STANDING COMMITTEES

[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health) presented the report of the special committee appointed to prepare and report lists of members to compose the standing committees of the house, as follows:

Standing Committees

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs:
Abbott
Anderson
Claxton
Diefenbaker
Douglas (Weyburn)
Dupuis
Evans
Fair
Gershaw
Gibson
Gladstone
Gray
Gregory
Hill
Kirk
Lalonde
Mackenzie
(Vancouver Centre) MacNicol McCuaig
McDonald (Pontiac)
Mutch
O'Brien
Pinard
Pouliot
Power
Roy
Slaght
Telford
Weir-29.
(Quorum 10)

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs:
Bonnier
Boucher
Castleden
Chambers
Cleaver
Cloutier
Cote
d'Anjou
Donnelly
Douglas (Queens)
Dubois
Durocher
Factor
Fauteux
Gershaw
Gibson
Gingues
Gladstone
Graham
Harris (Grey-Bruce) Hazen Healy Hlynka Hoblitzell Howden Jutras Knowles
Laeombe
Lafontaine
Lockhart
Macdonald (Halifax) Macdonald
(Brantford City) MacKenzie
(Lambton-Kent) MaeLean (Cape Breton North-Victoria) McGregor Mcllraith Marier Matthews Mayhew Parent Poirier
Ross (St. Paul's)
Roy
Senn
Shaw
Stokes
Telford
Tomlinson
Veniot
Wood-50.
(Quorum 15) BANKING AND COMMERCE
Messieurs:
Hill
Authier
Black (Cumberland)
Blackmore Blair
Breithaupt Claxton Cleaver Coldwell Donnelly Dubuc Eudes Fontaine Fraser
(Northumberland)
Fraser
(Peterborough West) McGeer Graham	McGibbon
Gray	MVTlraith
Hanson	McNevin
(York-Sunbury)	("Victoria, Ont.)
Harris (Danforth)	Marier
Ilazen	Martin
Jackman
[DOT]laques
Jean
Kinley
Lnflamme
Lafontaine
I .eelere
Macdonald (Halifax) Macdonald
(Brantford City) Maclnnis
MacKenzie (Neepawa) "Macmillan McCann -
May bank	Ross (Calgary East)
Mayhew	Ryan
Moore	Slaght
Perley	Tucker
Picard	Ward-50.
Ross (St. Paul's)	
(Quorum 15)	
PUBLIC	ACCOUNTS
Messieurs:	
Abbott	Graydon
Anderson	Henderson
Authier	Homuth
Black (Yukon)	Isnor
Black (Chateauguay-	Johnston (Bow River)
Huntingdon)	Leader
Booth	McCubbin
Boucher	McDonald (Pontiac)
Bourget	McGeer
Brooks	Mclvor
Casselman (Mrs.)	McNiven
Church	Marshall
Clark	Mullins
Cote	Mulock
Cruickshank	Noseworthy
Denis	Purdy
Desmond	Rheaume
Ferland	Rickard
Fontaine	Roebuck
Fournier (Maison-	Ross (Hamilton East)
neuve-Rosemont)	Slaght
Fraser (Northumber-	Tripp
land, Ont.)	Thauvette
Fulford	Veniot
Gladstone	Winkler
Golding	Wright-50.
Grant

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs:
Authier
Bence
Bertrand (Terrebonne)
Black (Cumberland)
Bourget
Breithaupt
Chevrier
Corman
Cote
Crerar
Douglas (Queens) Dupuis Emmerson Eudes Factor Farquhar Fournier (Maison-neuve-Rosemont) . Fulford Golding Gregory
Hanson (Skeena)
Harris (Danforth)
Hatfield
Healv
Howden
Howe
Isnor
Jackman
Jean
Johnston (Bow River) Kirk
Knowles
LaCroix (Quebec-Mont-morency)
Lafl amine Little Lizotte Lockhart
MacKinnon (Kootenay East)
McCulloch
Mclvor
McKinnon (Kenora-Rainy River) McNiven (Regina City) Mavbank Mills Mullins Nicholson Nielsen (Mrs.)
Nixon
O'Brien
O'Neill
Poirier
Pouliot
Roebuck
Ross (Calgary East) Ross (Souris)
Shaw
Sissons
Turner
White
Whitman-60.
(Quorum 20)
Standing Committees

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs:
Authier	Leader
Aylesworth	Leclerc
Bertrand (Prescott)	Leger
Black (Chateauguay-	Lizotte
Huntingdon)	MacDiarmid
Blair	MacKenzie
Bourget	(Lambton-Kent)
Cardiff	McCuaig
Clark	MeCubbin
Cloutier	McNevin
Cruickshank	(Victoria, Ont.)
Dechene	Matthews
Desmond	Mullins
Diefenbaker	Nielsen (Mrs.)
Donnelly	Perley
Douglas (Weyburn)	Poirier
Douglas (Queens)	Quelch
Dubois	Rennie
Evans	Rheaume
Fair	Rickard
Ferron	Ross (Souris)
Fontaine	Ross (Middlesex East)
Furniss	Ross (Moose Jaw)
Gardiner	Rowe
Golding	Senn
Gregory	Soper
Hatfield	Tustin
Henderson	Ward
Kirk	Weir
Laflamme	Whitman
Lafontaine Lalonde	Wright-60.
(Quorum 20)	
INDUSTRIAL AND INTERNATIONAL	
RELATIONS	
Messieurs:	
Abbott	MacNicol
Blackmore	McCann
Bruce	McGarry
Church	McNiven (Regina City)
Cloutier	Massey
Cote	Mills
Dubuc	Mutch
Fournier (Maison-	Neill
neuve-Rosemont)	Nixon
Gingues	Noseworthy
Goulet	Pettier
Hanson (Skeena)	Roebuck
Homuth	Ross (Calgary East)
Jean	Ross (Hamilton East)
Lafontaine	Sanderson
Leger	Stirling
MacKenzie (Neepawa)	Taylor Turgeon-35.
Macmillan	
(Quorum 10)	
Neill	Telford
Poirier	Tomlinson
Pottier	Tripp
Reid	Tustin
Roy	Veniot
Ryan Stirling	W arren-35. (Quorum 10)
MINES,	FORESTS AND WATERS Messieurs:
Adamson	Leduc
Authier	Little
Bence	MacNicol
Black (Yukon)	McCann
Blanchette	McCulloch
Bourget	McDonald (Pontiac)
Bradette	McGibbon
C-rerar	McKinnon (Kenorad'Anjou	Rainy River)
Edwards	Nielsen (Mrs.)
Esling	Parent
Evans	Sanderson
Furniss	Sinclair
Grant	Tripp
Hansell	Turner
Hurtubise	Ward
Johnston (Bow	River) Warren
Lafontaine	White-35. (Quorum 10) DEBATES Messieurs:
Blanchette	Pouliot
Claxton	Ross (Middlesex East)
Esling	Ross (Moose Jaw)
Hlynka	Rowe
Jutras	Shaw
Pinard	Sinclair-12. (Quorum 7)
STANDING ORDERS Messieurs:	
Bertrand (Prescott) MacLean (Cape Breton	
Brunelle	North-Victoria)
Cardiff	Marier
Denis	Marshall
Douglas (Weyburn) McLarty	
Dupuis	McLean (Simcoe East)
Edwards	O'Neill
Eudes	Rennie
Golding	Ross (Moose Jaw),
Graydon J agues	Stokes-20. (Quorum 8) PRINTING Messieurs:

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs:
Bradette Brooks Brunelle
Crete
Dechene
Farquhar
Ferron
Gillis
Green
Hanson (Skeena)
Hazen
Hill

Kinley
Kuhl
Lafontaine
Lapointe
(Matapedi a-Matane) Leduc Macdonald
(Kingston City) Maclnnis
MacKenzie (Neepawa) Macmillan
McLean (Simcoe East)
Bertrand
(Terrebonne) Bonnier Bourget Casselman
(Grenville-Dundas) Chambers Chevrier Corm an Crete D'Anjou Denis Dubois Dupuis Durocher
Edwards
Emmerson
Esling
Evans
Fauteux
Ferland
Fraser (Peterborough West)
Furniss
Gillis
Goulet
Grant
Green
Healy
Hlynka

Ration Books
Hoblitzell	Nicholson
Hurtubise	Purdy
Kuhl	Rheaume
Leader	Ross (St. Paul's)
MacDiarmid	Sinclair
MacKinnon	Sissons
(Kootenay East)	Soper
MacLean (Cape Breton	Tripp
North-Victoria)	Tucker
McGregor	Tustin
McNevin	Weir
(Victoria, Ont.)	White
Mills	Whitman
Moore	Winkler
Muloclc	Wood-54.
LIBRARY OF	PARLIAMENT
Messieurs:	
Adamson	Hurtubise
Aylesworth	Jaques
Black (Chateauguay-	Jean
Huntingdon)	Lizotte
Bruce	Macdonald (Halifax)
Cardiff	MacKenzie (Neepawa)
Casselman	MacKenzie
(Grenville-Dundas)	(Lambton-Kent)
Castleden	Macmillan
Coldwell	Marier
Emmerson	Martin
Eudes	Mayhew
Factor	Moore
Farquhar	Poirier
Fontaine	rouliot
Fournier (Maison-	Purdy
neu ve-Rosemont)	Raymond
Gershaw	Reid
Goulet	Rickard
Graham	Ross (St. Paul's)
Green	Thauvette
Hansell	Warren
Henderson	Winkler
Howden	Wood-44.
Mr. MACKENZIE	1 (Vancouver Centre) moved that the report be concurred in.
Mr. GRAYDON:: Will the minister tell the	
house just what the report involves?	
Mr. MACKENZIE	(Vancouver Centre): It
is the routine report	of what we call the
striking committee, which decides in consulta-	
tion with all parties and groups in the house	
what members shall committees.	compose the standing


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.	
POWERS OF	COMMITTEES
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That the standing committees of this house shall severally be empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the house, and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, with power to send for persons, papers and records.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: That Messrs. Black (Yukon), Dupuis, Edwards,, Farquhar, Furniss, Goulet, Howden. Jaques. Laflamme, Lafontaine, Macdonald (Brantford City), Maclnnis, McGregor, Mclvor, Mayhew, Pinard, Purdy, Rheaume, Thauvette, Tucker, Tustin, be appointed to assist His Honour the Speaker in the direction of the restaurant, as far as the interests of the Commons are concerned, and to act as members of a joint committee of both houses on the restaurant; and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours therewith.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. J. SASSEVILLE ROY (Gaspe):: -Mr. Speaker I wish to ask leave to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the immediate appointment of a representative of the French-Canadian element on the national war labour board, it being urgent that such appointment be made before the said board begins to function, and necessary because of the importance of the large group of French-Canadian workers.


Mr. SPEAKER:: In my opinion there is
not that degree of urgency which would justify a motion for the adjournment of the house.



RATIONING


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) on February 3 on the orders of the day asked a question about the distribution of ration books. I thought it would be much more convenient if I could table the answer, which I now do. It is as follows:
Under war conditions there has been tremendous movement of population. No agency who has tried to do so has ever been very successful in obtaining notification of changes of address. It is estimated that the post office, which one would expect to be in a very strong position, receives only about one-third of the address changes. There are numerous indications which point to the fact that the ration administration is not being notified of a great percentage of the address changes. When book No. 1 was distributed by mail the ration administration had a mailing list which was only three months old and which they had kept up to date by
Ration Books

making all changes of which they were * advised. Nevertheless in the city of Toronto alone, 62,000 of these books were returned to them. It was a most laborious process to get these into the proper hands and inevitably the book holders were greatly inconvenienced. In the six months which have elapsed since that date, additional address changes have accumulated. About half the population of the dominion has no street address. They collect their mail from rural routes or from general delivery.
The ration administration has available now an organization comprising local ration boards which form the basis for distribution. Volunteer workers have been enthusiastic in their offers to help and the ration administration expect the job to proceed with little inconvenience.
In spite of precautions taken, some persons have received two books. Worked out on a percentage basis, the number of these is small; however, they should be eliminated if possible. While some persons accept two books mailed to them at different addresses, it would be much less likely that they would deliberately present themselves twice to make applications.
Expense is also a factor of some importance. In order to distribute the ration books through the post office, millions of pieces of mail would have to be handled and the ration administration would be involved in considerable expense in readdressing books returned to them owing to change of address.
It is perhaps worth mentioning that the distribution of book No. 2 differs from that of book No. 1 by the fact that the former includes butter coupons which have an expiry date. When book No. 1 was distributed anyone who received his book a few weeks late at least had the satisfaction of knowing that he could still use all the coupons. With book No. 2 it would bo different to the extent that anyone receiving a book a few weeks late will have lost the opportunity of using some of the butter coupons.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) asked a week or two ago if we might not follow this session the practice followed in previous sessions of having questions answered once a week until the debate on the address is over. The government agreed to that. Last week questions were answered on Monday and we are prepared with the consent of the house to proceed with questions to-day.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
INTERNATIONAL LABOUR	CONFERENCE-DRAFT

Mr. NEILL:: Referring to the statement made by the then Minister of Labour, as recorded in Hansard on May 31, 1939, to the effect that the provision of certain draft conventions, numbers 53 to 57 inclusive, affecting seamen, adopted at the international labour conventions in 1936, were being given examination and that parliament would be advised in due course-has this been done and, if so, what were the decisions arrived at or what action is proposed?


Mr. MITCHELL:: As stated by the late Hon. Mr. Rogers, Minister of Labour, in the house on May 31, 1939, consideration was given to the possible ratification of conventions Nos. 53-57, inclusive, all of which relate to seamen, but with the outbreak of war and the demands made on Canadian shipping, no further action was taken concerning these conventions which could have imposed additional burdens on the shipowners and, in the case at least of numbers 53, 54 and 57, would have required additional man-power. The government, however, is continuing to study the question of implementing some or all of these conventions.


IRREGULARITIES IN WAR INDUSTRIES
Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	Has the government taken any steps to prevent irregularities discovered in certain war industries since the beginning of the war?
2.	Has the government employed the services of chartered accountants to inquire into the operations of such companies?
3.	If so, (a) when, (b) in connection with what companies, (c) with what results?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	It is not in the public interest to give the information.


WARTIME HOUSING-ACCOMMODATION FOR WOMEN IN PETERBOROUGH STAFF HOUSE
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: What is the reason for Wartime Housing Limited not making provision to use part of the staff house at Peterborough for women?


Mr. HOWE:: In October, 1941, following a survey of munition plants in Peterborough, it was recommended by the Department that two staff houses be erected in Peterborough

one for men and one for women. This was approved by P.C. 8874, dated November 18,

Questions
1941. It was felt that caution should be exercised in proceeding with two staff houses at one time. It was thought probable that the erection of one staff house might release enough accommodation in Peterborough to make the construction of a second one unnecessary. As the industries in Peterborough considered their first necessity to be housing accommodation for men, a men's staff house was first proceeded with.
Should it be that the condition arises whereby only one staff house be necessary to house both the men and women unable to be housed other than in staff houses, then the Peterborough staff house can, by minor and simple modification, be made to house both men and women workers. The Department of Munitions and Supply as a matter of principle is averse to housing men and women in the same building if it can be avoided. The department, at the present time, has no reason to believe that the present staff house will not be entirely required for men, and it has no advice that accommodation for women is presently needed.


SUGAR BEET INDUSTRY
Mr. HANSELL:: 1.	Has the government made any plans to extend the sugar beet industry in order to alleviate the sugar shortage in Canada?
2.	If so, what steps have been taken?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The government, through the sugar administrator of the wartime prices and trade board, has made every effort to obtain maximum production of beet sugar. In order to stimulate production, the net price of sugar to the grower was increased one-half cent per pound offset by a similar reduction in the excise tax effective February 16, 1942. As a further encouragement to production in 1943, the excise tax will be reduced by another one-half cent per pound effective September 1, 1943, the full benefit to be received by sugar beet growers.


ASSISTANCE OF STUDENTS IN 1942 HARVEST-PAYMENTS TO RAILWAYS
Mr. SHAW:: 1.	Were any sums paid by the government to the Canadian Pacific Railway, to the Canadian National Railway, to any individual or groups of individuals in connection with the sending of university students and others to western Canada to assist in the 1942 harvest?
2.	If so, what amounts were paid, to whom -were they paid and upon what dates were payments made?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	Yes.
2.
Date of
payment	Name of Payee	AmountNov. 9 University of Bishop's College	
$	21 62Dec. 1 University of Bishop's College	
11 S2$	33 44Dec. 8 Canadian Pacific Railway Co	
$ 1,113 89Dec. 8	Canadian Pacific	Railway	Co	
1,S66	45Dec. 8	Canadian Pacific	Railway	Co	
26	85Dec. 8	Canadian Pacific	Railway	Co	
fill	55Dec. 9	Canadian Pacific	Railway	Co	
12,439	78Dec. 9	Canadian Pacific	Railway	Co	
7,766	87Dec. 9	Canadian Pacific	Railway	Co	
1,575	79Dec. 10	Canadian Pacific	Railway	Co	
80	39Dec. 10	Canadian Pacific	Railway	Co	
1,576	36Dec. 10	Canadian Pacific	Railway	Co	
96	49Dec. 10	Canadian Pacific	Railway	Co	
406	64Dec. 10	Canadian Pacific	Railway	Co	
222	01Dec. 10	Canadian Pacific	Railway	Co	
53	59Dec. 10	Canadian Pacific	Railway	Co	
626	46Dec. 10 Canadian Pacific Railway Co	'	761 59Dec. 10	Canadian Pacific	Railway	Co	
35	59Dec. 18	Canadian Pacific	Railway	Co	
31,991	16Dec. 18	Canadian Pacific	Railway	Co	
4,840	58
Questions

Date of
payment	Name of Payee	AmountDec. 18	Canadian Pacific	Railway	Co	
3,345	75Dec. 18	Canadian Pacific	Railway	Co	
4,087	33Dee. 18	Canadian Pacific	Railway	Co	
4,078	71Dec. 18	Canadian Pacific	Railway	Co	
6,983	72Dec. 19	Canadian Pacific	Railway	Co	
8,403	22Dec. 19	Canadian Pacific	Railway	Co	
4,403	75Dec. 29	Canadian Pacific	Railway	Co	
153	41Dec. 29	Canadian Pacific	Raliway	Co	
2,509	30Dec. 29	Canadian Pacific	Railway	Co	
107	49Jan. 19	Canadian Pacific	Railway	Co	
13,453	10Jan. 19	Canadian Pacific	Railway	Co	
2,393	43Jan. 19	Canadian Pacific	Railway	Co	
26,742	27Total	
$142,759 52
Less refunds of $10.00 collected from each harvester returning to
Eastern Canada	 $ 28,260 00
Net Total	 $114,499 52
Dec. 17 Jacques St-George, La Trappe, Que	 $	88 30
Dec. 17 Fernand Corminboeuf, La Trappe, Que	 94 72
Dec. 9	Canadian	National	Railway	
106	49Dec. 10	Canadian	National	Railway	
738	19Jan. 25	Canadian	National	Railway	
130,807	10Feb. 5	Canadian	National	Railway	
4,583	54Feb. 5	Canadian	National	Railway	
6,654	15Total	
$142,889 47
Less refunds of $10.00 collected from each harvester returning to
Eastern Canada	 $ 28,172 50
Net Total	 $114,716 97
Dec. 29 Temiscaming & Northern Ont. Railway	 $ 5,559 80
Dec. 28	The Thousand Island Railway Co	
302	90Dec. 29	Provincial Transport Co	
103	50Dec. 28	Sydney Johnson, Sundridge, Ontario	
44	54Jan. 19	High School of Westmount, P.Q	
78	30Total Net Expenditure as of February 5, 1943	
$235,521 99


SUBSIDY FOR MANUFACTURE OF ALCOHOL FROM WHEAT
Mr. WINKLER:: Will the government grant a subsidy for the manufacture of alcohol from wheat?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is a matter of government policy.


