitled to help under the Mutual Aid bill or under the lease-lend bill of the United States? The position of the nation is looked at. Is the nation able to pay for its goods? If so,, it will pay for its goods up to its capacity to pay. That is the first qualification of any country. No country gets lease-lend or will get Mutual Aid if its circumstances are such that it is able to pay for the goods it
requires, or until it has paid* to the limit of its ability to pay. Is the other nation reciprocating? For example,, there may be troops stationed in that country. If it is able to do so, that country provides food for the troops, no matter to whom those troops may belong, and it may also provide clothing.


Richard Burpee Hanson: As Australia does for the United States troops.


Clarence Decatur Howe: As Australia and Britain do
for the United States troops. That is the first and basic consideration. If the position of a nation is examined in that light and if it qualifies under that stipulation, it is a proper recipient of lease-lend from the United States or Mutual Aid from Canada or help from Britain.
How will the Mutual Aid of Canada be distributed? Requests will come in from various countries for the help they wish to obtain. Each request will be examined by the various coordinating boards. The chiefs of staff committee of Canada will consult with the joint chiefs of staff committee in Washington or London to determine whether the strategic needs of the war warrant- the export of goods to that particular area in the quantities suggested for Canada. Then the shipping board will report on whether shipping can be made available to transport goods from Canada to the area concerned. The combined production and resources board will report on whether it is really best for Canada to contribute that production. They may say, no, that it can be taken care of more easily from Britain with less shipping, that British production is quite capable of taking care of that requirement; or they may decide that the United States can better take care of it. But if they decide that Canada is the proper country to supply that particular need, that is another factor. Then the ability to pay is tested. What is the other country capable of doing? Is it doing all it can? Is it entitled to receive the goods entirely as Mutual Aid, or can it pay fifty per cent in Canadian funds, or can it pay some other proportion? All these things are tested through existing machinery, which is well oiled. and functioning smoothly. If a request meets all the tests, that country will be listed as a proper recipient of Mutual Aid.
I believe another question asked was why a billion dollars has been fixed as the proper-amount for Mutual Aid. This amount was fixed by the ability of Canada to produce,, less the amount involved in Canada's own commitments. We have armies overseas
Mutual Aid Bill


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is quite possible; we are shipping to Russia almost every week. I have not the latest figures; that was a guess on my part, but it may be over $100,000,000.

We hardly know what we ship to Russia, because we ship through Britain. We ship aluminum and nickel to Russia, but it is all delivered on British orders and diverted by Britain to Russia. It is just as much a gift from Canada to Russia as though we were giving it direct, even though we give it through Britain.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is a contribution to the common cause.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is so, but we believe that, if it is to be used by Russia, it should be a gift by Canada direct to Russia. Similarly we believe that, instead of giving to China through the United States, we should make the gift from Canada to China direct, and the same if we deliver to Australia or New Zealand. I would remind hon. members that in those cases there is a considerable countertraffic, because we buy wool and other commodities in Australia and New Zealand, and anything sent to those countries would not be entirely a gift. In the past it has been cleared through England, but we believe it is desirable to clear those transactions directly between the British dominions and Canada.


Mr. STIRLING:: What did the minister mean just now when he said Canada could not give to Russia but Britain could?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have had no authority from parliament, prior to this legislation.


Grote Stirling: Under last year's arrangement?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Even under last year's arrangement. We gave money to Britain so that Britain could purchase Canadian goods. We did not give money to anyone else, and we had no arrangement under which we could deliver munitions to any country unless it purchased them.


Mr. MacNICOL:: If Canada now delivers direct to Russia or China or Australia, will those goods not have to be transported in the main in British ships; I mean old country ships? Canada could not very well deliver and protect the delivery of goods to Murmansk. I presume we could not ship to Australia, either, without the protection of British warships.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is immaterial whose ships carry the goods, or whose navies protect the ships. The navies of the world and the merchant shipping of the world are pooled. Even if the goods were shipped in Canadian ships and protected by the Canadian navy, the arrangements would necessarily be made by the joint shipping board, which controls all

Mutual Aid Bill
the shipping of the allied nations. These matters have been coordinated to the point where we go to a central body and arrange transportation. Before any transaction under Mutual Aid could be confirmed, we would have to go to the joint shipping board, and be sure that the joint shipping board would allocate tonnage for the movement. If they were unable to do so, we could not of course make the gift.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think the minister has adequately answered the interrogatories I put to him, which were intended to be constructive and informative to the nation. He has stated that the amount allocated is in the judgment of those who have studied the proposal

which in this instance I would assume means the government-the amount we should aim at, having regard to the other commitments of the nation, such as the army and the other armed forces. That assurance is satisfactory to me, and I believe it should be satisfactory to the general public.
I have gathered from him that there is coordination in respect of production and allocation through the joint board to which he has referred, on which Canada has adequate representation. I realize the representations in last year's legislation with respect to making direction contributions in kind to those of the allied nations other than Great Britain. I feel disposed to say that if there is any kudos coming to Canada because of giving direct to those nations in distress which we are seeking to help, and who are fighting part of a common cause, then so far as I am concerned Canada should have it. I think we are entitled to credit for that which we do voluntarily, and without compulsion or anything of that sort.
I should like the minister to understand that questions raised on this side of the house are not raised in any critical sense, but rather for the purpose of obtaining information and for that purpose alone.


Thomas Miller Bell: Has the minister any comment to make with respect to the few sentences I read from the article appearing in Maclean's magazine. I have not the issue before me, but he will recollect the statement was to the effect that goods transferred to Great Britain last year under this plan were passed on to certain of our allies-Australia, and so on-and sold, not given. That is a serious statement, and one I have seen commented upon. In addition, I have heard many verbal comments to the same effect. If the minister could clear up the matter, it would be in the interests of all concerned. If he is not prepared to make a statement to-night, perhaps he would do so to-morrow.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think that is hardly true. Great Britain has taken the dominions under her wing. She clears all the bills. For example, Australia sends airmen to Canada. The bill for transportation of those airmen is paid by Great Britain. In the initial stages each country contributed so much per man. Great Britain is the clearing house for all countries in the sterling area. They may say, "All right, we will take up the slack." It may be that one country may have a surplus of sterling in Great Britain. In theory every country does what it can. If it has a sterling balance it might be perfectly proper, in an ordinary transaction, for it to pay for munitions, even if those munitions went from Canada to Great Britain. That is possible. I do not think it happens, but I would hesitate to say that it could not happen, under that arrangement. But to-day Great Britain buys from these countries, pays their bills, and more or less is the banker for the sterling countries. I think the hon. member has opened up a field which cannot be answered exactly from any information we have in this country.
I believe,, however, that Great Britain's course in her relationships with the dominions, both on balance and individually, will be entirely creditable. It will be found that Britain gives more than she gets in this war effort. I can say to the best of my knowledge and belief that Great Britain has spared absolutely nothing to win the war, and to protect British territory in every part of the world.


Thomas Miller Bell: I quite realize that. But a statement has been made in a widely read magazine. It is written by a writer whose articles appear each month, having to do with parliamentary affairs. As I say, the article has been the subject of a great deal of comment, and if the minister could give some information to the house, some categorical statement with regard to the matter, it would be useful. I agree with what the minister has said, namely, that Great Britain has given to the limit of all that she has. Likely she will be a debtor instead of a creditor nation after the war. I realize all that. But this is a statement which in the public interest should be cleared up.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Let us understand what the statement is. Is it that Great Britain lent to Australia Canadian dollars which Canada had donated to Great Britain?


Thomas Miller Bell: No. The statement is, briefly, that some of the goods transferred to Great Britain on account of the billion dollar gift were subsequently charged for or
Mutual Aid Bill

sold to some other countries. I believe Australia was mentioned particularly in that respect.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think my hon. friend has confused two things. '


Thomas Miller Bell: No; I have not confused anything. I am simply quoting what is said in the magazine. I am expressing no opinion, but I am asking the minister to do so.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Let us say we ship an antiaircraft gun to Great Britain. She pays for it out of the money we have given her to pay for Canadian munitions. We did not give her the gun, but we gave her the money to pay for it. For some reason or another that gun was shipped from Great Britain to Australia, and charged by Great Britain to Australia. That may have been possible. But it may be that Great Britain had given Australia the sterling which, in turn, Australia used to pay for that gun. All transactions between nations are entered in dollars or in pounds sterling. Where the money comes from is a matter of arrangement between countries. I think that is a real fact, and I see nothing wrong with it. No country has simply said, "We will make a lot of goods, and give them to someone." That is not the way it is done. Money is provided so that a nation can be supplied an article, and so that every country can keep books on the production. That is the real explanation.