REGISTRATIONS OF MAN-POWER
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	Since June, 1940, what registrations of man-power have been held?
2.	What was the purpose of each such registration ?
3.	Are any further registrations of man-power contemplated?

Questions


Humphrey Mitchell: 1 and 2. (a) National Registration, August 19-21, 1940, of all persons in Canada over sixteen. Registration is continuous, kept up to date through returns made by some thirteen thousand postmasters who act as deputy registrars.
(b)	Registration of insured workers July 1941 through returns to unemployment insurance commission constituted partial registration of man-power.
(c)	Unemployment insurance registration April 1942 was extended to include noninsurable employees.
(d)	Registration of unemployed male persons June 1942, excepting those below sixteen or over seventy, or students, of those confined in an institution, or subject to provisions of the essential war (scientific and technical) personnel regulations 1942. Registration is continuous.
(e)	Registration of female persons-September 21, 1942-born 1918 to 1922, both years inclusive, not including members of religious orders or those in institutions, or in insurable employment.
(f)	Continuing registration by wartime technical personnel bureau, commenced June, 1941.
(g)	Continuing registration by wartime technical personnel bureau, commencing December 1, 1942, of university science students.
(h)	As at January 30. 1943, employers, excluding farmers and horticulturists, employers of domestic servants and government departments have been requested to furnish information as to numbers of workers employed by age and sex together with information regarding future requirements.
(i)	December 15-March 1, 1943, registration of single men in age classes designated for military call-up who have not received notice to report for medical examination.
To supply information to be used as basis for mobilization of manpower and to provide identification.
Utilized to assess extent of unemployment insurance coverage and to provide statistics for general and administrative uses.
Information obtained was compiled by Dominion Bureau of Statistics, constituting an>
inventory of occupations and industries utilized by Department of Labour and wartime prices and trade board.
To enable employment and selective service offices to have full particulars of all unemployed persons so that they may be . referred to employment.
To obtain information as to the number of women in the age group and their relative availability for selective service.
To ascertain numbers of professional and trained scientists and engineers and activities in which they are engaged to meet the requirements of essential industries.
To obtain information as to whether or not any such would be volunteering to serve as technical officers with the armed forces.
To provide essential information in regard to employed workers, classified by industry, age and sex and future labour requirements.
To obtain information regarding those, who through change of address or for other reasons, had not received notification from the Divisional Registrar to report for medical examination.
3.	There is continuous registration at some two hundred employment and selective service offices across Canada and there may be special registrations from time to time in respect to particular classes or groups of workers according to national selective service requirements.
72537-26i
Questions


ST. JEROME, QXJE., MILITARY CAMP
Mr. BERTRAND (Terrebonne):: What was the cost to January 1, 1943, of the military camp at Saint Jerome, (a) in salaries, (b) construction materials, (c) furnishings?


Mr. POWER:: 
TIMBER CONTROLLER
Mr. REID:: 1.	Who was appointed timber controller following the resignation of Mr. Nicholson?
2.	Had he any previous experience with either the production, manufacture or sale of lumber?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Alan H. Williamson.
2.	No. This position calls for broad administrative experience which is possessed by Mr. Williamson by virtue of his pre-wrar business activities and his wartime experience as controller of supplies from August 19, 1941, to November 3, 1942.
It was not considered that an intimate technical knowledge on lumber was required in the position of timber controller inasmuch as the controller has on his staff in Ottawa, together with his offices in Edmonton, Winnipeg, Vancouver and St. John, experienced and well-qualified technical assistants.
Furthermore, the controller calls on the advice of 1,he members of his committees in the various timber producing areas in Canada and these committees are set up in these areas due to their intimate knowledge of local conditions. In addition to having advice available from these advisory committees in the producing areas of Canada, the controller has an eastern Canadian advisory committee, with representatives of the industry from Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES-BENEFITS TO MEN DISCHARGED
[Stage Direction]
Mr. KNOWLES':
1.	How many persons discharged from the armed services have received benefits of the following kinds, (a) out-of-work benefits, (b) benefits to discharged persons temporarily incapacitated, (c) maintenance benefits to discharged persons receiving vocational training, (d) benefits to discharged persons engaged in farming, (e) educational benefits to discharged persons ?
2.	Of those receiving out-of-work benefits, how many have been unemployed more than, (a) two weeks, (b) one month, (c) three months, (d) six months?
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Department of Pensions and National Health
1.	(a) 2,147; (b) 1,511; (c) 1,154; (d) 85; (e) 22.
2.	Out-of-work benefits have been paid to individuals as follows:
(a) For more than two weeks, 1,260; (b) For more than one month, 747; (c) For more than three months, 106; (d) For more than six months, 3.
(Figures cover benefits issued under order in council of October 1, 1941-P.C. 7633-as amended.)


SASKATCHEWAN SURVEY PARTIES
Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	How many survey parties in connection with the Department of Agriculture have been working in the Qu'Appelle river valley and its tributaries between Lumsden and the Manitoba boundary during the year 1942?
2.	What has been the cost of these surveys?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Two.
2.	$21,139.47-April 1, 1942, to January 31, 1943.


CONSTRUCTION OF DAMS IN SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	How many dams have been constructed and how many are in course of construction, in the Qu'Appelle river valley or on Qu'Appelle lakes, between Lumsden and the Manitoba border?
2.	What is the cost of each to date?
3.	What is the estimated completed cost of each?
4.	Who are the contractors of each?
5.	Is any such work being done during the present winter?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Two constructed, one under construction.
2.	Round Lake, Crooked Lake, $39,530 as one contract; Echo Lake, $21,520.80.
3.	Round Lake, Crooked Lake, $30,530-one contract; Echo Lake, $26,900.
4.	Round Lake, Crooked Lake, Philip South, Regina, Saskatchewan; Echo Lake, Mamezasz & Pollock, Prince Albert, Saskatchewan.
5.	Yes.


POST OFFICE-OTTAWA TELEPHONE SERVICE
Mr. MARSHALL:: What was the total amount paid from Public Works vote 261, telephone service at Ottawa, covering telephone services for the Post Office Department for year ended March 31, 1942?


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: 

Questions


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES-APPLICATION TO VETERANS GUARD OF INCREASED PAY NATIONAL SELECTIVE SERVICE-KINGSTON OFFICE
Mr. McGREGOR:: 


Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	Does the recent increase to men in the armed forces of 20 cents per day apply to the men in the veterans guard?
2.	Have regulations been issued governing the application of the increase in pay?


Mr. POWER:: 1.	What are the names of the administration officers of national selective service regulations at Kingston?
2.	How long has each been employed in his present position?
3.	How much money has each received for, (a) salary; (b) expenses?
L Yes.	Mr. MITCHELL:
2. Yes.	1, 2 and 3.
				Expenses from date of app't
		Date of		
		app't to		to present
present	Gross	position, toName	Class	position	salary	Jan.31/43Black. W. P.	Manager	
1/10/42	... $ 7S0 00	$35 65Langdon. E.	E. & C.O. Gr. 3	
1/10/42	. : . 700 00	1 69Winney, J.	E. & C.O. Gr. 3	
9/11/42	... 460 35	50 55Farrell. W. W.	E.&C.O. Gr.3	
7/ 7/42	... 1.172 43	53 65Dennison, J.	E. & C.O. Gr. 2	
1/11/42	... 355 26	Keenan, K.	E. & C.O. Gr. 2	
1/12/42	... 286 84


WAR RISK INSURANCE
Gordon Knapman Fraser: What is the rate of commission paid to insurance agents handling war risk insurance?


James Lorimer Ilsley: A policy fee is paid to insurance agents estimated to cover merely their out-of-pocket expenses. To have the benefit of a simple method of calculation, the policy fee will be paid at the rate of 5 per cent of the premium on the policy, with a minimum of 75 cents and a maximum of $500 in respect of any one policy in any one policy year. The same basis of policy fee will apply on renewals.
w. c. RONSON


Mr. REID:: 1.	What position in the dominion service does Mr. W. C. Ronson hold?
2.	How long has he held his present position?
3.	When was he first appointed to the government service and to what branch?
4.	Was the position obtained by examination through the civil service commission?
5.	What salary does he receive at the present time?
6.	Has his salary been increased during the past three years?
7.	If so, what was the amount of the increase?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance.
2.	Since February 1, 1937.
3.	June 27,	1910, to the administrative
branch, Department of Finance.
4.	Yes.
5.	$6,300.
6.	No.
7.	Answered by No. 6.


PAMPHLET &quot;CANADIANS ALL&quot; BY PROFESSOR WATSON KIRKCONNELL
Mrs. NIELSEN:: 1.	Upon whose personal authority did Prof. Watson Kirkeonnell write the pamphlet entitled "Canadians All", issued by the director of public information, June, 1941?
2.	How many copies were printed?
3.	How were these distributed?
4.	What was the total cost to the government?
5.	What remuneration did Prof. Kirkeonnell receive?
6.	Is pamphlet still being distributed?
7.	If so, will the government take any steps towards discontinuing the issuance and distribution of this pamphlet, owing to incorrect and false statements contained therein which are prejudicial to the cause of the united nations and to Canadian unity?
Mr. LaFLECHE:
1.	Upon the authority of the Director of Public Information.
2.	296,000.
3.	Through Public Information Distribution Unit.
4.	$16,465.26
5.	$250.
6.	No.
7.	Answered by the answer to 6.


FREIGHT ON FEED CORN, FORT WILLIAM EAST
Howard Waldemar Winkler: Will assistance by the government be given toward freight on feed corn from Fort William to eastern Ontario and Quebec?


Mr. GARDINER:: No provision has been made for freight assistance on feed corn from Fort William to eastern Ontario and Quebec.
Questions


WARTIME HOUSING LIMITED-PAYMENTS TO ARCHITECTS
Mr. NICHOLSON:: 1.	What is the total amount paid by Wartime Housing Limited to the following architects, Hutton & Souter, Prack & Prack, Geo. T. Evans, McDonnell & Lenz, Herbert Murton, Geo. Billson, F. W. Warren, W. B. Riddell, W. P. Witton, S. B. Coons & Son?
2.	What is the total amount paid to all architects in Canada by Wartime Housing Limited?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	The amount of fees paid to architects by Wartime Housing Limited up to January 31, 1943 is: Hutton & Souter, $10,015.08; Prack and Prack, $6,641.68; McDonnell and Lenz, SI,410.11; S. B. Coon & Son, $8,752.60; Geo. T. Evans, $1,640.00. Herbert Murton, Geo. Billson, F. W. Warren, W. B. Riddell and W. P. Witton have not been and are not now in the service of Wartime Housing Limited.
2.	The total fees paid to all architects in Canada from the commencement of the operations of Wartime Housing Limited up to and including January 31, 1943, is $202,485.26. The amounts shown in the answer to question 1 are included in this total.


WARTIME FOOD CORPORATION-PURCHASE OF CATTLE
Mr. SENN:: 1.	Did the Wartime Food Corporation purchase cattle for which export permits were requested during 1942?
2.	If so, in what numbers?
3.	What was the total amount of money expended in such purchases?
4.	What was the total amount realized from the sale of the cattle purchased?
5.	What was the total profit or loss in these transactions?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1. Yes.
2 . 49,727.
3.	$5,390,950.33.
4.	$4,559,529.19.
5.	A loss of $831,421.14.


DECENNIAL CENSUS, 1941 -FARMS AND FARMERS
Mr. SENN:: 1.	What was the population of Canada as gathered by the census of 1941?
2.	What was the number of farms in Canada at that time?
3.	What was the number of farmers, including wives and children and hired help?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: 1.	11,506,655.
2.	734,760 (preliminary figure).
3.	Farm population, 3,118,976 (preliminary figure); under 14 years of age, 960,064 (preliminary figure); over 14 years of age, 2,158,912 (preliminary figure).


DECENNIAL CENSUS, 1941-ESTABLISHMENTS ENGAGED IN MERCHANDISING OF FARM PRODUCTS
Mr. SENN:: According to the 1941 census, what number of establishments were employed in the collection, processing and direct merchandising of farm products, as follows, (a) packing houses, (b) butter and cheese factories, (c) those who were engaged in whole milk distribution, (d) milling companies, (e) canning companies?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: According to the census of manufactures the following plants operated during 1941:
(a)	Packing houses, 146.
(b)	Butter and cheese factories, 2,427.
(e) Whole milk distributors-information not available.
(d)	Flour mills, 286; feed mills, 835.
(e)	Canning establishments, 378.


COST-OF-LIVING INDEX
Mr. SHAW:: 1.	What groups of commodities are used in determining the cost-of-living index?
2.	What percentage of the cost-of-living index is made up by each such group of commodities?


James Angus MacKinnon: 1 and 2:
Group	Weight
p.c.
Food	 31
Rentals	 19
Fuel and light	 6
Clothing	 12
Home furnishings	and services.... 9
Miscellaneous items	 23


RADIO BROADCASTING-NEWS IN FRENCH AND ENGLISH
Mr. GAUTHIER:: 
THIRD VICTORY LOAN-COMMISSIONS TO BOND DEALERS
Mr. ROY:: 1.	How much was paid to each firm or bond dealers of Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg, Ottawa and Quebec for services rendered during the third victory loan?
2.	Who established the rates of commissions, and what were they?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No commissions are paid to investment dealers on the sale of victory bonds. However, the Minister of Finance, on the recommendation of a committee consisting of the chairman of the national war finance committee, the securities adviser of the Bank of Canada, and the Deputy Minister of Finance, pays a reasonable remuneration to such dealers for the services rendered by them in connection with each victory loan campaign. The basis of this remuneration is not disclosed to dealers but takes into account the number and character of the personnel made available to the national war finance committee and the previous record of the firm in the distribution of dominion government securities. It is considered undesirable to disclose the amount paid to individual firms as to do so would divulge to competitors the business affairs of private firms and might adversely affect the morale of the victory loan organization.
The total amount of remuneration paid to investment dealers in Canada for services rendered in connection with the third victory loan was $3,067,415, or -309 per cent of the amount of money raised.


*WAR EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT
Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: Will a secret session of parliament be called to discuss the war expenditures committee report and evidence in connection therewith?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: When the committee on war expenditures is set up an opportunity will be afforded for a discussion of the reports of the previous committee. If it is found that it is not possible to obtain the information that is required in the public discussion that will be the time to consider whether it is desirable to have a secret session.


Mr. HOMUTH:: The meetings of this
committee were held in secret, and I do not think the evidence which came out could very well be discussed in the house when the committee is set up.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not wish to enter into a discussion with my hon. friend at the moment. In our parliament
we are following in this matter the practice followed at Westminster. The meetings of the expenditures committee in Great Britain are held in secret, as they are here. The question of a secret session with respect to matters reported upon will not arise until it is seen that it is obviously necessary to have a secret session.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
' WHEAT-DISPOSITION OF SURPLUS-[DOT]

Mr. BRUCE:: 1.	Did the government receive a memorandum in 1940 from Mr. C. L. Burton, of Toronto, regarding plans for the disposal of Canada's surplus wheat?
2.	If so, have any steps been taken to implement these plans?


Mr. McLARTY:: Return tabled.


CANADIAN ARMY-ENLISTMENTS, DISCHARGES, ETC.
Mr. BRUCE:: 1.	What was the total strength of Canada's armed forces overseas on December 1, 1942?
2.	How many men had been discharged from all branches of the active service forces overseas up to December 1, 1942?
3.	What percentage of these men were discharged because they were suffering from syphilis?
4.	How many men were serving (a) in the active army in Canada on December 1, 1942; (b) in the reserve army in Canada on the same date? Of the latter, how many have gone active and are available for service anywhere?
5.	How many of the armed forces serving in Canada only were discharged up to December 1, 1942?
6.	What percentage of these men were discharged because of syphilis?
7.	Are recruits, before being admitted into the armed services, subjected to the Wasserman or other test for syphilis? If not, why is such test not made?
8.	How many have enlisted in the services and are finishing their courses in science, hiedicine and dentistry?


Charles Gavan Power: This would be an order for return. But I should like to ask that we be not pressed to give the total strength of the air force overseas. By arrangement with the United Kingdom government we do not give the numbers of air crew which have been sent overseas. They consider it just as important to conceal from the enemy the numbers of air crew over there as the numbers of combat aircraft which they have. With that exception I am only too glad to have this pass as an order for return.

Questions as Orders jor Returns


ONTARIO DEFENCE CAMPS-TURNIPS FROM FARNHAM, QUE.
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	Were turnips from Farnham, Quebec, supplied to any national defence camps in Ontario during 1942?
2.	If so, what was the cost of these turnips by the bushel or by the ton?
3.	Why were the turnips not bought in Ontario?


CARRIER PIGEONS
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	Has the government purchased any carrier pigeons for use as message carriers?
2.	What action, if any, has the government taken to encourage the raising of carrier pigeons?


MILITARY SERVICE OUTSIDE OF CANADA
Mr. STOKES:: 
Charles Gavan Power: Return tabled.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES-ENLISTMENTS AND REJECTIONS
Mr. STOKES:: 1.	How many persons have applied for enlistment in, (a) the navy, (b) the army, (c) the air force, since September 1, 1939?
2.	Of these, how many have been rejected for medical reasons?
3.	Of the persons rejected for medical reasons, how many have been found in each of the medical categories below the standard required for enlistment?
4.	What is the total number of persons who have been called for service and training pursuant to the National Resources Mobilization Act?
5.	Of these, how many have been rejected for medical reasons?
C. Of the persons rejected for medical reasons, how many have been found in each of the medical categories below the standard required for military service?


Charles Gavan Power: This would be an order for return, but with respect to question 3 it is very difficult to give the answer because when a man is rejected we do not go into all the disabilities from which he suffers which would give cause for rejection. A man might be rejected for half a dozen different things, so that it may not be possible to give all the information asked.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Up to what category do
they accept them? That might answer the question.
IMr. Power.]


Charles Gavan Power: That could be given, but
whether a man suffers from ulcers or a broken leg or multiple disabilities would not appear in any return given.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: It was a question of the
medical category, not the disability.


Charles Gavan Power: He probably would not be
categorized if he was of a class which would make him incapable of serving.


Thomas Vien: Order for return, subject
to the reservation made by the minister.


BRITISH COLUMBIA SECURITY COMMISSION
Mr. REID:: 1.	What is the total personnel at present of the British Columbia security commission, stating their names, position and salary?
2.	Where are these located, (a) the number in Vancouver, (b) elsewhere?
3.	What reduction in personnel and staff has occurred since the final evacuation of the Japanese from the coastal area?
4.	What need is there at the present time for all the personnel employed?