James Lorimer Ilsley: If the transaction my colleague mentioned took place, then Great Britain no more sold the article to Australia than we sold it to England. We did sell it to England, but she paid for it out of money we gave her. The same thing may have taken place between Great Britain and Australia.


Thomas Miller Bell: But the writer does not make that distinction, and his article has gone throughout the country.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Communications have come
to the department about the matter, and the answer given is, I believe, the best one I could give the committee. It is this:
It is also charged that Britain charged Australia for some of the goods obtained from Canada under the billion dollar gift. So far as is known in Ottawa, there has been no settlement made as yet between Britain and Australia in respect of these transactions and so no such statement can be made. It is known, however, that Britain made aavilable to Australia and other parts of the sterling area in the early part of the war Canadian dollars out of her own limited exchange reserves-in fact she had been in effect underwriting the Cana-
[Mr. Coldwell.l
dian dollar deficit of the whole sterling area. The British and Australians have very many transactions between them and the Canadian government is not in the position to know all the facts about these complicated inter-relationships or to pass judgment upon them.
After mature consideration that was the best answer the Department of Finance could give.


Thomas Miller Bell: This change was not
due to any criticisms of that description?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.


Thomas Miller Bell: I think that was the
purpose of questions which were asked by others in the house as to whether that had happened.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.


Olof Hanson: Is there
any truth in the suggestion-I am not going to say allegation-that Great Britain is making a profit with respect to what Canada did for her and with respect to what Great Britain did for Australia? If she did make a profit, then there is some cause for anxiety; if she did not, I do not see where there is any cause for anxiety.


James Lorimer Ilsley: We have no evidence that
she made a profit, and there is good evidence that she did not.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is every reason to
believe that the opposite is the fact. If any country holds back, this is held back against that country, but I think to-day every country is going full out, is doing everything it can.


Mr. MacINNIS:: In the boards enumerated by .the Minister of Munitions and Supply he referred only to representatives of Great Britain, the United States and Canada. Are representatives of any other of the united nations sitting on those boards?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not on the top level, but
under the top level each board has representatives from every country. Every country is represented either in London or in Washington, and as such they sit on the subcommittees of the main boards. The boards are kept small so that they can act quickly, and I think there is everything to be said for that. You can walk into a board with an urgent situation and get an almost immediate decision. Every nation interested in a particular subject is represented.


Angus MacInnis: I should like the Minister of Finance to clarify a word which he used in his speech this afternoon. The first clause of the resolution provides one billion dollars for

Mutual Aid Bill
the purpose of making war supplies available to any of the united nations. This afternoon the minister said, "united nations or associated nations" and I should like to know what nations are associated nations.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I was not very careful in using that phrase, but the reason why it was used was the definition of "united nations" which appears in the bill. This definition reads:
"United nations" means the signatories to the declaration by united nations, done at Washington on the first day of January, one thousand nine hundred and forty-two, and includes any other nation or authority which may be designated by the governor in council as being associated with Canada in the prosecution of the present war.


Angus MacInnis: It occurred to me as being a strange use of the word by the minister in his speech. In connection with the war we are associated with certain nations in a way which in my opinion is not particularly to our credit and does not give any great hope for the future. Would Spain be considered an associated nation? I think that should be made very clear so that the people of Canada may be assured that this money will not be used for nations with which we may be associated unfortunately, which are not part of the united nations and which are not working for a united nations victory.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Spain is not associated with Canada in the prosecution of the present war.


Angus MacInnis: But she is getting supplies from the united nations.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Not from Canada.


Angus MacInnis: Not very much, but a
little is going in.