REFORESTATION
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	Does the federal government own any tree nurseries?
2.	If so, where are they situated?
3.	Do they supply trees to the farmers for use as wind-breaks, etc.?
4.	How many trees were planted by the dominion government in reforesting during the years 1939, 1940, 1941 and 1942?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Order for return.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Why should this question pass as an order for return?


Norman Alexander McLarty: A number of different departments are involved.
WAR CONTRACTS, 1942 Mr. BLACKMORE:
1.	During 1942 how much money was spent on Canada's war effort, (a) how many contracts were let for war supplies; (b) how many contracts for war supplies were let in each of the nine provinces; (c) how much was spent on war-contracts in each of the nine provinces; (d) what master firms got the contracts; (e) to what firms did they sublet contracts; (f) upon what principle were these contracts of war supplies let and sublet?
2.	What steps is the government taking to inform the Canadian taxpayers as to where their taxes are being spent?

Questions as Orders for Returns


BUTTER AND MILK
Mr. KIRK:: 1.	(a) How much creamery butter was made during each of the years 1937-1942, (i) in Canada, (ii) in each province; (b) how much dairy butter was made during each of the years 1937-1942 inclusive, (i) in Canada, (ii) in each province?
2.	(a) How many farmers supply cream to the creameries all year round, (i) 'in Canada, (ii) in each province; (b) how- many farmers supply cream to the creameries only part of the year, (i) in Canada, (ii) in each province; (c) how many farmers make dairy butter all year round, (i) in Canada, (ii) in each. province?
3.	(a) How much whole milk was produced during each of the years 1937-1942 inclusive, (i) in Canada, (ii) in each province; (b) how much whole milk was delivered to cheese factories during each of the years 1937-1942, (i) in Canada, (ii) in each province; (c) how much whole milk, produced in Canada, was sold for table use during each of the years 1937-1942, (i) in Canada and/or the United States, (ii) in each province; (d) how much whole milk, produced in Canada, was sold for any and all other purposes than stated in (b) and (c) above during each of the years 1937-1942 inclusive, (i) in Canada and/or the United States, (ii) in each province?


James Angus MacKinnon: Return tabled.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES-WOMEN DOCTORS
Gordon Knapman Fraser: For the protection of the health of the women in our armed forces, how many women doctors are there in (a) the army, (b) the air force, (e) the navy?


PURCHASE BY DOMINION GOVERNMENT OF HOUSES IN OTTAWA
Mr. ROY:: 1.	Have any dwelling houses been purchased by the government in the city of Ottawa since 1940?
2.	If so, (a) upon what terms, (b) what price was paid for each, (c) from whom ivere they purchased, (d) on what street and at what number is each located, (e) for what purpose is each being used?


PURCHASE BY DOMINION GOVERNMENT OF BUILDINGS IN OTTAWA
Mr. ROY:: 1.	Has the government purchased any buildings, in the city of Ottawa, from any societies or companies since 1940?
2.	If so, (a) from whom, .(b) upon what terms, (c) at what price, (d) at what locations, (e) what is each being used for?


PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE-FIELD MEN AND SUPERVISORS
Mr. WRIGHT:: What are the names, salaries, travelling expenses, and living allowances of (a) fieldmen, (b) supervisors, employed under the wheat acreage reduction. Prairie Farms Assistance Act and prairie farms income from February 16, 1942, to January 31, 1943?


MATSQUI, DELTA AND SEA ISLAND, B.C., PROPERTIES
Mr. COLDWELL:: 1.	Has the government acquired parcels of land in British Columbia at Matsqui, Delta, and Sea Island?
2.	If so, (a) what are the descriptions, (b) the acreage, (c) assessed values of each of these properties?
3.	What price was paid for each parcel and from whom were they purchased?
4.	With respect to Matsqui property, what was the value of same in April, 1942?


BILLION DOLLAR GIFT TO BRITAIN-BEER-AID TO RUSSIA
Mr. NICHOLSON:: _ 1. How much, if any, of the billion dollar gift to Great Britain was used to pay for beer shipped to Egypt or the middle east?
2.	How many eases of beer have been shipped overseas during each of the years 1941 and 1942?
3.	How much, if any, of the billion dollar gift to Great Britain was spent to purchase supplies which were shipped to Russia?


NATIONAL DEFENCE-ACQUISITION OF WINDSOR, N.S., PROPERTY
Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	Since September, 1939, has the Department of National Defence acquired property at or near Windsor, Nova Scotia?
2.	If so, for what purposes?
3.	From whom was such property acquired, stating the acreage, the estimated value and the amount paid or offered each owner?
4.	On what dates and to whom w^ere original contracts for buildings and improvements on such property awarded, stating names of contractors, the description of work or material contracted for and the total amount of each contract?
5.	Were any supplementary contracts or extensions of contracts authorized, stating name of contractor, the description of work, and the total expenditure or estimated expenditure under the supplementary contract or extension of contract?
6.	Were any "cost plus", "days of work", or other special contracts entered into, stating the name of the contractor, the description of work and the total cost of the contract in each case?
7.	What have been (1) the total expenditures to January 31, 1943, and (2) the total estimated cost completed of, (a) land, (b) drainage and sewerage, (c) water works, (d) grading and filling, (e) roadways, (f) buildings, (g) gravelling, (h) other construction work, (i) equipment?
8.	What have been, (a) the total expenditures upon the project to January 31, 1943. and (b) what will be the total estimated expenditure upon the project when it is completed, exclusive of operating costs?

Questions as Orders for Returns


GLEN LAWRENCE ORCHARD, KINGSTON, ONT., PROPERTY
Mr. AYLESWORTH:: 1.	Did the government purchase any land from Mr. Harvey of the Glen Lawrence orchard, at Kingston?
2.	If so, how much was paid for it?
3.	How many acres were purchased?


Charles Gavan Power: Order for return.


Gordon Graydon: Why an order for
return?


Charles Gavan Power: It may apply to the army,
the navy or the air force.


RENTALS FOR GOVERNMENT OFFICE SPACE
Mr. REID:: 1.	What amount was paid for rentals for office space required by the various departments of the government during 1942, showing the amounts paid in each province?
2.	What amounts were paid by way of rentals for office space during 1942 in the cities of Halifax, Quebec city, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Fort William, Regina, Moose Jaw, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver?
3.	What was the total office space rented and
amounts paid by or on behalf of the wartime prices and trade board in the above named cities, for the year 1942?	,
4.	What was the total amount paid for rentals of office space in the city of Vancouver for each of the years 1939, 1940, 1941 and 1942?
5.	What rentals -were paid by the wartime prices and trade board in the city of Vancouver in each of the abovementioned years?


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE-CONSTABLE GUARDS
Mr. BLACKMORE:: 1.	How many special constable guards have been employed to assist the Royal Canadian Mounted Police since the beginning of the present war throughout Canada?
2.	What remuneration is being paid these men?
3.	What remuneration is being paid constables of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?
4.	How many of these special constables are in uniform?
5.	How many of them not in uniform are receiving clothing allowance?
6.	How many of these special constables are ex-service men of (a) the first great war, (b) the present war?
7.	Are these special constable guards granted street car tickets when they are posted more than a mile from their headquarters?
8.	Are such special constable guards granted any benefits under the unemployment insurance scheme upon discharge?


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. COLD WELL:: For a return showing the number of persons in war production industries or on war contracts who w'ere laid off between November 1, 1942, and January 15, 1943. or other latest date for which such information is obtainable, and showing the names of plants, corporations or companies from which lay-offs have taken place, together with the number of workers affected in each case. Also a statement showing what [DOT]provisions, if any, have been made to reemploy or utilize the services of persons affected by the above lay-offs?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It would be impossible for
the government to give this information, because it is not available. The turnover in war plants is rather high, and it is difficult to draw the line between main and subcontractors. Men are coming and going all the time and I do not think anyone could be held responsible for determining what was a lay-off and what was not. Therefore I do not think this information can be given.


Thomas Miller Bell: Would the minister be
prepared to give the information if I limited it to war plants employing fifty people or more?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have no information.
Most employers are private employers and unless the lay-off were reported to the national war labour board, as it must be today, we could not furnish that information for the back periods.


Thomas Miller Bell: How about national
selective service?


Clarence Decatur Howe: They would have received
figures on lay-offs only since the turn of the year, perhaps, but not before.
Motion dropped.


POWER PLANTS FOR WAR PRODUCTION
Thomas Miller Bell: For a copy of all contracts, agreements, correspondence and other documents in the possession of the government, dated from the 1st of September, 1939, to the present, relating to understandings concerning the erection of any new power plants made necessary by war production in the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia, together with any orders in council, contracts, agreements or understandings regarding depreciation or rebates to be allowed by the government from amounts otherwise payable under excess profits tax or other tax legislation. Also a copy of any agreements regarding financial aid by the

Motions jor Papers
government in the erection of such plants, and any contracts, agreements or understandings governing conditions or terms of sale of such power to companies or corporations in Canada or for export to the United States.


ENLISTMENT OF ENEMY ALIENS
Mr. SHAW:: For a copy of all orders in council and regulations passed since the outbreak of the present war respecting the enlistment of enemy aliens in Canadian active service or home defence units.


LOSS OF TIRES IN WYNYAKD, SASK., GARAGE FIRE
Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: For a copy of all documents in the possession of the government, exchanged between any person or persons and the wartime prices and trade board or the Department of Munitions and Supply, in connection with the loss of tires at the time of the fire of the Einarson Garage, Wynyard, Saskatchewan?


INTERNATIONAL CURRENCY-COLD STANDARD
Mr. QUELCH:: For a copy of all correspondence passing between any department of the government of Canada and, (a) the government, or any department thereof, of the United States of America, (b) the government, or any departments thereof, of Great Britain, during 1941 and up to the present time, regarding the adoption of an international currency and/or a return to the gold standard. Also a copy of all documents and papers making commitments therewith.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The house will observe that this motion calls for correspondence between the government of Canada and the government of Great Britain and also between the government of Canada and the government of the United States. I would not be in position to table correspondence, if there is any such, without the consent of the other governments mentioned. In the event of there being correspondence I will undertake to ascertain from the governments of Great Britain and the United States whether or not they are agreeable to having such correspondence tabled. The last clause in the motion is, "also a copy of all documents and papers making commitments therewith." I think I have sufficient knowledge of the situation to say that there have been no commitments made with regard to the subject matters referred to in the order. That is all I can say with respect to the motion. I think it had better be dropped.


Victor Quelch: Would an hon. member be permitted to read this correspondence without its being tabled, or would permission have to be granted?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would have to ascertain whether the British and the United States governments were agreeable before I could answer my hon. friend.


Thomas Vien: Dropped.


Victor Quelch: Stand.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the motion had better be dropped. I shall ascertain from the British government if there is any such correspondence and if, so far as the British government is concerned, it may be tabled or read. If it is available, I shall advise my hon. friend as soon as I have a reply.
Motion dropped.
qu'appelxe river valley survey parties


Mr. PERLEY:: For a copy of the reports of the survey parties working under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture in the Qu'Appelle river valley, during the years 1941-1942.


James Garfield Gardiner: Before this is passed I should like to get some information from the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley). Does he desire the final reports of the different surveys made? It will be understood that these survey parties simply ran levels on all the streams flowing into the Qu'Appelle valley, and the interim reports to the department would simply show what those levels are at the different points. If it is a return of that kind that is required it will involve a great deal of work, but it can be brought down. If my hon. friend simply requires the report of the findings of the survery party as to what might be done on these different streams, it would involve much less work.


Ernest Edward Perley: I think that might serve the purpose. Is the work continuing, or has a final report been made?


James Garfield Gardiner: A final report on what might be done as the result of the investigation?


Ernest Edward Perley: Are any survey parties working there now?


James Garfield Gardiner: They were working up until the end of the summer. I do not suppose they are working at present, but they will continue in the spring.


Mr. PERLEA :: If the minister will bring down the final report, that will be satisfactory.
Motion as amended agreed to.
Social Insurance


SAINT JOHN DRY DOCK COMPANY
Percy Ellis Wright: For a copy of all contracts, correspondence, and other documents in possession of the government relating to construction of cargo or other vessels by the Saint John Dry Dock Company of Saint John, New Brunswick; also copy of all repair agreements from January 1, 1940, to January 1, 1943.


SELECTIVE SERVICE-RETIREMENT OF ELLIOTT LITTLE AS DIRECTOR
Mr. HAZEN:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, memoranda and other documents exchanged between Mr. Elliott Little and the Minister of Labour, or any official of the Department of Labour, the Prime Minister, or any member of his staff, or the clerk of the privy council, with reference to the retirement of Air. Little from the position of director of selective service.


SOCIAL INSURANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I should like to ask the Prime Minister to move for the appointment of the proposed select committee on social insurance at once, rather than delaying the appointment of the committee until the debate on the address has been concluded. The names of the opposition members on the committee were submitted some days ago, along with the names of opposition members of all the standing committees. I am sure the Prime Minister will agree that this is a matter of considerable urgency if the committee's work is to be concluded in time for legislation to be introduced this session.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend will
observe that the government had anticipated that it was the desire of the house to have some of the committees appointed forthwith, and to-day there was introduced by my colleague the Minister of Pensions and National Health, lists of the membership of the standing committees which have now been constituted. It was the government's intention to proceed day by day with the constitution of other committees. I agree with my hon. friend that it is desirable to have the committee on social security appointed at an early day. There was last session a committee on reconstruction and rehabilitation. It is understood that committee will be reconstituted. I think that that committee should perhaps be set up before the one on

social security. I can I think undertake to say that a motion with respect to both committees will be introduced within a week.


Gordon Graydon: I am sure the Prime Minister will understand the significance of my inquiry. There will be a tremendous volume of work before the social insurance committee, and it will require a good deal of time to complete its labours. I hope there will be no delay in appointing the committee.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am equally anxious to have the committee constituted as soon as possible.


AVAR APPROPRIATION
[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 be called the Supplementary 1942 War Appropriation Act to provide inter alia,
1.	That sums not exceeding $858,000,000 be granted to his majesty in addition to the sums granted by the War Appropriation Act, 1942, towards defraying any expenses or making any advances or loans that may be incurred or granted by or under the authority of the governor in council during the year ending March 31, 1943, for:
(a)	the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada;
(b)	the conduct of naval, military and air operations in or beyond Canada;
(c)	promoting the continuance of trade, industry and business communications, whether by means of insurance or indemnity against war risk or in any other manner whatsoever; and
'(d) the carrying out of any measure deemed necessary or advisable by the governor in council in consequence of the existence of a state of war.
2.	That the governor in council be empowered to reexpend, advance or loan moneys that may be received by way of refund or repayment of advances, loans or expenditures under the War Appropriation Act, 1939, the War Appropriation Act, 1940, the War Appropriation Act, 1941, the War Appropriation Act, No. 1, 1942, the AVar Appropriation Act, No. 2, 1942, and the Supplementary 1942 War Appropriation Act.
He said: I stated the other day, Mr. Speaker, that His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, before the house goes into committee, I am quite sure that the minister is prepared to make a statement supplementary to that already made.

War Appropriation


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am quite prepared to make a brief statement before we go into committee, although I have not prepared any statement. I am prepared, however, to answer questions. As I said the other day, I hope we shall be able to get this resolution through as soon as possible for the reasons I then gave.
This resolution is to provide for sums not exceeding 8858,000.000 to be granted to his majesty by way of supplementary war appropriation for the current fiscal year. The amount already voted is $2,000,000,000, and from the most careful estimates that can now be made it would appear that we shall need before the end of the current fiscal year another $858,000,000. If members are interested, the initial estimate of the last year will be found in the Hansard of March 17, 1942, at page 1531. The estimate there is for $2,213,000,000. It would have been more than that if it had not been anticipated that there was some duplication between the estimates of the Department of National Defence and the Department of Munitions and Supply. It would have been $2,363,000,000 but for that. It is therefore not correct to say that our war estimates have been exceeded or will be exceeded by $858,000,000 in the current fiscal year, because we did not ask the house to vote the total amount of our estimates last year. I explained then, I think, that it is impossible to forecast with any accuracy the demands which will be made upon the treasury in time of war. So much depends upon developments that one can only make an approximation. The practice that has been followed in the last two or three years has been this. I have brought before the house the estimates for the war departments and the war estimates for the other departments, which have added up to more than the amount I have asked the house to vote. That was the case last year. As it turns out I would have been safe in asking the house to vote more than our estimates last year instead of less, but having asked the house to vote less than $2,213,000,000 I have now to come and ask the house for *what appears to be a very large additional amount. SS58,000,000. There have been many unanticipated programmes and projects through the year and additions have been made from time to time to the war estimates. On the other hand, though I cannot give the house details at the moment, some of the projects which were anticipated have not made the demands upon the treasury that were expected or have not been carried out in the way that was expected. So that there
is a great lack of agreement between the amounts spent during the fiscal year in time of war and the amounts which it is anticipated at the beginning of the fiscal year will have to be spent.
I should say that during the summer and fall it was expected that our total expenditures would amount to about $3,900,000,000. That was the figure I gave in the budget last June and it is the figure I used whenever I was asked about the matter thereafter. Now it would appear, as I have stated recently, since the beginning of the year-I think, in the house; certainly outside the house, before the house met-that our total expenditure for the entire fiscal year will be nearer $4,500,000,000 than $3,900,000,000.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: May I ask the minister if the $3,900,000,000 included the peace-time expenditures?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, and the $4,500,000,000 does too. Those are the total expenditures of the dominion government for what we sent abroad and for our armed forces and for our non-war expenditures and so forth. I am not an economist, but it was a surprise to me that the country was capable of such a large expenditure, that there would be goods and services available produced by the people of the Dominion of Canada to such a high amount. It shows how productive the country is, what a great capacity for production there is.
These are the fundamental facts underlying these estimates: that our expenditures will be about $4,500,000,000 during the fiscal year, instead of $3,900,000,000; and when it is borne in mind that we did not vote the full $3,900,000,000, it will be seen that what I am asking is substantially consistent with these figures.


Gordon Graydon: I shall make no more than one or two observations with respect to the minister's brief statement this afternoon. I think I should repeat what I said with regard to the attitude of our party towards the facilitating of the passing of this measure. We are anxious that the government shall not be held up in any way with respect to this vote. But any curtailment of discussion at this stage will be with the distinct reservation and upon the definite condition that when the regular war appropriation bill is before the house we shall have the opportunity of discussing in full any points which might normally arise with respect to discussion of this one. That, I believe, is understood by the government, and it is understood by us.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.
War Appropriation


Gordon Graydon: The minister stated just now that he was amazed at the capacity of the Canadian people to rise to the position of production by which they are capable of handling as large a budget as that which the minister has just indicated. I think perhaps all of us are amazed at this. I might point out, however, to the minister and the government, and with this I will conclude, that all sections of the people are anxious that whatever is required to win this war shall be given-whether it be in man-power, in material, or in finance. That is a pledge to which our people have definitely committed themselves in order that this battle for freedom shall be won. But while they are willing to shoulder whatever financial burdens may be necessary that are within their power, they also expect that every dollar which is given to the government for this very important object shall be spent without waste and without inefficiency.
We hope that during this session, when the war appropriation bill is presented to the house, it will be presented in sufficient detail to enable members of the opposition and all other hon. members to have the opportunity of examining, perhaps more closely than has ever been done before, each of the details in connection with the war expenditures covered by these large amounts. To-day nearly every person in Canada, according to his or her ability, is required to pay; I think hon. members in general will corroborate my statement that more people at this time are conscious of government expenditures than ever were before, and that there is a growing desire among the ordinary taxpayers of the country that every dollar given by them to this worthy purpose shall be properly and effectively spent. I warn the government that we shall require the war appropriations to be set before us in greater detail than ever before. That, I believe, is in the interest of the people, and to insist upon anything less would not be to discharge properly our duties as members of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition.


Thomas Miller Bell: I do not propose to make a speech; I shall say only that in conformity with the understanding arrived at, we are prepared to allow this appropriation bill to go through as rapidly as possible. When we come to the main bill we should like a complete break-down of the expenditure over the current year so that we may understand precisely how the money has been spent.
It is an amazing thing to many people that Canada has been able to find the large amount of material supplies which is represented by

the sum of money involved. We may congratulate the Canadian people that the Canadian economy has been able to do this in war time; and if I may say so. I think our people expect that when the war is over we shall be able to find the same materia! things, and to the same or greater extent if necessary, for the building of this country in the postwar period. I look forward to seeing the government plans of the future for the construction of this country in the post-war period.
We shall, however, want to make a thorough inquiry into these expenditures when the main appropriation is before the house.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Members of the Social Credit party are desirous of enabling the government to expedite the passage of this bill. We realize that they require the money, and it is our desire to see that they have the money to fight the war.
I think it is timely that we point out to the minister that we are not surprised that he should have said he was amazed at the productive capacity of Canada. We are not at all surprised that the leaders of the Progressive Conservative and the Cooperative Commonwealth groups should have said the same thing. We wish to draw to the attention of hon. members the fact that in 1935 we social crediters began to point out that there was a tremendous productive capacity in Canada, and that Canada's productive power could be mobilized by a monetary technique. The members of the government were merely tolerantly indulgent of the foolish ideas which they thought we were expressing.
Canada had the same productive capacity in 1935 that she has to-day. But the powers in control did not see fit to allow Canada's productive capacity to be used and the result thereof to be distributed among the Canadian people to enhance their well-being. That could have been easily done, just as well as it can be done now.
I wish to point out one other matter that is vital in this connection. Even yet the members of the government and parliament generally have not come to recognize that all these vast wartime productive schemes could have been accomplished without increasing the debt in Canada. As has been pointed out time and again, what is physically possible is fiancially possible; where the productive capacity of Canada actually exists the financial capacity is there, and the end can be achieved without debt and without injurious taxation. May I point out to the government that one of the most, important

TTar Appropriation
tasks confronting the administration to-day, as it approaches a possible peace, is that of finding a means-some means must be discovered-whereby the productive capacity of Canada, as is evidenced by the tremendous achievement during this war, shall continue to be used after the war.
Production has been stimulated during the war by the borrowing and spending of money. Where productive capacity exists the money can be spent, and it need not be borrowed. It is the spending of money which causes inflation, if inflation is the result; it is not the place from which a government gets the money. State money, debt free, could have resulted in the same production, whether in peace or in war, as has been brought about by the means already used. The resultant production could have been distributed in time of peace among the people, if the government had had vision enough to see how the distribution of goods could be effected among the Canadian people.
To-day we are becoming fairly prosperous, or would be, if it were not for the scrupulous care with which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) through his taxation structure limits our prosperity. We are becoming prosperous because we are distributing our goods in the form of munitions and instruments of destruction abroad. In order to obtain the financial prosperity in Canada which results from the manufacturing of tanks Canada does not need to manufacture tanks and send them over to Hitler to be destroyed. The same prosperity could result from the manufacturing of anything to be used in Canada, the difference being that in the case of something to be used in Canada, Canada would have not only the money to spend here but the goods to use as well.
I do not wish to discuss this matter at any great length now but it seems fitting that the members of the house should be very thoughtful in view of the tremendous productive power which has been evident in Canada.
One thing more. Our productive capacity has not yet been fully exploited. Enormous quantities of additional foodstuffs of many kinds can be produced in Canada. Canada is capable of producing a tremendous quantity of rubber by synthetic processes, huge quantities of gasoline, great quantities of sugar and an abundance of fruit which we have not yet produced.


Mr. MacNICOL:: And oil.


John Horne Blackmore: And oil. One could name scores and scores of commodities. If the productive capacity of Canada were organized and utilized so that production would be for the use and benefit of the Canadian people,
and if a financial technique wTere perfected whereby that could be brought about and the resulting goods distributed, all without taxation, we should then see the way to a new order in which the standard of living of the Canadian people would bear some sort of relation to their productive capacity.
We are prepared to cooperate with the government to the limit in providing the money to enable Canada to make the greatest war effort that it is possible for her to make, considering the man-power and other resources at her disposal.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Blanchette in the chair.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I regret that the minister, in the course of the all too brief observations which he made with respect to this resolution, did not take occasion to give a break-down of the $858,000,000. On February 8, at page 217 of Hansard, he referred to the fact that funds for the transfer of munitions plants from the imperial government to the Canadian government would be requested in the supplementary war appropriation bill; but apart from that I can find very little reference to the items which are to be covered by this appropriation. There is of course reference to other matters which presumably may or may not be in the bill. I am going to ask the minister, at the conclusion of the brief remarks which I have to make, to give us a break-down of the whole sum of $858,000,000.
Having regard to the undertakings which were given by my leader and the leaders of the groups in the house, the discussion of (his matter must of necessity be very limited. Let me say at the outset that since the minister has made it clear that the money must be voted immediately, that it is a national necessity in order that the contractual obligations of the nation may be promptly met, there is no disposition on the part of anyone to hold up the bill. But I may say I was startled, as I think the country will be, at the size of this supplementary bill, having regard to what we were told during the last session of the house. Perhaps it would not be out of place if we were to have a review of the whole position. The minister expressed amazement that the people of Canada could sustain the weight of a war expenditure of the size and scope they are being asked to sustain. The answer is that this government is asking the people of Canada to bear a greater ratio of load in proportion to the national income than is the case in either of the other two large belligerent nations. I have before me a review contained in a federal
40S
War Appropriation

reserve publication issued just prior to January 15 which reveals that the proportion of the national income devoted to war purposes is considerably less in the United States than it is in either Great Britain or Canada. This bulletin shows that the war effort in the three countries is absorbing the national income according to the following percentages: United States, 24-5 per cent; Great Britain, 36-8 per cent, and Canada, 39-1 per cent. If these figures mean anything, and if I correctly interpret them, they show that the Canadian people are being asked by this government to contribute to the war effort a greater proportion of the national income than either our rich neighbours to the south or our very hard-pressed blood brothers overseas.


Mr. REID:: Do not forget that the United States have state income taxes, and that now we do not have provincial income taxes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not quite see the relevancy of that remark. I may be dense, but I cannot correlate that suggestion with the point I am trying to make. I am speaking of the portion of the national income being taken by the government for war purposes from the people of Canada as compared with the portion taken by our neighbours to the south and our friends overseas. To me that means that the Canadian people are being taxed more heavily than are our friends in the United States or our friends in Britain, that we are asked to do more in terms of dollars and cents than either of those countries. I am assuming that these percentages are correct. I have no means of checking them, but since they are given out by the federal reserve system I assume at once that they are accurate.
That tells the story. It is often said in this house by certain parties that too much emphasis is being laid on the problem of man-power qua the army. I want to say that in my view -and I do not care who gets the credit or discredit, for that does not mean anything- this country is doing more financially than any other of the united nations. I am not complaining about that, but the question has arisen as to how far we may go in personal income taxes. I am reminded that last summer, during the course of a tour, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gibson) made the statement, if I remember correctly, that personal income taxes in this country had reached their peak. I understand that statement was not very pleasing to the members of the government at a later stage ,and perhaps the minister was a little indiscreet in making it. However, he did make it, and I presume he was speaking for the government.

That shows that the loyal people of this country are willing to pay to help win this war, as well as giving their sons and now their daughters in the national cause. Whoever says there is not conscription of wealth in this country by -way of taxation, no matter what may be the vehicle of taxation, just does not know what he is talking about and is talking very loosely. I wonder sometimes just how much farther we can go.
The size of this supplementary bill is astonishing. When the minister brought down war appropriation bill No. 1 for $2,000,000,000 he gave the estimates and asked for the round figure, and left his position open in regard to the estimates he gave. But I do not understand how they could vary so greatly. I do not understand how there could be such a wide variation between the estimates and the actual results. It is true that we have increased our armed forces and increased our production, but this is a very large sum. It may include some items of which I have no knowledge; from the remarks of the minister I think it does include an amount for the acquisition of war plants. How much that amounts to, I do not know; would it be $200,000,000?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is right.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Very well. I think therefore that as a duty to the people of Canada I should put on record a clear view of what is the position in dollars and cents, and to that end I have prepared as best I could a brief statement.
During the session of 1942, war appropriation bills No. 1, which I think was assented to on June 9, and No. 2, of which I have not the date of assent before me, provided for the sum of $2,000,000,000. In addition we had the United Kingdom war financing act, which appropriated another $1,000,000,000. Then wTe had the peace-time estimates amounting to $454,000,000 in round figures, and supplementary peace-time estimates of $28,000,000, making the total peace-time estimates $482,000,000. These three figures aggregate $3,482,000,000. Under this war-time supplementary resolution that we are being asked to consider for the present fiscal year the amount is $858,000,000, making a grand total of $4,340,000,000-a sizable sum for eleven and a half million people.
According to an answer brought down on Monday last to a question put by the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) which will be found on page 202 of Hansard, the latest published estimate of direct war expenditure for the present fiscal year ending March 31, 1943, including the gift to Britain, was $3,900,000,000. And the latest estimate

War Appropriation
for peace-time expenditure is $600,000,000. I understand how the $3,900,000,000 is made up, but I am at a loss to account for the difference between $482,000,00 peace-time main estimates plus supplementaries and this estimate of $600,000,000. a difference of $118,000,000. I think the Canadian people will require some explanation from the minister at a suitable time as to why our peace-time estimates so far exceed the amount of the vote of this house.
The peace-time estimates should be reduced instead of increased. The government made some show of endeavouring to decrease them; witness the appointment of Mr. John Thompson. I do not know how far he will get. I know that there was a very limiting factor in the order in council appointing him; I understand that has been amended so that now he has full authority to go into every department, which authority was at first denied him. But the minister ought to give some explanation in regard to that $118,000,000 excess in the peace-time estimates. It will be rather a shock to the people of Canada to learn of that. While we exceed the war-time estimates by many millions of dollars and might reasonably expect that, to have also SllS.000,000 of peace-time expenditure beyond what we were told at the last session of parliament is something I do not understand. There will have to be some explaining to the Canadian people as to why we have exceeded or are about to exceed our estimated peacetime expenditures to the extent of $118,000,000. I have a suspicion that a very large portion of expenditures which might properly be charged to peace-time activities is included in the war appropriation bill and paid out of that fund. We have not much to say about the distribution; we know about it only after the event. But if that suspicion is well founded-I am only calling it a suspicion, because I have not the time or the ability to dig it out myself, neither have I the information available

I would assume that a very large sum of peace-time expenditure is included in the war appropriations, and that if the real truth were passed on to the people of Canada we should find the peace-time activity expanded not merely to $600,000,000 this year instead of $482,000,000, but to a substantially larger sum than that.
Now according to the same answer, the revenues from all sources for the fiscal year ending March 31 next are estimated at $2,250,000,000. Having regard to the greatly increased rates of taxation, this estimate is probably accurate. No doubt the officials of the Department of Finance have made a careful estimate as to what the probable
revenues are from the returns already available and from the flow of funds to the treasury.
From these figures I draw two inferences: first, that there has not been very careful planning by the government with respect to war financial expenditures. As a matter of fact one of the charges against the government is that there has been no all-out planning of our war effort, in relation not only to this, but also to nearly every other activity. Certainly that is true with respect to the man-power situation, about which I hope to have something to say on a later occasion. Yet here we are to-day in the position that the cupboard is bare, the treasury depleted, because of what I call a lack of planning on the part of the administration. All the greatly increased revenues, the proceeds of the huge loans subscribed by the Canadian people, are gone, or nearly so. I think an explanation is due to the Canadian people far beyond that which the minister gave this afternoon. We all assumed that there would be some supplementary war appropriation bill for this fiscal year, but I do not think any of us every visualized a bill to the extent of $858,000,000.
The second lesson I draw-and I hope I am wrong-is that there has been some lack of treasury control over expenditures. In the course of this discussion the minister should tell us just what the treasury control is over war expenditure as well as over peace expenditure. The minister is very alert to tax the people; no one can accuse him of lack of initiative in levying taxes. I have heard him many a time urge them to tighten their belts and to lend and give to the utmost. So far as I am concerned I have had to tighten my belt; I can speak from personal experience. But I am not complaining-I am not in a position to do very much else- although I have found it very hard going, as many another has. I am willing to pay, because I cannot contribute much otherwise. But I wonder whether the minister is just as alert in protecting the public in connection with these war-time expenditures as he is in getting the money to make them.
Time was when the minister of finance was the guardian of the public treasury. I put this query to him: How far has that function been performed? What about extravagant expenditures and waste? Probably the minister will challenge me, as I was challenged last year, to name them, and on the spur of the moment I said: Look around you. Some newspaper supporting the government said I was referring to the number of page boys in this house. Of course I was not
War Appropriation

referring to anything of the sort. But if the minister wants an answer I refer him to the speech made last year by his follower the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean), to which the government has given heed in connection with expenditures in the operation of this House of Commons. That speech did a lot of good, and the preparation of it must have taken a great deal of time. But if you will look around in this country, if you will listen to what the public are saying, you will realize that they are condemning this government for the waste that is going on everywhere. I have evidence that orders have gone out in the army to prevent waste, and that is all to the good. But it is in response to public opinion. Things have been tightened up in the training camps, for instance, and expenditures are being restricted. That was not always so. It certainly was not so with the Minister of National Defence for Air, who was very disarming on one occasion when he told us that speed was the only consideration. He so disarmed me that I could not go on and criticize him.


Charles Gavan Power: But he was amongst the first to start economy measures after the speed mania was over.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That may be; I am simply commenting upon the disarming statement made by the minister which prevented me at least from going on to criticize when I was compelled to believe in my own heart that speed was a necessary requirement because of the magnitude of the war operations. The money had to be found and the money had to be spent. I am just wondering if in connection with the construction of airports in this country, we will say, the proper ratio has come back into the public treasury by way of income tax.


Charles Gavan Power: Profits by contractors?


Richard Burpee Hanson: By contractors.


Charles Gavan Power: Talk to munitions and
supply, not to me.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And
finance. I am not blaming the minister. I recall an occasion on which I stood in this place and described how a contractor had obtained a contract in connection with an airport at prices that put a smile on his face that I compared with the smile on the face of a tiger. The unit prices were so high as to warrant the statement by me to-day that those prices should have been obtained by competitive tenders. I know there are times
[Mr. R. B. Hanson.1
when you cannot do that; I know there are conditions under which it is not possible, but the competitive system has much merit.
If there is one thing I should like to impress upon the minister it is the necessity of some treasury control even over the three branches of the armed services. I could give a number of instances, but I shall refer only to one, the prices paid for land in connection with the Gimli airport. I do not say that there was any graft in connection with it; I do not know anything about it, but a newspaper in Winnipeg made an examination and came to the conclusion that two or three times as much was paid for submarginal land in that district as should have been paid. I do not know the truth of it at all, but here is an instance in which the public believe there has been a waste of public funds.
Recently I heard of an installation of the Department of National Defence being made on a marsh at Windsor below tide level which has had to be protected by a dyke eight feet high.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is not true; that is incorrect, to say the least.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The hon.
member for Cumberland (Mr. Black) has been there. I was to have gone with him but I could not do so.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not think he will
say that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
the information I have.


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: It is protected by a dyke. I do not say that it is below the water level, but it is protected.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why the
dyke? I have lived on the marshes of Westmorland county and I know why the dykes are there. They are put there to protect against inundation by the sea. I am not going any further into this sort of thing, but I do want to impress upon the minister the necessity of treasury control. I know there are many people who will say that the expenditures of the army must not be interfered with by the treasury, but I say to the army that treasury control is absolutely necessary; the civil authority must at all times be paramount over the military authority in any democracy.	.
We are willing to vote for this measure in order that the national honour may be maintained, but I warn the minister that the country is expecting much from him by way of protection against waste. Last year, the