Gordon Graydon: The hon. member for Vancouver East has asked whether the terms "united nations" and "associated nations" are synonymous. I thought the minister might have taken a leaf out of his leader's book. The other day the Prime Minister was asked the difference between British empire and British commonwealth of nations, and he replied that they were interchangeable terms. Perhaps that answer could be given in this case. However, I did not rise for that purpose. I am rather alarmed-it is not the first time I have been alarmed over what the hon. member for Vancouver East has said-over the statement made by the hon. member for Vancouver East. I think he has said either too much or too little with regard to some of the nations with which we are associated in the common cause at this time. I think he ought to clarify the term which he used. I may be
innocent with respect to the matters involved in this struggle, but it does seem to me that this is the first time I have heard this particular matter raised.


Angus MacInnis: I do not think I said either too much or too little. What I had in mind is what is in the minds of many people in Canada, the people with whom I come in contact. First, we are not dealing particularly with nations; we are dealing with individuals whose connections with the axis powers are not at all as they should be. There is a great deal of material going from this continent to Spain, and it is quite likely that it is finding its way to the axis powers. According to the return I received from the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the quantity going from Canada is not much, but it may increase at any time as our trading relations increase. We have no control in this house because we can hardly get any information as to what trading we are doing with other countries. I wanted to be clear as to the meaning of the term "associated nations".


Gordon Graydon: I think the hon. member for Vancouver East intended to clear my mind with respect to this, but he has not. Has the hon. member any other nation except Spain in mind? He did not mention any other, but in his general discussion he rather left the impression that there were others.


Angus MacInnis: Possibly I was thinking more of individuals than of nations.


Victor Quelch: This year, according to
clause 2, we may require in certain instances payment or repayment in kind or property or reciprocal action. What would be the determining factor as to whether these goods would be made available in the form of a gift or for payment or repayment in kind?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It depends entirely upon the ability of the recipient nation to pay. If it can deliver goods which Canada requires, those goods would be exacted. If it can pay in Canadian dollars, those would be exacted. If it cannot pay at all the goods would be made available as a gift; if it could pay something, the remainder over that would be made available as a gift. If it could pay in goods or in Canadian money, that would not eat into the billion dollars. That would be a commercial transaction. The Mutual Aid machinery will handle the transactions even though there is payment by the recipient country.


Victor Quelch: And there will be no discrimination between nations?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.
Mutual Aid Bill


Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: Will the minister
tell us whether the possibility of receiving payment or repayment in kind as indicated in clause 2 was an important factor in changing from the procedure followed last year whereby we donated the goods through Britain, while now we are donating them direct?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Under last year's arrangement we traded with many nations. Any nation that could pay us and needed the munitions was able to buy munitions here. That situation is unchanged. They can still buy here if they are able to pay for the munitions. But if the strategic needs of the situation require that we give munitions beyond the capacity of a nation to pay for them, we can give those munitions under this new bill. If they are able to pay for them, they will still pay for them under this bill as under the previous bill.


Mr. NOSE  WORTHY@: My point is that
last year we gave one billion dollars to Great Britain, which in turn passed on the goods to other nations, from which we received or could receive nothing in return for any part of the billion dollars that we indirectly gave them. Under the terms of this year's measure we give the goods direct to the united nations and may receive from them in return some part of the billion dollars by way of repayment. Was that an important factor in introducing this change?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. We sold goods to many countries. We sold munitions to Russia, for instance, last year, for United States or Canadian dollars.


Joseph William Noseworthy: That did not come under the gift?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. If it came under the
gift it had to be done through Britain. So far as purchases for cash by any nation are concerned, the situation is unchanged. We could always sell for cash and we can in the future.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I do not think my point is clear yet to the minister. Last year we gave a gift of one billion dollars for which we could hope to receive nothing in return. This year we are giving one billion dollars, and according to clause 2 we have hopes of receiving payment or repayment in kind for a portion of that billion dollars.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. gentleman is
right to some extent. There may be goods which will have post-war usefulness which may be returned to us. I do not know

how far that will go. I imagine that might be the case with ships, for example. It would not be the case with shells. There might be some return in kind possible under this legislation which was not possible under that of last year.


Joseph William Noseworthy: The hon. member for York-Sunbury asked why the change of procedure this year from that of last year, why we are giving direct to the united nations under this legislation instead of through Great Britain. Is it the possibility of making a better business deal, whereby we may get by this means part of our billion dollars back? Was that a factor in making the change?