TFar Appropriation
year before and the year before that I said that the people of Canada from the highest to the lowest would give gladly and willingly according to their ability to give and pay, but they would expect a dollar's worth of value for every dollar of expenditure. They would expect all waste to be eliminated and they would expect the government to watch expenditures. I repeat that to-day.
There are some other remarks that I desire to make in connection with this matter. We are told in the press that we are to have a national budget well in excess of $5,000,000,000 or perhaps $5,500,000,000. I have in front of me a Canadian Press dispatch from Ottawa, the heading of which states that the war is costing close to $6,000,000 daily and that Canada's expenditures for ten months had been $1,826,000,000, the average for January being $5,96S,000 daily. The item then goes on to say that in all probability we will have a budget in excess of $5,000,000,000 and perhaps $5,500,000,000.
What does that mean? It means a per capita expenditure of $500 for every man, woman and child in Canada. If we are to be called upon for that, it is the duty of the government to see that every dollar is properly expended. I must say that an anticipated budget of $5,500,000,000 for 11,500,000 people is something to cause us to think and think violent!}'. I am willing to pay the shot so far as my part of it is concerned, and I think all loyal citizens in Canada are willing to pay theirs, but I do not believe we ought to be asked to pay beyond our ability to pay. We should not be asked to pay a greater portion of the national income than the people are being asked to pay in hard-pressed Britain.
We shall vote for this resolution and the bill which will be based upon it, but I fear that the undertaking to provide an opportunity for full discussion of this $850,000,000 when the war appropriation bill comes on will not be very effective. We will be so concerned with an examination of the details of the huge war appropriation bill that this relatively trivial item of $858,000,000 will be lost sight of. I think the government should have brought down this bill a week ago. They should have suspended the debate on the address and given us a break-down of this sum so that we could have had time to consider it. The Prime Minister should have suspended the current business of the house if this bill was so urgent and we had to have this money as of to-day.
I want to repeat what my leader has said, that we reserve the right to investigate on a later appropriate occasion the whole breakdown of this $858,000,000.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Chairman, I do not think there will be any difficulty about examining the expenditures for the current fiscal year when the main appropriation bill is before the house, because that is the time when the ministers give an account of their activities over the past year. It is incidental to the passing of the new estimates that the various ministers concerned should rise in their places and state what has been spent and what has been done. As a matter of fact most of the discussion on the main appropriation bill is a discussion of what has been done, not of what will be done, and therefore the hon. gentleman need have no fear that there will be any skimping of discussion on these estimates.
Before I sit down I shall put on Hansard a break-down of the $S58,000.000. and for the convenience of members I will give them the citations from Hansard of last year, so that at their leisure-I hope they will not do it this afternoon or ask that this go over until to-morrow to enable them to do it-they can, before the main bill comes down, ascertain where the increases have been. It will be fairly clear, if they will look at Hansard of March 17, 1942. page 1531, which I cited before, and Hansard of June 1, 1942, page 3180, where a break-down of all expenditures of non-war departments is to be found, just what has been done. It may be that there are other pages of Hansard of last year where a break-down is given of the estimates of the war departments. I think there are, but I have not them before me. At any rate these two citations will give a very good idea where the increases have taken place. But before I give these figures I want to refer to two or three points made by my hon. friend.
The hon. gentleman spoke about the increase in the non-war expenditures from an estimate of $482,000,000 to an estimate now of $600,000,000. I am afraid that I cannot give him a final or complete and satisfactory explanation of that. I think, however, the explanation is this, that payments to the provinces and the increased interest on the debt account for the whole thing and more. It must be remembered that the interest on the debt which is in substance a war expenditure, is included in the non-war estimates. The hon. gentleman said that there was a tendency to charge to war what should be charged to peace. I think there is an inherent tendency, a natural tendency on the part of departments to do that, but it is a tendency which is combated by the treasury very resolutely, and, I believe, fairly successfully. If one goes through the
War Appropriation

amounts which have been charged to war I do not think there will be found in them anything that should not be charged to war.
Mr. HANSON- (York-Sunbury): In connection with the payment of subsidies, was there not a vote in the peace-time estimates of last year to take care of them?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I cannot recall.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not either.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There may have been a
token vote. I cannot be final on that, but my recollection is that the increase is accounted for by those tw-o items. It may be that under the wheat acreage reduction plan there is also expenditure which was not included in the estimates but came under a bill, but the increase in any event is not accounted for by overexpenditure of the items voted. That is the thing the hon. gentleman fears.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I did not suggest that.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There is no looseness or
laxity whatsoever in that regard. In explanation of that increase there is an important fundamental which anyone will understand when I put the facts before the house.
With regard to the proportion of our national income that we are spending on war as compared with Great Britain, I have been advised all along that we were not quite up to Great Britain, that we were not spending quite as large a proportion of our national income on war as they are doing in Great Britain. The figures which the hon. gentleman has given, while issued by a most respectable authority, may not be correct. I assume that they have taken some estimate of Canada's national income which may or may not be an accurate estimate. Any statement of Canada's national income is an estimate. I have read articles in the London Economist criticizing our estimates of our national income as being away too low. They may be; I do not know about that. It may be that the federal reserve board, if that was the authority that issued the statement, has used an estimate of our national income which is considerably too low. If so, the actual figures might show that the comparison was in favour of Great Britain rather than in favour of Canada. But if it is correct that we are spending a larger proportion of our national income on war than is Great Britain, that does away with the criticism that we are not conducting an all-out war effort, which has been the criticism of the government for the last two or three years.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not with respect to finance.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Finance is merely a measure, merely an index of what the people themselves are doing. That is all it is. When we talk about a certain proportion of the national income being devoted to war, all it means is that a certain proportion of the work that is done by the Canadian people, a certain proportion of the human and material resources of this countiy, is devoted to war. That is all it means, and the proportion of the national income in dollars that is devoted to war is merely an indication of the other.
With regard to United States, I would assume it is true that the United States is devoting a smaller proportion of its national income to war than is the Dominion of Canada, but the Dominion of Canada has been in the war since September, 1939, whereas the United States has been in the war only since December, 1941, and they have not yet by any means speeded up their activities to full capacity. If, however, they spend what the president says they will spend this year, they will spend much more than the Dominion of Canada proposes to spend in proportion to national income.
The hon. gentleman also said that the fact that these estimates have been so substantially exceeded is an indication that there has not been very careful planning. The planning was careful enough, but conditions have changed to such an extent. In May or June we revised the British commonwealth air training plan drastically, extending it widely to take effect the 1st of July. Situations also arose which required us to embark upon construction programmes of the most vital character, and our plans had to be altered. In fact, war plans are under a continual process of week by week alteration, and it is not a valid criticism to say that there is evidence of lack of careful planning because one changes one's programme during the course of the war, abandoning some parts and taking on other projects which are more expensive than the ones which have been abandoned.
Then the hon. gentleman said that there was a lack of treasury control. Well, we have in this country six thousand treasury officials. They are in all the departments. They are headed by the comptroller of the treasury; they make reports for me from time to time of anything they feel should be investigated. Members of the public send in criticisms of what they allege to be wasteful and extravagant expenditure; when they do, I write to the department and the minister inquires into it. If there is anything really wrong the practice is changed, and if there is not anything really wrong I send an explanation back to the person who wrote in. That, I think, is about the most the Department of Finance

War Appropriation
can. do. It is becoming almost impossible to get qualified auditors, cost accountants and so forth. As I said, we have already a staff enormously greater than before the war. We have our check when we pass the non-war estimates; we have our check when we pass the war estimates, and then we have the check on the expenditures which is provided by the officers of the comptroller of the treasury.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunibury):: That is the day-to-day operations. I was not referring lo that; I have no doubt that is being looked after. It is the over-all control to which I referred. How far shall you go? What is your target? That is what I mean.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Well, I give my targets every year. As I say, we do not hit them exactly in the middle, but we do the best we can to estimate what we should spend and can spend, and we do the best we can to keep our expenditures within those estimates.


Gordon Graydon: Does the minister get from the public many letters of the kind he has indicated?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Oh, quite a number. I do not know what the hon. member means by "many". There are undoubtedly instances here and there of what the public regards as unnecessary or excessive expenditures. I would be the first to admit that. Every minister knows that, and every minister is, I believe, doing the best he can to prevent these things from happening. In a war effort of the dimensions of ours it is inevitable that here and there persons will be selected for positions of responsibility who have not the necessary qualifications for discharging those responsibilities. In other words, there will be some mistakes made. This happens in private business; it happens in every line of human activity. As long as the authority in charge-in this instance the government-has the right principle in regard to it, follows it up, and does not condone anything of the kind, that is about the best it can do. I know somebody may say that this sounds complacent, that we should go further.


Gordon Graydon: It sounds like a pretty good story, anyway.


James Lorimer Ilsley: But if hon. members knew the great trouble we go to in order to keep our expenditures so that we can justify them to the house and to the public, and the fight we keep up year in and year out to do that, I believe they would give us a considerable amount of credit.
Those, I think, are the main points. The hon. member referred to Windsor, Nova Scotia. I know about that, because the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) went into it very fully. It is quite near where I live; and there is a good explanation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It will take some explanation, in the minds of the people, you know.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Oh, I do not think so. That project was most carefully considered.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would the minister give the same consideration to the matter of who would build the plant?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I know what the hon. gentleman means. But my information is that it went to the lowest tenderer.
These are the estimated war expenditures for the present fiscal year. I have to give the whole of them, and then subtract the $2,000,000,000 we already have. My figures are as follows:
National Defence
Army services	$1,060,508,000
Naval services		207,822,000
Air services	 626,960,000
Sundry services		17,649,000

Munitions and Supply
Administration	$ 9,500,000
Expansion of war industry	 480,004,000
Acquisition of United Kingdom interest in
war plants	 200,000,000

Other Departments
Agriculture	$
Auditor General	
Civil Service Commission	
External Affairs	
Finance	
Fisheries	
Justice	
Labour	
Mines and Resources. National Harbours... National Research
Council	
National Revenue	
National War Services	
Pensions and National
Health	
Post Office	
Privy Council office...
Public Archives	
Public Works	
Royal Canadian Mounted Police.... Secretary of State.... Soldier Settlement of
Canada	
Trade and Commerce. Transport	
20,820,000
280,000
477.000
518.000
98.668.000
278.000
95.000
17.451.000
7.904.000
350.000
2.022.000
4.000
8.746.000
15.591.000
269.000
1.627.000
2.000
7.096.000
4.147.000
81.000
81,000
8.049.000
5.766.000

Total war expenditure	$2,802,765,000
Active assets	 55,235,000
Making a grand total chargeable
to war appropriation	 2,858,000,000
Less amount provided under the
War Appropriation Act, 1942.. 2,000,000,000
Leaving further amount required..! 858,000,000
War Appropriation


Thomas Miller Bell: There are one or two questions I should like to ask the minister. The first is this. I realize that what the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) said has a great deal of merit; that we should go into this huge appropriation very carefully. May I suggest that when the main war appropriation bill comes up we should follow to some extent the same procedure as we followed last year; that is, we should consider the appropriation by departments. I was wondering if it would not be possible for the departments to give us a break-down somewhat in the nature of the break-down we had in the main estimates; not, perhaps, quite as much detailed, because I realize the amount, of work which that would involve.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And in
advance.


Thomas Miller Bell: And in advance, so that we may look over the amounts and the proposals andi so forth, the expenditures of last year and this year. After all the war appropriation bill will be the biggest budget we shall have ever had before us, and I think it was unsatisfactory last year that we did not have just what I suggest. I do not think any of us got the picture precisely as to how and where the amounts of money were to be spent. I suggest to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) that this should be done this year because I believe it would facilitate the discussion; certainly it should keep it in order. Last year, in discussing the appropriation, the ministers were asked for information first on one thing and then on another, and we jumped from place to place. Frequently the same questions were repeated, because hon. members who were interested were not in the house at the same time during the day. If we could dispose of one item or classification of items, that matter would be got out of the way and we could go on to the next, very much as we do when we consider the main estimates. If we could get a similar break-down of each department, it would help members to understand what this was all about and it might even facilitate the passage of the measure. But even if it did not facilitate the passage of the measure, it will be the largest appropriation we have ever had before us, and in my opinion, if we devoted one-half of the session to a study of the expenditures item by item, the time spent in such a study would be fully justified. I listened to the hon. member for York-Sunbury speaking of the tremendous-


Charles Gavan Power: For the sake of information I would point out to the hon. member that, last year and the year before, the Minister of

Finance indicated the sums which were allotted to each of the three services-so much for air, so much for the navy and so much for the army. I am not quite sure what the procedure was with regard to the army, but our allotment was again divided into so much for overseas war, so much for home war and so much for the joint empire training scheme. On two occasions, I believe, last year and probably the year before, I gave a further break-down showing how much was spent on aircraft, ammunition, pay and allowances, clothing and so on. I follow my hon. friend, and I agree with him, but I am trying to find out what else we could do except perhaps to adopt the suggestion of the hon. member for York-Sunbury, that we give a rough break-down in advance. That is the gist of what my hon. friend wants.


Thomas Miller Bell: I have in mind a breakdown in advance and also the desirability of passing the items item by item instead of wandering all over the map as we have been doing.


Charles Gavan Power: If the procedure suggested by my hon. friend were followed, no one would be more pleased than the ministers. Day after day, time after time we have had to answer the same question. I am trying to see if my hon. friend will give us a chance to look into the procedure suggested in order to ascertain to what extent it can be carried out, if it can be done without giving too much detail. I do not think my hon. friend would want all the details as they appear in our own book of estimates, down to the last cent, but if we could give him a rough idea of the amount of money spent under, say, seven or eight or ten headings, and then take them up item by item, this would, I am sure, greatly facilitate the work of the defence ministers. I will make inquiries to see if that can be done.


Thomas Miller Bell: That is exactly what I had in mind. If the minister for air will remember-no doubt he does-I said that I did not expect a minutely itemized statement such as we get in connection with the main estimates. We might take them in groups; if we could pass a particular group at a particular time, this should obviate discussion of the same thing over and over again and we should get along very much better as a house, and make a much more thorough investigation.
I wanted to refer to one or two statements made with regard to the burden placed upon finance. I agree with the minister, of course, that the figures which appear in our budget are merely a measure. After all, we are talking about goods and -services expressed in a way in which most people understand them, name-

War Appropriation
ly, in the form of money figures. But I do not agree that those who own and control the resources of the country are making their maximum contribution when compared with that which the human element in the nation is compelled to make. What I believe is going on is this-


Richard Burpee Hanson: I never said they were comparable.


Thomas Miller Bell: I would not say comparable either, but people put too much stress on the financial end; that is what the hon. member did. But when we go into the matter on the main bill I think we should see to what extent the amounts of money that have been collected from the taxpayers of Canada, and particularly from those with the smaller incomes, have been handed over in the form of property to the great corporations of the country. I put on the order paper a question intended to bring out some of these points. Here, for instance, is a dispatch that appeared in the New York Times of January 30, two weeks ago, dealing with the Shipshaw hydro electric development:
Not in the least amazing thing about it

That is, the development.
[DOT]-is that it is already paid for. The $65,900,000 cost of the new plant was financed by the Aluminum Company of Canada out of contracts for sales of aluminum to Britain and the United States which were in some measure paid for in advance so as to encourage this enormous new power development so essential to war.
In other words, what is happening is this. Great Britain, the United States, and Canada, to the extent that we had been using aluminum in Canada, will have paid for this plant and the Aluminum Company of Canada will own it. That is not the conscription of wealth. It is taking from one set of people in this country or in Great Britain and the United States, and giving the physical asset to another-


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I interrupt my hon. friend. I am sure he does not want to place the aluminum company transaction in an unfair light before the people.


Thomas Miller Bell: I do not.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is a large and important transaction, and I shall be glad to discuss it in the house at any time. His facts, as he states them, are not, in several particulars, entirely correct. I must say that every member of the house has been considerate of us, but it is difficult to meet statements made casually about individual transactions. My hon. friend mentions the Gimli airport, and I shall be glad to discuss that. I do not think
a fair statement, from the point of view of our department, has been given. We have in our department over ten thousand separate transactions, some large and some small, and I shall be glad to discuss any one of them. I think a fair way, especially with a transaction as large as the aluminum company contract, which I think will bear the closest scrutiny by any one, would be to suggest that it be set down for discussion. We could then get to the bottom of it, going into the matter fully. I will put the facts on Hansard, and we can draw conclusions from those facts.


Thomas Miller Bell: I am glad the minister has made that statement. I was taking a report which probably is just as authoritative as the report my hon. friend placed before the house a few minutes ago, regarding the amount of taxation in comparison with Great Britain and the United States. It comes from the New York Times.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend created, I thought, a wrong impression with regard to the purport of the article he read. As I heard it read, the article said that this plant had been paid for in some measure in advance. My hon. friend left the impression that the entire plant had been paid for in advance.


Thomas Miller Bell: That is precisely what it says. May I read it again:
The $65,900,000 cost of the new plant was financed by the Aluminum Company of Canada out ot contracts for sales of aluminum to Britain and the L>nited States which were in some measure paid for in advance so as to encourage this enormous new power development so essential to war.
Part was paid for in advance, the rest by contracts made, but I am not- going to discuss this further this afternoon in view of what the minister said. The point I should like to be clear about is this. IVhen this war ends, who will otvn this power plant?
May I also refer to the Gimli matter, which I believe has been dismissed pretty thoroughly in some of the newspapers. The minister said that the side of the story which he has as yet has not been given, and in view of the interest which has been aroused in connection with this transaction I would suggest that the recommendation which I believe appears in the report of the war expenditures committee should be adopted, and that the matter should be referred to the public accounts committee to be gone into thoroughly. I know nothing about the deal, but in my opinion the suggestion contained in the report of the war expenditures committee is quite appropriate, and I believe the matter should be gone into thoroughly.
War Appropriation

I notice an amount of $480,000,000 for the expansion of war industries. That is a huge sum, and I suggest that we should get to the bottom of it, to see how it will be spent and what will become of these expanded in. dustries when the war is over. I think that is all I wanted to say at this stage; I rose largely because of the remarks which were made just prior to my rising.


Richard Burpee Hanson: One word more with respect to treasury control. I hope I made it clear that- I was not referring to the day to day operations of the government but generally to the allocation of the moneys for these large projects, and that sort of thing. How much has the department to say as to the amount that may be spent in certain departments on this, that and the other thing?
While I am on my feet may I ask the minister to give some consideration to another point. We have a number of crown companies owned by and operated for the government. As a rule, notwithstanding what my hon. friends to' the left may say, the executives of these companies are. I think, among the best executives we have in Canada. I know of one crown company the head of which works day and night for nothing, and I have no doubt he * is doing a magnificent lob. But just what control have we over :he operations of these crown companies? I have read some, orders in council, and I have had some correspondence with the auditor general about the matter. It was more or less in the nature of inquiry on my part and elucidation on his, and we did not reach any finality about it. It comes down to this, I think, that the operation of these companies depends upon the honesty and honour of those operating them. I believe that is the result at which he and I arrived, and with that I do not quarrel. But in that connection I am wondering, and I am only throwing this out as a suggestion, how far the treasury has control over the operations of these companies, and I do not refer to the day to day operations, the internal workings. The minister might give some consideration to that point and perhaps reply at a later date.


James Lorimer Ilsley: When these companies require money the Department of Munitions and Supply applies to treasury board for an allocation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: A requisition?
Mr. ILSLEY; Well, yes. I forget the exact term. There are a number of terms used, such as draft estimate, allocation, allotment
[Mr. Coldwell.)
and so forth, but at any rate they come to treasury board to get the money they require out of the munitions and supply war appropriation. They give an explanation of the purpose for which the money is required, and ordinarily they get it. I am pretty sure that just before the house adjourned last summer I put a statement on Hansard concerning crown companies and the extent to which the comptroller of the treasury and the auditor general kept a check on them, and I think the hon. gentleman will find the information there. That is how they get the money. At present they are permitted to revolve their money, though for years they were not allowed to do so.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Permitted to do what?


James Lorimer Ilsley: To revolve the money they receive, in the case of companies which have incomes. They are permitted to use that income or revenue to meet their expenditures, but any new projects they undertake have to be approved either by the war committee of the cabinet or by the treasury board.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I suppose those are continuous operations in which they use these revolving funds?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It all depends on the company; I do not know that they all have revolving funds. There are some twenty or thirty of these companies, but generally speaking that is the principle; if they require money they have to come either to the war committee or to treasury board for it. If they have a revolving fund they have to come to the war committee, through the minister, for authorization of any new project they may undertake. With regard to the control of expenditures in the broad sense mentioned by the hon. member, if a minister decides that he must have authority to embark upon a new programme or project-I forget exactly which word is used in the relevant order in council- he must get that authority from the war committee, and that means something. The war committee is a vital, live and important controlling body. Committees are set up from time to time by the cabinet. Some of the committees do not amount to much; they become defunct, and so on.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Or become judges.


James Lorimer Ilsley: But a few of the committees of the cabinet, under the stress of war, have developed tremendous vitality. The war committee of the cabinet is one of these, and the ministers simply have to battle it out there

War Appropriation
as to whether or not they should have that addition to their appropriation. I have a
tendency to be on the negative side when those debates occur.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Somebody has to put on the brake.


Mr. GOLDING:: Just in case there should be any question following the remarks of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, with regard to the recommendation of the war expenditure committee as to further inquiry into Gimli, I think I should read just what the subcommittee did say:
It is not the duty of this subcommittee to supplant the responsibility either- of the public accounts committee or the civil courts. This subcommittee does not express any opinion as to the need for further inquiry.
I would not want the house to get the notion that we recommended that a further inquiry should be made.


Thomas Miller Bell: I was speaking from memory, but it was suggested that it might be referred to the public accounts committee.


William Henry Golding: If I were to express the opinion of the subcommittee, they would not spend any money on any further inquiry.


Charles Edward Johnston: But the hon. member is not expressing the opinion of the subcommittee.


Gordon Graydon: I suggest to the hon. member for Huron-Perth that the extract he just read from the report of the subcommittee contains a pretty broad hint that perhaps another inquiry should be instituted.


William Henry Golding: I am not going into that, but it does not recommend that any further inquiry be held.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: Before submitting my remarks
on this resolution I should like to make a comment on what was said by the Minister of Finance a few minutes ago when he denied the statement made by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson), that the Canadian people were more highly taxed than people in Britain or in the United States. The minister's statement may be correct to a certain extent, but I think he disregards the fact that our system of administration is different from that of England, where almost all taxes are collected by the central government. In Canada there are more taxing authorities, the provincial, municipal, school commissions and so on, and when all these taxes are added together it brings the figures above those paid by the people of Great Britain or of the United States.
I am also of opinion that an expenditure to the extent of nearly a billion dollars in excess of that authorized by parliament is not a habit that should be approved. In the years prior to the war parliament used to be convened to discuss budgets running about $400,000,000 or $450,000,000. It was right to do it. But this deficit alone is $858,000,000, or twice as much as we used to vote for an entire year prior to the war. And this was done while parliament was in session, because it was only adjourned. It would not have cost much to convene parliament and ask for further credit so that we could have studied where the money goes. For instance, I understand from paragraph 2 of the resolution and from what has been said and by the figures given by the minister a moment ago, that some of that money is to pay for goods which have been given to Great Britain on the same system as the billion dollar gift which we authorized last year. Such a transaction I do not think can be carried out without being authorized by parliament.
I recall seeing a few days ago a complaint by people in Australia that England had sold back to Australia goods which were given to her by th;s country. If people in this country are paying more taxes than people in Great Britain and the United States I do not think we have a right to give our goods to a country that is selling them. We are opposed to this resolution. It is a simple principle of business that we should sell those goods the same as England did; though it has not cost that country any sacrifice to produce goods, it cost our country heavy sacrifices to produce them. We are not able to do as much for the war, in which we are not as closely concerned as are Great Britain and the United States. We are not supposed to make the *war effort that those populations are compelled to make. We are a young country. For these reasons I am not going to support this -bill if it involves the payment for goods which have been granted by us to England, and which England has sold to another country, while some of those goods have been given without being authorized. The War Appropriation Act of last year providing for that gift to England was definite, and the government have not the right to go beyond it and give more than was authorized. For that reason I am going to oppose the resolution.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I want to correct the hon. gentleman. There is nothing in these estimates that provides for further gifts or further contributions. The war plants to which he refers constitute a different type of transaction. That is a case where we are obtaining title to plants in return for the money mentioned here.

War Appropriation

namely, 8200,000,000. The authority for making contributions to the United Kingdom was contained in the War Appropriation United Kingdom Financing Act, not in the ordinary War Appropriation Act and not in this supplementary War Appropriation Act. It is under a different act, it is a different type of transaction from anything provided for here. I want to put my hon. friend right on that point.
I want to put my hon. friend right on another point if I can. This is very hard to explain, hard not only for my hon. friend but for a great many members of the house to understand. If under the War Appropriation United Kingdom Financing Act we had sold our goods to Great Britain instead of giving them-he advocates selling them

our taxes would have been just as high and our borrowings just as great. I want to make that very clear, because many hon. members do not believe that, and a great many people in the country do not believe it. The only way in which we can reduce our tax burden or the amounts we borrow from the Canadian people would be by producing less, by putting less into the war effort, going easier, slackening, sagging back; that is the only way. Provided we go all out, do everything we can, make the goods and shells that are required, our tax burden is going to be there. The only effect of selling that stuff instead of giving it would be that we would have a cash drawer full of
1.0.	U.'s. The question is, do you want the
1.0.	U.s? Hon. gentlemen may think that if we had the I.O.U.'s it would in some way relieve the tax burden. But it would not. It is not Canadian dollars we get, because there are no Canadian dollars to get; it would be an obligation in the currency of another country we would have, not dollars at all. I wish hon. members would address their minds pointedly to that question and would not say, as some hon. members do, as one hon. member, the other night, in a debate to which I cannot under the rules refer, said, that we are taxing ourselves to provide money to give to another country. But that simply is not so. I repeat, our taxes are no higher than they would be if we were selling the stuff instead of giving it.
Then it is a question of how we want to finance. Some might say, well; do not take
1.0.	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 dfd that. It is true that the Canadian people instead of the British people would be holding the securities; but if we carry that process too far, and we have carried it a very long distance to date because we have expropriated $700,000,000 or $800,000,000 worth of securities, we imperil our post-war trading position. We shall be giving the British the strongest possible incentive to buy their wheat from the Argentine instead of from Canada. We shall be giving them the strongest incentive to deal with those people whose currency they have and not with Canada, of whose currency we have stripped them. We must be careful about that. We think our policy has been not only broad-minded but in our own interests. I implore hon. members not to say that we are taxing ourselves in order to raise money to give away-we are not.


Thomas Miller Bell: I am not going to enter into this discussion, but at a later time I should like to say something in connection with the remarks of the minister. I do not hold the views he has just expressed. I rise simply to say that there are times when a partial quotation misrepresents one more than deliberate misrepresentation. We have had an example of that this afternoon. My memory is usually pretty good, but I have looked up the report of the war expenditures committee. The hon. member for Huron-Perth stopped when he should have read one more sentence. Perhaps I had better read the whole thing. It reads:
It is not the duty of this subcommittee to supplant the responsibility either of the public accounts committee or the civil courts. This subcommittee does not express any opinion as to the need for further inquiry.
I read the next sentence.
In the light of the request made by the solicitor for the Winnipeg Tribune the subcommittee believes that such an inquiry, if deemed necessary, could be more satisfactorily made as above indicated.
A broad hint is thrown out. I suggested that if inquiry is to be made, it should be made by the public accounts committee. I said that I thought it should be referred to the public accounts committee, as was suggested in this report by the subcommittee.


William Henry Golding: I want to repeat that at no time and at no place did the subcommittee recommend that further inquiry be held.


Thomas Miller Bell: They suggested it.


William Henry Golding: They did not suggest it; they did not recommend it.


Thomas Miller Bell: The words speak for themselves.

The Address-Mr. Ross (Calgary)


Joseph Sasseville Roy: I should like to thank the Minister of Finance for the effort he has been making to make me understand that we would not be paying less taxes if we sold our goods direct to Australia instead of sending them free to England, and if we were making some money on the transaction. My point is that we are trying to do just a little too much for the size of our population, especially when compared with what other nations are doing. I suggested last year that we should lend this money and charge interest instead of sending over the goods free of cost. I believe Great Britain is solvent and will be solvent after victory, and the same would apply to Australia. I think it would be good business for Canada to have some assets in these countries instead of making gifts. The mere fact of granting a loan with interest, the same as the United States does would not change things at all and we would not be acting beyond our means. That is what I suggest, and I want the hon. gentleman to understand our position. It is well enough for the Minister of Finance to ask us to understand his meanings, but I would ask him to understand our contributions himself.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Usley thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 6, for granting to His Majesty aid for national defence and security.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the Chair.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Is the bill ready for distribution?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I understand it is on its way here from the printing bureau.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It should be available by eight o'clock. I suggest that the minister move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, and then we can take this up at eight o'clock. I understand there are a number of new provisions in the bill.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Are there?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think so. I should like to compare it with last year's bill.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I will do the same. I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again this day.
Progress reported.


GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, February 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. W. E. Harris (Grey-Bruce) for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in .reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Graydon, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. G. H. ROSS (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, during the debate last Friday I intimated that there were two matters which I wished to lay before the house at this time, both referring to the income tax act. I am bringing these before the house at this time because I know the minister is working on his budget, and I want to direct his attention to them. I want to cite certain injustices in the hope that they will receive serious consideration by the minister and that an attempt will be made to remedy these grievances.
The matter to which I now wish to direct attention is the taxation as income of capital used in the production of oil and the development of the Turner valley oil field in Alberta. [DOT] At the outset let me make it clear that I am not quarrelling with the taxation of profits under the income tax act. What I do object to is the taxation as income of capital, capital that has been invested by the people in this country in the Turner valley oil field.
It takes about $225,000 to drill a well in Turner valley and to get production from the well. In the first place you have to pay the geologist. Then you have to purchase the oil lease, create and organize a company, sell royalties or shares to the amount of $150,000 or $175,000 to pay for the cost of drilling a well. You have to pay for surface rights, pay for roads, pay for drilling the well, pay royalties to the government, pay pipeline charges, municipal and school taxes, purchase production equipment, pay production costs, government taxes, conservation board assessment and office and general expenses. All of these items come to something like $225,000.
The life of a well when drilled is not long. You get the greatest production from an oil well when oil is first struck. During the first year you get a comparatively big production. During the second year you get much less, and by the end of the fourth or fifth or sixth year the production is so small that it is no longer profitable to operate the well.
The people who invest their money in drilling a well consider that they should be entitled to get back the money they have invested in the well. The government does

The Address-Mr. Ross (Calgary)
make provision to some extent for amortization, depletion and depreciation costs, but these costs are not allowed to be written off fast enough.
The instructions sent to the inspectors of income tax by the department are in part as follows:
The actual cost of pre-production development, including casing (exclusive of the cost of property and surface equipment) shall be allowed on the following basis:
1st year, 30 per cent of cost
2nd year, 20 per cent of cost
3rd year, 15 per cent of cost
4th yeax-, 12 per cent of cost
5th year, 10 per cent of cost
Thereafter 10 per cent until cost fully amortized.
Depletion will be allowed at 25 per cent of net profits from production after allowance of development charges and depreciation.
When a company starts out to drill a well no one can tell in advance what there is in the bowels of the earth. You may drill down to eight or nine thousand feet and get a "duster", a dry well. In that case no investor gets any of his money back. Or you may get a well producing two hundred barrels a day, and from such a well an investor can count on getting about one-third of his investment back, the balance being taken in taxes. You may strike a well which has an initial production- and it is initial production of which I am speaking-of four hundred barrels a day. In that event the investor may get two-thirds of his money back. The remainder is taken in taxes. A production of four hundred barrels a day is about what one can expect from the average well in Turner valley.
I suggest that this is unfair, unjust taxation. When the government revised the tax schedules last year the Oil Bulletin, an oil publication, called in a chartered accountant, a well-known authority on taxation, to make a study of the taxation situation. In his report as summed up by the editor of the Oil Bulletin this chartered accountant found:
(1)	Wells with initial oil flows of two hundred barrels per day would, during their productive life, fall short by between $170,000 and $195,000 of returning the cost of development (some $225,000);
(2)	Wells with initial flows of four hundred barrels per day (the approximate field average initial) would fall short by anything from $54,000 to $133,000 of returning costs.
In brief, under existing tax schedules, no investor can hope to recover his original stake from Turner valley wells in the "average" and "below average" groups; he has a chance of getting his money back with perhaps a very small profit from wells in the "above average" group; and, if his well is fortunate in being one of the big wells with initial allowable of eight Ixundred barrels daily, he may make a fair profit on his investment.

That is the finding of the chartered accountant who was engaged to investigate this matter.
I wish to read an editorial dealing with this matter which appeared in the Calgary Herald of February 5. It says:
Under the present income tax regulations, a Turner valley well has to produce six hundred barrels of oil a day or more to be a profitable investment. There are not many of them.
It is not surprising that under present conditions private investors are not keen to help finance well drilling programmes. If income tax concessions were granted, however, and the field price of crude oil were increased to a proper level, money would again be available for drilling purposes and thus maintain or increase production at a time when oil is vitally required by Canada.
At present the oil situation in Turner valley is desperate. Many rigs are idle. I am informed that there are twenty wells drilling at the present time as compared with thirty a year ago. The oil field is being taxed out of activity.
I suggest to the minister that it will be much better for everybody if this industry is allowed to survive. It will be better for the war effort, because we need the oil. It will be better for the government, because if they kill off the industry they cannot get taxes; if they allow the industry to live, a reasonable revenue can be obtained from it. It will be better for labour. It will also be better for investment, because a depressed industry will be built up and conditions in that area improved.
An order in council was recently passed, effective February 1, 1943, exempting from the war exchange tax and the tariff-
All machinery and apparatus and parts thereof (including motive power and rope) for use exclusively in exploratory or discovery work in connection with, and development, depletion and production of petroleum, natural gas or water wells, or in prospecting for minerals; seamless, lapwelded and electric welded iron or steel casing, tubing and drill pipe for use in connection with water, natural gas or oil wells.
That is very fine as far as it goes, but I should like to have seen it go much further, and extended to the machinery which is necessary in order to separate the oil and gas which come from the well, and the machinery which separates the oil from various impurities, in order to enable something to be done in the way of refining the oil. If, however, the industry i3 to be allowed to live, the change made will be helpful and will be much appreciated by 'the industry.

War Appropriation
A word with regard to prices. An article appeared recently in Maclean's magazine, reading in part as follows:
It is reported that the war transportation costs of bringing crude oil up the Atlantic seaboard are so high that the gross subsidy being paid by the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation is running at the rate of about fourteen cents a gallon.
There are thirty-five gallons of crude oil to a barrel, which means that a subsidy of $4.90 a barrel is being paid by the government. The Alberta operator is entitled to charge only one and a half dollars a barrel at the well head for his oil. Why is the government paying such a big subsidy for bringing in oil from the United States, and yet refusing, to allow our operators to charge more than $1.50 a barrel for oil at the well head? I cannot understand it. If there is any reason, I hope the minister will give it to us. It seems to me that the government could help the industry a great deal by increasing to some extent the price of oil there.
During last session I urged very strongly upon the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) and upon this house that there should be a ceiling on oil leases. I wish now to bring the matter to the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley), particularly, in the hope that he will place a ceiling on oil leases. Prior to the outbreak of the war ten per cent was the highest royalty ever charged by any government in Canada on oil leases. If governments could get along without it before the war I submit they should get along without it now, in view of the urgent need for oil at the present time. But, someone may say, the government of Alberta is only attempting to impose an additional royalty of two and a half per cent on all oil leases, and that is not very much. However, I wish to point out that that two and a half per cent is on gross royalties, and it means a tax of about ten per cent on net royalties, so that it is a considerable burden.
I do not believe there is another industry in Canada which is used so badly at the present time as the oil industry in Alberta.


Mr. FAIR:: Does the hon. gentleman not know that there are farmers in Canada?


George Henry Ross: I am sorry; I did not hear the hon. member's question. If he will call around after the house rises I shall be glad to talk with him.


Robert Fair: I suggested that we have farmers in Canada who might be remembered also.


George Henry Ross: I think the government could be much fairer to the oil industry than it is. I hope the minister will give very careful consideration to the matters I have brought forward. He is a fair-minded man; he has always sfiown that in the house; and if the injustice is once evident to him, and I hope it will be in this case, he will take the necessary steps to have the act amended so as to provide the necessary relief.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Thomas Vien: Perhaps the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) would move the adjournment of the debate until the bill to be taken up is disposed of.


Victor Quelch: I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.


WAR APPROPRIATION
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 6, for granting to his majesty aid for national defence and security- Mr. Ilsley-Mr. Blanchette in the Chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Richard Burpee Hanson: I have a copy of the bill and I have also before me a copy of Bill No. 19 of last session, as passed by the House of Commons on March 26, 1942. I find that the two bills are substantially the same, except that in the bill under discussion, if I may judge from the hurried comparison which I have been able to make, there is a new section 4, "loans authorized". Perhaps when we come to that section the minister will give the reasons for the interpolation of this new section.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section ^-Appropriation $858,000,000.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This bill has just been distributed, and I think the chairman should read the section.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
War Appropriation
[Stage Direction]
On section 4-Loans authorized.
Mr. CRERAR:: Carried.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I object. We have just received the bill. Hon. members have not had a chalice to read it and this is a new section. I asked the minister, before the hon. gentleman who is leading the house was in his place, to explain this section when we came to it. Hon. gentlemen across the floor who are vociferously calling "carried" should restrain themselves, because that is about the only contribution I observe they are going to make to the bill. I ask to have the section read. What is the object of it?


James Lorimer Ilsley: This is the loan section which appears in practically all the war appropriation acts. Evidently it did not appear in the supplementary war appropriation a year ago, but it did appear in the main War Appropriation Act of last session appropriating $2,000,000,000. I do not know why it did not appear in that supplementary war appropriation, but I assume we thought our borrowing authority was abundant without it. My recollection is that the supplementary war appropriation of a year ago was $135,000,000, and compared with the amounts we were voting it was small, and the section was not considered necessary.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That may be the explanation.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is the explanation, yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: All right.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-Orders and regulations.
Richard Burpee Hanson: I cannot remember the explanation given in previous years, and I have not had time to look it up, as to why it was necessaiy for the governor in council to be empowered to make orders or regulations. Has the minister that under his hat, I was going to say, or in his head?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I believe that all the things that the governor in council was authorized to do, all that we could think of, are included in these enumerated subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e). It would be necessary for the governor in council to have those powers, and I assume the general words at tj^e top were put in to cover anything that was not foreseen. The subsections here cover a variety of acts which the governor in council should be authorized to perform. I should expect that this section would be found in all appropriation acts going back to 1915.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I expect it is, but I could not remember the reason.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The powers set out in the subsections are natural and necessary powers for the governor in council to have.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
. Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed. GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. W. E. Harris (Grey-Bruce) for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Graydon, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Victor Quelch: Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne emphasizes the greatly improved situation of the allied nations to-day as compared with a year ago. While the road to victory still may be a long, hard and rough one, nevertheless there need no longer be any doubt in the minds of the Canadian people as to our ability to achieve a final and decisive victory. However, it is essential for us to remember that winning this war is merely the first objective, the final objective being the making of a world peace under which it will be possible to bring to all people the greatest degree of economic and social security. It is well to remember that the soldiers of the last war made a very fine job of winning it, but that our statesmen and politicians made a ghastly failure of winning a peace that had any permanency attached to it.
If Canada is to play her part in helping to bring about that sort of peace, it is high time she put her own house in order. How can Canada be in a position to advise as to methods to bring about social security when she has failed so miserably in the past to provide that security for her own people? The speech from the throne lays a good deal of emphasis upon the need of guaranteeing to the peoples of the world freedom from fear and want. It is interesting to note that the speech from the throne of 1919 also laid a good deal of stress upon the need for the introduction of measures to provide for the welfare of the people. That speech reads as follows:
Further important measures, designed to promote the welfare and prosperity of the people in the new era of reconstruction, social as well as material, upon which the world has entered, will be recommended to your consideration.