James Lorimer Ilsley: If the hon. gentleman will look at the speech I made this afternoon, he will see that I mentioned that as being a factor but I did not emphasize it as an important one.


Gordon Graydon: Before this clause carries I should like to ask the minister a question with respect to the accounting in connection with the so-called billion dollar gift to Britain. It can scarcely be called that, but the minister will know from the description I have given what I have in mind. I take it from the statement he made this afternoon that there will be some accounting made to parliament with respect to the billion dollars allocated to Britain, showing how the money was actually spent. The minister made some reference, and some reference was also made by the member for Richelieu-Vercheres, to censorship. That brings me to this point. I have here a report to the 78th congress of the United States on lend-lease operations, the document from which the minister read, I think, this afternoon. It .covers the period from the passing of that legislation on March 11, 1941, to December 31, 1942, and contains a clear, not too long, and very informative description of the whole lend-lease arrangements of the United States with other countries. I was amazed to read the detail with which these operations are set out in this report, because for so long we have been told in this house that certain information cannot be given on account of the fact that there is some arrangement with respect to that matter between the united nations. I have not the time tonight to read to the committee some of the details on these lend-lease operations, but I strongly urge the government from now on not to use the time-worn argument that the nations with which we are fighting are in agreement with respect to making public certain information. This afternoon we had the odd situation of the minister suggesting that

Mutual Aid Bill
censorship in this country might prevent the giving of certain information to the people's representatives. Yet here is a report to congress of the lend-lease operations, setting them out in much more comprehensive fashion than is usually the case with respect to information given to us on ordinary expenditures. I am not suggesting that the minister will hide behind censorship. I think he is quite honest when he says there are perhaps reasons why some information cannot be given in full, but certainly we in this house are entitled to at least as much information as the United States congress receives with respect to operations under a similar measure.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Does that follow?


Gordon Graydon: Why not?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Why does the hon. gentleman assume that the practice of the United States of America is the right one in this case? The hon. gentleman is assuming that the practice of the United States of America is correct and that our practice is wrong. I do not know whether it is or not, but I do deny that we should slavishly follow the precedent set by congress or by the President of the United States or by others of yie allied nations. It is a provision of their legislation, passed when they were a neutral, that there must be a full report. That may give all kinds of information to the enemy which should not be given. I do not know whether it does or not; but what I am saying is that we should not, simply because they do that, do the same thing ourselves. I said this afternoon that I had not been able to agree to furnishing exhaustive information of the kind which was asked for-the number of tanks, the number of guns, and so on. I said that if I could I would present it. I was criticized by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres for admitting that the power of the minister or the government was subject to that of a board. I did not really think that was what I was doing. I thought I was respecting the censorship rules and regulations which have been established, and which ought to be respected unless they are deliberately overruled, I do not think we should be setting up an authority which lays down regulations, and then turn round and break them ourselves, unless there is a very good reason; and as at present advised, I would respect that attitude. Of course we have the power. We set up the censorship. We could pass an order in council overruling it for this purpose, but I do not know why we should.


Gordon Graydon: But the minister has
missed the point entirely. I think he has made a very good point from his own point of view. My argument has been this. We have been told through these war years that there is a reason why, for instance, the Minister of Trade and Commerce cannot bring down, under an order passed by the house, information in connection with exports from and imports to this country; that there is some agreement between the nations with respect to this. Well, if there is an agreement between the nations, are the United States part and parcel of the whole inter-allied structure? I do not know any reason why the information should be given by one government and withheld by the other. I am not asking that the government "slavishly"-to borrow the minister's term-follow some other government, but that this government give its people the same information which the government with which it has or is supposed to have this agreement is giving to its own people.
I do not want to hold the committee up longer, because it is very close to eleven o'clock. But I ask the minister, in the light of what the report to congress contained, and having in mind what he said this afternoon with respect to censorship, to let us have a full disclosure of what happened to the money which was voted before, so that we shall have some idea of the manner in which it was expended.
More than that, will the bill which will be founded upon this resolution provide for any report such as this to parliament with respect to the operations of the Mutual Aid project? This is a bulk sum. It provides a blank cheque. While you may not be so careful when you give a blank cheque, the facts are important when the question of accounting arises; and it is essential and necessary in the public interest.