The Address-Mr. Quelch
I note further that the speeches of the mover and the seconder of the address on that occasion also dealt with the need for the introduction of measures looking to the welfare and prosperity of the people. We know to-day how miserably those measures failed to bring about that sort of security. Have we any reason to-day to have any greater faith in the promises that are being made at this time with regard to post-war reconstruction? I suppose some people may feel a certain amount of confidence in the ability of the government to provide that security, as a result of the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) before the Canadian federation of labour on October 9 last, when he said:
Fortunately, we are also learning that the only limit to our productive capacity is the limit of our resources, and our will _ and skill to use them to satisfy human need instead of human greed.
Apparently the Prime Minister has a new vision in this regard. Is it not strange, however, that he had to be in power for twenty years before realizing the truth of that somewhat elementary, though fundamental principle? We emphasized that fact consistently from 1935 to 1939 and were ridiculed for our pains. The interesting point to note, however, is that this is not a new principle. Its soundness was recognized from 1914 to 1919. We never could have won the last war if we had not recognized the truth of that statement. I recall David Lloyd George saying that all the money needed in order to fight that war would be found. He pointed out that wars were not lost through lack of money but only through lack of ability to produce. Then in 1919 Mr. Lloyd George, during the course of a speech regarding the promise of a new world, showed only too clearly that he recognized the soundness of that principle. I quote from a report of that speech which appeared in the Western Producer of January 7:
Millions of gallant young men have fought for the new world, hundreds of thousands died to establish it. If we fail to honour the promise given them, we dishonour ourselves. What does a new world mean? What was the old *world like? It was a world where toil for myriads of honest workers, men and women, purchased nothing better than squalour, penury, anxiety and wretchedness-a world scarred by slums and disgraced by sweating, where unemployment through the vicissitudes of industry brought despair, to multitudes of humble homes; a world where, side by side with want, there was waste of the inexhaustible riches of the earth, partly through ignorance and want of forethought, partly through entrenched selfishness. If we renew the lease of that world we shall betray the heroic dead. We shall be guilty of the basest perfidy that ever blackened a people's fame.
I wonder if anyone would dare to say that the Right Hon. David Lloyd George was any
less sincere when he made that statement in 1919 than the Prime Minister to-day when he talks about a new social order. Some might say, Yes, but we have had a severe depression since that time. But that statement of David Lloyd George shows that there were severe depressions before. Yet we know that according to his own words we have been guilty of the basest perfidy, because there has been unemployment and abject misery throughout this country.
It was undoubtedly the will of the majority of the people of Canada from 1935 to 1939 that better conditions should be brought about. Then what was it that thwarted the will of the people in a so-called democracy? I would say that the reason why the people were not able to achieve the results they wanted was on account of the fact that in the past we have not had a real, live functioning democracy. It is true we have had political democracy; that is to say we have given the people voting power, but we have not given them a similar degree of economic power. And political democracy without economic power is democracy in name only. '
Let me try to explain what I mean by that statement. Democracy is largely a matter of degree, the degree to which the will of the people becomes supreme. Furthermore, the representative principle belongs to the very being of democracy. Then what are the checks on representative government that have in the past thwarted the will of the majority of the people? I would name three main checks: first, the constitution, second, the upper house, and, third, the direct intervention of the people. Of those three I would say the last is the only legitimate check on representative government.
The constitution I take first. I think we may say that where anything greater than a majority vote is required in order to amend a constitution, the will of a minority is enthroned. In many countries it takes two-thirds or three-quarters or even a one hundred per cent vote to change the constitution. When that is so you are allowing less than twenty-five per cent of the people to set aside the will of the majority. I believe ways and means will have to be found whereby an amendment of the constitution can be facilitated when the constitution stands in the way of the demands of the majority of the people. In that regard, however, I appreciate only too well that on various occasions the constitution has been used as an excuse for not bringing in social legislation that could have been introduced in spite of the constitution. In that regard I have in mind the old age pension. We could easily increase the old age pension to
424 '
The Address-Mr. Quelch

thirty dollars a month provided the federal government would assume the responsibility of financing it.
The second check to which I wish to refer is the upper house. In that regard we have two extremes in different countries. In some both houses are elected by the people, and in others one house is elected and the other appointed. In the United States and the U.S.S.R. both houses are elected; in Canada and Great Britain the House of Commons is elected and the other appointed. It is undoubtedly true that where you have a body of men who have been appointed and given the power to set aside the will of the people as expressed by the members who represent them, you have a distinct weakening of democracy. I believe that the upper chamber has long outlived its usefulness and could veiy well be abolished. To people who say these men are getting on in age and need some financial consideration I would reply that they should be given the same consideration as we give other aged people, namely the old age pension.
The third check is intervention by the electorate; that is the right of the people periodically to change their government. Yet it is a strange thing that in spite of the fact that the people have that power we have not enthroned the will of the people. Let me examine that for a few minutes.
The party system is, I think, possible only in a political democracy. It is not possible in a totalitarian state. The party system itself should be the guarantor of economic democracy. The system was evolved as a protest against special privilege; yet strangely enough to-day we find that the two old-line parties have to a large extent become servants of the very people who benefit by special privilege. In the past the main difference between the two old-line parties was the tariff. I wonder whether any hon. member could give any clear definition of the difference between the old-line parties of to-day. I think it was the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) who stated that the pnly difference is that one is in and the other is out; in other words, the difference between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. McGeer) in June, 1938, gave a very clear picture of the situation when he said he never thought it would be his misfortune to sit in a House of Commons where the leader of the opposition was more liberal than some Liberals sitting on the treasury benches. If I had been saying it I would have said, where some Liberals sitting on the treasury benches were more conservative than the leader of the opposition. Both statements
lMr. Quelch.]
mean the same thing. That statement was true in 1938. I believe it is even more true to-day.
When the two main political parties have no clear line of demarcation the result is bound to be a thwarting of the will of the people, because the people have no alternative vote. The result is that multiple parties come into existence, as we have them to-day. Real democracy, embodying economic as well as political democracy, is impossible under the two old parties as they exist to-day. I say that for this reason. Both parties are to a very large extent financed by the same interests. The people become befuddled by the party press and misguided by the independent press-independent only so far as party is concerned, not independent as far as their source of revenue is concerned. Multiple parties are therefore necessary in order to give expression to the progressive-minded people throughout the country. But I believe that the time is rapidly approaching in this country when there will be a realignment of the two main political parties of this country, a realignment representing two distinct ideologies. On the one side there will be those who believe in complete freedom of individual enterprise, rugged individualism, hands-off by the state, survival of the fittest; in other words, those who believe in a type of jungle law. On the other hand there will be those people who believe in a greater degree of intervention by the state in order to protect the people against exploitation by ruthless individuals and corporations. There you have two distinct policies leading to two distinct objectives.
In the first group would be what one might call the Conservative Liberal party, and in that party there will be those people who believe that the prosperity of a nation is to be judged by the size of the profits and dividends of the various corporations. It will be remembered that this is the definition which was given by a former Minster of Finance, Hon. Charles Dunning, in his budget speech in 1937. He pointed out at that time that Canada had reached an era of prosperity, and he said he based that statement upon the fact that the profits and dividends of various corporations had reached a new high level. He said that this was the only true criterion upon which one could base the prosperity of a nation.
In the second group there would be those who are socialistically minded, those who believe that the prosperity of a nation is to be judged by the general level of the wellbeing of the people and who adoveate a sufficient degree of government intervention to

The Address-Mr. Quelch
provide that type of security. I believe that this division will come in the very near future, that it is definitely on its way. I do not believe that we shall have true democracy in this country until the second of these two groups has been placed in power. However, until that time arrives I think it is necessary that members on all sides of the house do everything in their power to get the government to remove some of the most grievous injustices which exist throughout the country at the present time in order to impress upon the people that they are sincere when they talk of a new social order. Furthermore, I think it is up to us to do our best to prevent them from taking steps that will endanger the success of the future peace.
I would say that the success of the future peace is bound to depend upon our ability to make it possible for all nations to give their people the greatest possible degree of economic and social security. The Atlantic charter is supposed to provide for that type of security. I would say that our ability to achieve that objective will depend to a large extent upon the degree to which we are prepared to' adopt the principle laid down by the Prime Minister when speaking before the Canadian federation of labour. At that time he stated that the only limit to our productive capacity was our resources and our will and skill to use them. I have pointed out already that this principle is not new, that it was recognized back in the period 1914 to 1919. It is apparently recognized to-day; yet it was denied during the peace from 1919 to 1939. I am afraid there is every indication that it will be denied again at the conclusion of this war. There are many indications pointing to that very thing.
An important point to notice in that regard is that the statement made by the Prime Minister is only true just as long as there is a nationally managed currency. It would not be true if you were on a gold basis; it would not be true if you were on a gold standard or if you tied your currency to an international currency based upon gold. You are then introducing another restriction which has absolutely nothing to do with the productive capacity of the country.
Take the situation that developed in this country at the start of the war. At that time we were on a 25 per cent gold basis. It was recognized that if we were to have a total war effort it would be necessary to increase our production to its full capacity. Both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance said that no financial restrictions would be allowed to impede that war effort and therefore we were forced off the gold basis. There 72537-28
is not one dollar of gold behind our money to-day. Surely it must be evident that if it is impossible, on a gold basis, to maintain our
production at its maximum capacity in order to put forward a maximum war effort, it will also be impossible to have a maximum peace effort if we are on a gold basis. We would be introducing artificial restrictions.
I do not wish to labour this point unduly. I am emphasizing it because there is every indication that a number of the united nations are intending to become a party to an international currency based upon gold. Among these nations we find the United States of America, Great Britain and apparently Canada. A year ago the Prime Minister denied this fact when I brought this question up in the house. I wonder if he is prepared to deny that fact to-day? I doubt it. This afternoon, when replying to a motion of mine for the production of certain papers, he stated that no commitments had been made, but he was not sure whether or not there had been any correspondence and he would have to get the permission of the United States and Great Britain before he could table that correspondence. Last year he said there had been no correspondence; this year he did not know whether there had been any. In so far as commitments are concerned, it must be remembered that one can say that there have been no commitments right up to the time the signature is placed on the paper. The commitments may be practically in existence to-day although nothing has actually been signed. Again I say that there is every indication that Canada has agreed to become a party to an international currency based upon gold. First of all I should like to refer to a statement which I read in the house last year in connection with the Rio conference. This was reported in the Edmonton Journal of January 21, 1940, and it reads as follows:
Creation of a free international exchange currency to facilitate flow of goods and prevent delay in transactions. It would be on a gold basis and in addition to the American nations, Great Britain, China, the Netherlands, India and all British dominions would enter into the agreement. A pool of allied gold holdings would be created. The Latin American countries would agree to peg their national currencies into the ' free international exchange currency.
I asked the Prime Minister whether or not Canada had any commitments, and he said that Canada had not any commitments and that there had not been any correspondence on this matter. It seems strange that it should be stated at the Rio conference that Canada had become a party or had agreed to such a proposal. At the same time I referred also to

The Address-Mr. Quelch

a speech made by the chairman of the seven-man post-war reconstruction committee, Doctor Cyril James. A speech which he made in Philadelphia is reported in the Toronto Daily Star of September 17, 1940, as follows:
He declared that the United States gold holdings now exceeding $21,000,000,000 were at stake in the war and that their value would depend on who won. A British victory meant continuance of gold as the monetary medium whereas a German victory, as Doctor Funk himself recently made bluntly clear, would mean the setting up of regional autarchies in which gold would be useless except for economic decoration. Another definite reason, if any were required, for Canadians doing their utmost, in war loans and everything else, for the defeat of Germany! One of our greatest industries is gold mining and, to protect our economic order as well as our country and our homes, victory must be assured.
In commenting on that I pointed out that it was quite evident that Doctor Cyril James had a definite opinion that Canada was prepared to return to the gold standard after the war. The Minister of Pensions was in the house at that time and emphatically denied that there was any danger of that occurring. I wonder if the minister would still be prepared to deny to-day that Canada was playing any part in the introduction of an international currency based on gold.
I have two more quotations of recent date which clearly indicate that Canada is at present very much interested in this matter. I quote first from Trend, a Canadian News Letter, published at 231 St. James street west, Montreal. On the back page of its issue of February 5, 1943, under the heading "international currency" I read this:
1.	Great Britain and the United States are agreed on the necessity for continued and rigid control of international currency fluctuations.
2.	Plans are being made for creation of currency control machinery which will include extension of the "stabilization fund" idea and the redistribution of America's vast hoard of gold.
3.	The currency rates of all countries will be tied together, and governed by the rate fixed for the British pound and the American dollar.
4.	Leading nations will ascertain that such rates be maintained, regardless of adverse developments.
5.	A new monetary unit-a "world dollar"- will be introduced for the stabilization of all moneys.
Canada will participate in this scheme of monetary rearrangement.
There does not seem to be any uncertainty with regard to that statement.
To come back to the government, another statement was made over the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's network last year on behalf of the government that the Prime Minister wished to assure the people that just

because "we were curtailing the production of gold it did not mean that the government had lost confidence in gold." What does confidence in gold mean if it does not mean confidence in the gold standard? When you say that you have confidence in gold it means that you believe in gold as a monetary unit. Quite evidently the Prime Minister did not appreciate what his own statement meant when he said that the only limit upon our productive capacity was our resources and our skill and will to use them and at the same time says that he has confidence in gold. You cannot use your productive capacity to the limit when at the same time you believe in that automatic limitation which would exist under the gold standard. I did not think it possible that there could be in the government to-day people who would be prepared to say they still believe in the gold standard. I recall the statement made by Lord Sempill in the House of Lords in November, 1941, that no progressive people anywhere believed in the gold standard, that the only people who believed in it-he should have paged1 the Prime Minister-were museum pieces and gold-bugs. Unfortunately in the past we have had too many elderly ostriches on the treasury benches who have dug their heads so deeply into the sands of reaction that they are unable to face the realities of life.
Here is a statement that merits serious consideration. It was referred to in the Montreal Star of February 2. It is the statement made by Sir Kingsley Wood, Chancellor of the British Exchequer. I quote:
Turning to the future of world trade, the chancellor said:
"We want to secure an economic policy agreed between the nations and an international monetary system which will be the instrument of that policy.
"This means that if any government is tempted to move too far either in inflationary or deflationary directions it would be subject to check."
Mark well the significance of that statement. An international authority is to have the power to check any programme of expansion in any country if it considered that expansionary movement as being inflationary. The international authority apparently would be the sole judge as to whether or not a country's programme was inflationary. Just imagine for one minute what would happen if on that international authority there were men of the type and mentality of the former Minister of Finance of this government, the Hon. Charles Dunning! I recall that time and again in this house during the period from 1935 to 1939, when he was pressed to start on a programme of monetary expansion so as to put unemployed to work in order to build up the

The Address-Mr. d'Anjou
wealth of the country, he made the never to be forgotten reply that it would be crude inflation. That is what he always called it whenever we suggested that the unemployed be put to work on developing the resources of this country to provide a higher standard of living. I remember that at one time the actual sum of $200,000,000 was mentioned, and the Hon. Mr. Dunning became perfectly hysterical at the thought of putting $200,000,000 into circulation to put the unemployed to work. Yet to-day we are bringing down budgets of five and six billion dollars! But remember the Hon. Charles Dunning was held in very high esteem by financial institutions in this country from one end to the other, right through that period from 1935 to 1939. Presidents of banks, loan corporations and other financial institutions all praised the wonderful mentality and financial capacity of the Hon. Charles Dunning. That is undoubtedly the type of man you would have on your international authority, with power to prevent any nation from bringing into force a programme of expansion. It would be prevented on the ground that it was inflationary.
This is supposed to be a war, Mr. Speaker, between the democracies and dictatorships, but if this proposal is put into force we shall have an international financial dictatorship. We shall win the war but lose the peace, and in that event, in the words of the Right Hon. David Lloyd George we would be guilty of the basest perfidy that ever blackened a people's fame, and our sons' sons in less than twenty years from now might very well become engaged in another war, a civil war if not an international war. I have emphasized this fact because when we recall the tremendous sacrifices that were made in the last war and appreciate the tremendous sacrifices that are being made again to-day, we cannot afford to make the same mistake as we made after the last war. Some people will say: That is a matter for the experts to decide. Our troubles of the past have been brought about by these so-called financial experts, and I think it is high time that the people of the country use a little common sense themselves in dealing with the situation in order to make sure that an international financial dictatorship will not be imposed upon this country and other peoples of the world.
My time is rapidly passing. Before concluding, I should like to make a few comments on the amendments. We will support the main amendment; we will also support the amendment to the amendment which has been moved by the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. I might point out that their amendment is very similar to a number of amendments which 72537-28}
this group has moved in the house from time to time since the declaration of war. We have emphasized in the past that we believe in a pay-as-you-go policy. We should realize that the real cost of the war is being met to-day. We therefore believe that the financial cost should be met at the same time. Such a policy, a pay-as-you-go policy, would not reduce the standard of living of the people in the slightest degree. There is so much production available that production can still be made available to the people no matter what the government's financial policy may be. But the great difference between a pay-as-you-go policy and the present type of policy would be that by the end of the war we would not have increased our debt, instead of allowing, as we are allowing to-day, a small percentage of the people to accumulate claims, in the form of bonds, against a very large percentage of the future production of wealth. We contend that this is unfair, because our soldiers are now making the greatest sacrifice they should be called upon to make. When they go overseas they are making what should be considered the supreme sacrifice. Yet, as a result of the policy we have in operation to-day, when our soldiers, our sailors and our airmen come back they will be called upon to help pay the financial cost. We consider there can be no possible justification for that situation.
Mr. J. E. S. EMMANUEL d'ANJOU (Rimouski) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, my reason for speaking at this time, is that I wish to make my stand absolutely clear both before this house and before the whole country'.
On March 26, 1940, the electors of the beautiful constituency of Rimouski conferred on me the great honour of returning me to parliament as their representative. Consequently, I cannot let this occasion pass without assuring them of my enduring gratitude.
I must sincerely say that my reelection by my constituents is due, in a great measure, to the fact that I have always been opposed to conscription. I was opposed to it in 1917, in 1940, and I am still more opposed to it in 1943.
My feelings and my attitude on the ticklish question of conscription have not changed; I remain an unshakable opponent of compulsory military service for overseas and no .power on earth could incite me to alter by a single iota my firm stand on this knotty problem.
During the 1940 election campaign I ran as the official candidate of the King-Lapointe government, opposing conscription for service overseas.
The Address-Mr. d'Anjou

I accepted the official Liberal candidature because I had full confidence in the leaders of the government who were then promising that compulsory military service for overseas would never be enacted in Canada by an administration under their leadership and as long as they would preside over the destinies of the country.
With every reason to believe in the sincerity and frankness of the Liberal leaders, I took the solemn pledge of voting, in this house, against any government who would attempt to enforce conscription for overseas service. I added that I would not hesitate a single moment to vote against my own party if it ever decided to enact compulsory military service for any place outside the Canadian territory. I took this solemn pledge to all my constituents and, God helping, I have kept it and intend to remain faithful to it in the future.
However, the leaders of the Liberal party, forgetful of their formal undertaking toward the electors of the whole country, altered their views and had the majority of the members of this house vote for the hideous conscription measure for overseas service.
First, the government submitted to the approval of parliament a bill authorizing them to hold a plebiscite to know w'hether they should be relieved of the anticonscriptionist pledges they had taken during the 1940 electoral campaign.
Realizing as I did that such a measure, if passed, would inevitably lead to conscription, I opposed it with the utmost energy and I voted against it with great readiness. The bill was passed by a very strong majority and the government took advantage of that fact to order the holding of a plebiscite on April 27 last. As a result of a carefully planned campaign, which took place over the radio and in the press, the government had an overwhelming majority of "Yes" votes in eight of the Canadian provinces, but the province of Quebec gave a huge majority of "No" votes, and I am proud to say that 94 per cent of the voters in my constituency replied in the negative.
What is more, Mr. Speaker, over 700,000 negative votes were registered in the rest of the country.
However, the government gave no heed to that warning, and such a landslide of negative votes did not impress them.	[DOT]
Therefore, a fortnight after the plebiscite, they requested the house to amend section 3 of the 1940 Mobilization Act, so as to extend compulsory military service for overseas.