Clarence Decatur Howe: As one of the chief offenders against censorship, perhaps I may speak on this. The British take a different view of censorship from the Americans. The British have been longer in the war. They send out requests to Canada to preserve secrecy in certain matters. Unfortunately I can hardly talk about my own department without violating some of the rules, and I invariably get a call from the high commissioner pointing out that I have violated British rules of censorship. I do not like to do it, but I can hardly talk about our situation without doing so. After all, we have followed the British rules. The United States came in the war later. They took up lend-lease as a neutral
Mutual Aid Bill

country and passed a law which requires congress to be furnished with certain information. They have continued to do so, and possibly that information is of aid to the enemy. But their published statements represent only a part of allied production. If Britain, Canada and Russia also placed their information on the table, Germany would have a full and complete picture of allied production, and that might be a much more serious matter than a picture of United States production alone. I believe some high official of the United States government made the statement that the production picture is good and could give no comfort to the enemy. I think the allied picture is good and can give no comfort to the enemy. Nevertheless we have followed the British practice of withholding certain information which they think it wise to withhold.


Thomas Miller Bell: Have we followed the British practice? My understanding is that in many of their secret sessions questions are asked as to what has been sent to China and Russia and other countries, and explicit statements are given of what is being done. We have not the United States plan, nor do we meet in secret session to find out where these expenditures are going. I personally much prefer the procedure of our parliaments to the procedure in the congress of the United States. It is much easier for us to seek information here than, apparently, it is possible for them, in view of the manner in which they have to refer matters to committees and get a motion through in order to have an inquiry made.


Gordon Graydon: Is it worse there than it is here?


Thomas Miller Bell: I think it is as regards seeking day-to-day information. I believe that it takes much longer there, and that apparently we have an easier system of getting information by asking for returns and putting questions on the floor of the house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: They can call officials to their committees.


Thomas Miller Bell: Nevertheless I think the minister is not quite correct in saying that we are following British procedure, because there have been frequent sessions in Britain at which information which they did not wish to be divulged, could not divulge, and the divulging of which would violate the censorship regulations of the country, is given to parliament in secret session. We are in this position to-night: all of us anxious, ready and willing to put this resolution through and make this appropriation and this gift-I think

we may use that term although it is criticized -but we do not know what was done with the money last year.


James Lorimer Ilsley: You know the broad categories. You know the total.	.


Thomas Miller Bell: We know the broad categories and the total, but we do not know where it went. Of course we have been giving it to Britain.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes; it all went to Britain.


Thomas Miller Bell: What do we propose to do this year with this sum of money? Some of us have a great hope that this year China will get a great deal more than she has been getting during the last few years.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is eleven o'clock.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Shall the resolution carry?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The first part of the resolution provides for making supplies available to all the united nations. May I ask the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Munitions and Supply if under the War Measures Act or other act provision was not made for a credit to Russia?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Russia has a credit for the purchase of wheat. That is the only order in council I know of.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: What is the amount of the credit?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Ten million dollars. I do not know to what extent it has been used. I believe that six or seven million dollars has been used.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I may be mistaken, but I have a vague recollection that not very long ago the credit was increased quite substantially.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Oh, no. Just ten million dollars; that is all. There has been no reason for increasing it. It relates entirely to the purchase of wheat and flour, and the amount has not yet been used up.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I repeat that I may be mistaken, but I thought the first order in council provided for a credit of around ten million dollars, and that a subsequent order in council, passed not very long ago, increased the credit to twenty-five million dollars.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No; that is not correct. However, I will confirm that.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I will look up my file and the order in council.

Radio Broadcasting


James Lorimer Ilsley: If I am wrong I will admit it to-morrow, but I never beard of a twenty-five million dollar credit.


Jean-François Pouliot: Ten million dollars worth of grain is something.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in, on division. Mr. Ilsley thereupon moved for leave to introduce bill No. 76, for granting to his majesty aid for the purpose of making available Canadian war supplies to the united nations.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.	*


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, May 7, 1943