After a protracted and acrimonious debate, the heinous conscription for service outside Canadian borders was passed by a majority of the members of this house. In keeping with the firm stand I had taken on the plebiscite bill, I voted against the government's amendment enacting compulsory military sendee for overseas. What the Hon. Mr. Godbout, premier of the province of Quebec, had called a " national crime " became an accomplished fact and the crime was consummated. I for one have the satisfaction of having done my duty, all my duty toward those I have the honour and the privilege of representing in this parliament. And to be consistent, I reserve the right to he at variance with and vote against the government whenever they introduce measures or bills conflicting with the principles for the defence of which I was elected and which I will continue to defend in this house.
Mr. Speaker, that is my position, my stand before this parliament and before the leaders of the present government.
Mr. Speaker, I should like for a few moments to deal with the agricultural question, which is of particular interest to me. Agriculture offers to-day our most alarming problem and as representative of an agricultural constituency, whose whole population has remained firmly rooted to the land, I feel it my duty to rise in this debate and defend its rights.
I personally believe that this government has been too tardy in doing its duty to the farmers of this country. Since the outbreak of hostilities, I have been of the opinion that the government did not take the agricultural situation seriously. But now that our military training camps are filled with farmers' sons they seem to realize its seriousness.
In Rimouski county, there are at least 1,400 young men in one military camp. Of these, two thirds are farmers' sons, notwithstanding the fact that during the last session assurance was given by the government that farmers' sons and farm workers would be exempted. That w'as merely a bluff. The farmers and their sons have been subjected to so many difficulties when claiming exemptions that very few, if any, have succeeded in getting them.
Nevertheless, farmers are being asked to increase their production, to produce more and more. I heard the other day a public speaker, an official of the Dominion Department of Agriculture, asking farmers to increase their production of pork and of all kinds of

The Address-Mr. d'Anjou
live stock. He invited farmers to grow more potatoes and to increase their production by all possible means.
But how are farmers to increase their production when they are deprived of the needed help? The difference between agriculture and the war industries is that the first produces life while the latter produce death. Farmers feed not only the civilian population, but also the soldiers who are called to the colours. If our soldiers are to fulfil their duties efficiently, they must be fed and well fed. No matter how well they are equipped or armed, if they are given nothing to eat, what will be their value as soldiers in the defence of their country?
This session, the mistake made by the government since the outbreak of the war is claimed to have been realized and it is suggested that farmers and their sons be exempted from military service. A document signed by the director of the selective service and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) says that henceforth farmers now living on the farm are to be exempted from military service. Is that merely a repetition of what happened last year, is that more bluff? I hope not.
However, if the government are sincere, if they really wish farmers and their sons to remain on the farm, I ask them to go somewhat further and to recall from training camps all the farmers and farmers' sons who are actually under training and to return them to their farms. This the government would do if they really wished to help agriculture which, everything considered, is the mainstay of the nation. The land is the great feeder and if the government really and sincerely wish to show a practical interest in agricultural matters, their first important measure should be, I repeat it, to return all enlisted farmers to their farms. In training camp No. 55, at Rimouski, two-thirds of the trainees are farmers' sons and I ask the government to return these young men to the farm instead of forcing them to pursue their military training.
A few days ago, certain individuals appeared in the constituency of Rimouski. In a hotel in Rimouski, there are, at present, 60 provosts-you may call them by whatever name you please-or military police hunting the defaulters and the deserters, those who failed to report for military service and those who deserted the training camp. I do not condone this policy. I remember too well what happened in 1917 and 1918. We then severely criticized the Union government, because they hunted farmers' sons even in the most remote
forests of the counties and then incarcerated them in the common gaols of the county seats.
I remember seeing 400 young farmers crowded in the Rimouski gaol for failing to report. I wish to ask why the government is acting in this way. Why are they sending these provosts or military police to terrorize our population by hunting farmers' sons who have failed to answer the call for military service in a training camp? What was wrong in 1917 and 1918 is not commendable in 1943, under a Liberal administration. Personally, I condemn this system.
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech delivered by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) the other day. He took pride in being able to state before parliament and the people that of all the allied nations, Canada, with a population of eleven million and a half inhabitants, was the one which had made the greatest contribution to the war effort. Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is a matter for pride. Canada to-day has under arms 700,000 men. She has supplied to her allies not only food but war weapons. Finally, as was said by the Prime Minister, she has made a greater contribution than any other country. Well, this is a proper time for thinking more than ever before, and I wish to say for the second time that we have a good opportunity not only to tell our farmers and their sons to remain on their farms, but to authorize those who are now in training to return home, to go back to the farm. In so doing the government will realize that agriculture is of prime importance and that, more than ever, Canadian farmers must have some consideration from the government and the people's representatives.
Now, Mr. Speaker, even though we are at war, the situation can be faced from a practical standpoint. Mine is not the only constituency where there are rural mail carriers. That is true of most constituencies. I understand that those mail carriers obtain tlieir contracts by tender. That is no reason for paying them an insufficient salary. That is no reason for starving them. Most of these people, especially in these times, and in the winter season, labour under great difficulties, and for them as for the whole population, the cost of living has increased. Therefore, I make a special appeal to the Postmaster General (Mr. Mulock) asking him to consider the case of our rural mail carriers, whose services are extremely valuable to the public, and I am convinced that the Postmaster General will try to improve their condition. The mail service is also inadequate because in some remote sections of Rimouski, mail deliveries
The Address-Mr. d'Anjou

are made only once or twice a week. That is not adequate. I have often asked for more frequent deliveries, but was told: "This is war. Let us win it first, and we will then deal with that matter." Well, Mr. Speaker, after the war the world will not come to an end, and in the meantime those people must live.
When a billion dollar gift is made to England and a further gift is being considered, I fail to see any good reason for the post office department not granting the legitimate claims of these rural mail carriers in my constituency.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate my friend the energetic member for Gaspe (Mr. Roy) for having brought to the attention of the house to-day a question in which I am deeply interested. He spoke of the newly created national war labour board. Even since I became a member I have noticed how in Ottawa French Canadians were being flouted, how no opportunity to ignore their rights is overlooked and in the present instance, I believe the government has been ill-advised in setting up a new national war labour board without appointing a single French Canadian on it. It seems that for one member out of three, namely one-third of the representation on that board, to have been a French Canadian would not have been exaggerated. I was hoping that the government would show more fairness to my compatriots. In this instance, I regret to find that the government has overlooked the fact that English and French Canadians enjoy equal rights in this country guaranteed by the pact of confederation. It is never too late to mend one's ways and I hope the government will appoint a French Canadian to represent us on that national war labour board.
I have made these remarks, Mr. Speaker, with the utmost frankness and I believe I can state as I resume my seat that I have fulfilled my task and -I feel satisfied that I have done my duty.


Mr. G. H. CASTLEDEN (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne falls naturally into two main divisions: first, our progress in the world war and, second, the social problems at home. In both these spheres there are certain aspects which will bear watching very carefully by every Canadian. We remember what happened in 1918, and how it formed the basis for the catastrophe that we are facing in the world to-day. In just the same way what we do in 1943 may easily form the basis for another catastrophe in a few years, with an interlude which will be nothing but a period of rationed poverty, unemployment, want and fear. We must take

steps now to prevent that. Frankly, we can see very little hope either for the prevention of the world war of 1960, or for the solving of our other problems under the old administrations, for the simple reason that neither of the old parties will recognize the fact that basic and radical changes must come about in the economic order.
On the war front magnificent retreats and disgraceful surrenders have been fewer on the western and southern fronts. On the Russian front conditions are much more hopeful. The lifting of the siege of Stalingrad, the recapture of Rostov, the recent brilliant successes of- the Russian winter offensive, are sources of the greatest satisfaction to us and the greatest hope for the allied cause. When the history of this world war is properly written I think it will be said that democracy was saved in 1942 at the gates of Stalingrad. In contrast, however, we had the disgraceful rise of Darlan to power in Africa. Fortunately his rise was cut short, but such things give the world cause for serious thought. There is evidence that there are Quislings in the allied nations; that the Chamberlains have heirs and successors; that the Cliveden set and the Oswald Mosleys are still at large. We have had allied conferences at which China and Russia were not represented.
Canadians are making sacrifices on many fronts. Canadians deserve the right of proper representation in order to bring forward the Canadian point of view at the peace conference; and at that conference these allies to whom I have referred, Russia and China, must sit round the table and have something to say in the establishment of peace and the reconstruction of the world. We must face the possibility that the Atlantic charter may easily become as empty a gesture as the fourteen points of President Wilson in 1918. There are three basic things of which Canadians must make sure at this time: first, that this war will not end until fascism and nazism are completely destroyed; second, that those internationally responsible for this war are brought to justice and prevented from carrying on their plans; third, that the foundations are laid for economic democracy throughout the world as one means of preventing a recurrence of this catastrophe and one step toward giving the rights of the common man to all people. Already there is evidence that there are too many people, even within this country of ours, who fear real social change just as much as they fear Hitler.
The' second phase of the speech from the throne deals with the problems of social security here at home, in these words:

The Address-Mr. Castleden
In Canada, a considerable measure of social security has already been provided through federal enactments establishing annuities, unemployment insurance and pensions for the aged, the blind and for disabled veterans; and through provincial enactments related to accidents, sickness and hospitalization, widows' and mothers' allowances and maternity benefits. There is, however, no approach to a nation-wide plan of social security.
Apparently the government imagines that already we have some large measure of social security. Words like those in the speech from the throne are not sufficient. We must look to the acts of the government for proof of its sincerity; and it is not to be wondered at that the people of Canada are sceptical when they hear phrases such as these used by governments which have administered this country since its inception, and under which this wealthy land has been brought to a condition of debt and destitution. In no land on the globe have the opportunities for good living been more abundant, but nowhere has the failure to provide a good living been so complete. Canadians as a whole consider that they have been completely duped by the old, wealthy and powerfully backed political parties of Canada. Since confederation the administrators of Canada have done two things effectively. In the first place they have handed over the resources of this dominion to privileged groups, and in the second place they have fortified these groups in their position by establishing laws to protect their powers to continue their exploitation.
Such administrations cannot institute real social reform. What is their record? To-day the farmer in Canada finds himself hopelessly in debt. Ilis insecurity is complete; there is fear on every side. No matter how he toils, there is no assurance that his toil will provide him with anything like a decent standard of living. Now in war time he finds that the prices bf many of his commodities are frozen at levels which are below the cost of production. He is constantly urged by this administration to continue the production of his goods; he is encouraged to go into mixed farmihg and to grow more coarse grains.
On March 24 last he was assured by no less a person than the Prime Minister that his labour would be kept on the farm. These are the words of the Prime Minister, as reported on page 1567 of Hansard in dealing with the farm labour problem;
On the other hand, the growing scarcity of labour on the farms and the increasing importance of maintaining, and indeed of increasing food production, has been recognized. This has been accomplished by a fundamental alteration of the policy regarding compulsory military training and service where such service touches persons wholly or mainly employed in agriculture. Up to the present there has been a general obligation to serve, and the responsibility for proving a case for postponement of service has rested with the individual. Under the new regulations, farmers, farmers' sons and agricultural labourers will normally not be obliged to undertake compulsory military training and service. It is realized, however, that in a limited number of cases, men on the farms are not, in fact, essential agricultural workers. If it is established to the satisfaction of the national war services boards concerned that such persons are not essential workers in agriculture, they will continue to be called for service in the appropriate age groups.
What do we find? I should like to read a letter I received the other day which illustrates the fact very well. It reads:
My son Peter-got his call and pass on the 26th of January stating that on 1st February he was supposed to be in Regina. He just sent it back asking for a postponement. Then on February 5 this call or pass came back saying he was to be in Regina on February 8. So went on the 8th.
There is something I would like to know why is it so that Peter my only son I have, and he has no father, just him to work half section of land and do everything still support me and my daughter; and other families around here with three or four boys in one family to work and yet that have a dad able to work. They got their calls before my son and they are still home. Some sent calls back like my son for about two months and had no answer. Some asked for postponement and got it. Why my son had only a week's time between the sending of the call back and receiving it. It sure is hard to understand.
My husband died and I was left alone with young children my son being only nine years. He supported me and my daughter from the age of sixteen years.


Mr. McNIYEN:: Did he put in an application for postponement?	[DOT]


George Hugh Castleden: He did. I should like to read what was reported in an editorial in the Halifax Chronicle on February 1.
On the other hand, the president of the maritime federation of agriculture declared recently, upon his return from Ottawa where he attended joint meetings of federal and provincial agricultural officials, that a conflict of ideas among the heads of those agencies entrusted with the administration of the many phases of food production and distribution was largely responsible for the present state of confusion. This confusion, Mr. Oulton added, was causing additional trouble for the farmer rather than helping in the solution of his problems.
Instead of having a definite, clear-cut policy which would assure each agricultural unit which maintains a certain production that it would be guaranteed some labour on that farm and that labour would be left to it, what do we find? The farmer is left in uncertainty and insecurity. There is no definite policy at all; it is entirely up to these boards. The Prime Minister promises one thing and the boards
The Address-Mr. Castleden

do something entirely different. Cases similar to that which I have cited can be repeated by the dozen. When a farmer does not know how long his labour will be left to him, when his labour will be called up, how can he possibly plan mixed farming or the raising of cattle? Constant insecurity; constant uncertainty I The farmer has to put in all his applications for bonus. After being assured that the government wants all the coarse grain he can grow, he gets busy and grows one of the greatest crops ever produced. But now he finds that he cannot deliver it. He also finds that his wheat crop cannot be delivered. On the day the house opened the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) informed the Canadian people that the wheat delivery quotas in many parts of the country were now up to fourteen bushels an acre, but he did not tell us how many hundred thousands of farmers living in those areas where that quota is established cannot deliver that crop because there is no room in the elevator.
Most Canadian farmers are in debt. That is a problem which will have to be solved before we provide social security for the people of Canada. In many instances one-third of the crop must be delivered in the elevator in the name of the creditor. The farmer produces his crop. He puts it in the granary if he has one. He has done everything he can to pay off his debt. He tries to deliver it but is not allowed to. Surely he has paid his part of the bargain. But he still has to pay the interest on the money he owes until the law permits him to deliver his grain. You see how well the laws are set up always to protect capital. Sometimes, in cases that I have had brought to my attention, he is threatened with foreclosure by the mortgage company for not delivering the creditor's one-third of the crop. But he is not allowed to deliver it; there is no room in the elevator. He has done everything in his power, but he is tied hand and foot.
What is the position of labour? Wages are frozen at levels which represent an income of less than $1,000 a year for eighty-five per cent of the wage-earners in Canada. In Ontario they were frozen as low as fourteen cents an hour in some instances. Basic rates of wages in some of the essential industries in Quebec are from twenty-four cents to thirty-five cents an hour. What has the worker to look forward to? When the war is over, the bonus will be taken off in the interest of the employ-' ing class of Canada. That is why there is unrest in Canada. Labour in many instances works seven days a week, with no holidays, no security for the future. Therefore there is
IMr. Castleden.]
unrest and absenteeism. This government pays lip-service to the right of the workers to organize, but at the same time every stop-block that can be invented is placed in their way to prevent them from organizing. The industrial workers of Canada are filled with confusion; they are frustrated. That is not the spirit which will produce the goods and things needed in this war. The government should bring down legislation making recognition of organized labour and the right of collective bargaining compulsory on every employer in Canada. That is what is done in Great Britain.
Then take the matter of old age pensions. The young and the old, the blind and the crippled, and those who cannot take care of themselves should be the first care of every nation that calls itself civilized and that hopes to have the people look to an administration for social security such as we are told about in the speech from the throne. The most glaring example of the social attitude of the administrations of Canada in the past has been the neglect of these people who are unable to provide for themselves. I should like to read from a letter from one of these men; it will state the matter more plainly than I can myself. It reads:
Dear Sir,-
I am writing to you to complain of the attitude of the dependents' allowance board. We raised our grandson from childhood and who is now in the R.C.A.F.
We have applied for dependents' allowance and as we are both old age pensioners we are informed that they cannot do anything for us.
If this is all they can do after we have given up for the service the boy who helped to support us in our old age, then there is nothing for us to do but lay down as we are not getting the nutrition that we need. This is how we are placed. Out of our joint pension of $40 per month we have $20 rent monthly, light and heat to provide for, so you will readily see what we have left for food, etc.
It means that unless something is done for us that our home will have to be broken up and our hopes of eventide disappear.
Our only son (married) is overseas with the R.H.L.I. and now the grandson is with the R.C.A.F. Our all given to freedom's cause. Myself veteran of world war No. 1.
It is not gratitude or anything else on the part of the allowance board that is shown us. We are only asking for what we consider the right thing for our sacrifices.
What can people expect in the way of social reform when this happens?
Take the field of education, for instance. The failure to establish minimum standards of education and compulsory education throughout Canada for children up to the age of sixteen years is a thing which cannot be

The Address-Mr. Castleden
endorsed by thinking Canadians. The federal government should undertake to see to it that every Canadian is provided with an opportunity to obtain education; that it be made compulsory for children to attend school at least until the age of fifteen years. Furthermore, this government should see to it that the young people of our nation are given an education enabling them to do their part in service toward their fellowmen. Government subsidies and bursaries should be available for our young men and women who show ability in the schools. Some day a government will sit in those benches, a government that realizes that the brains of the young people of a country are the finest national resource and asset of any nation. Some day the training of those young people will not be dependent upon the wealth or-poverty of their parents, upon whether rain happened to fall on a farm for two or three years.


Donald Alexander McNiven: Were not such bursaries provided in 193S?


George Hugh Castleden: How many young men or young women in Canada leaving our public or high schools have had an opportunity to continue their education in a higher field? In the field of social service, Canada's care of its war veterans of the last war and the policies of the soldier settlement board are a blot on the administrations of this country.
There is evidence already that the veterans of this war, even under the highly lauded scheme of the present administration, are suffering hardship and neglect which should not exist. I came across this case in my own constituency. A young man still in uniform happened to be at one of my meetings. I asked him what he was doing now and he told me he had been discharged. I asked him why and he said he had been a motorcyclist overseas, but that during manoeuvres he had been side-swiped by a truck and had suffered a severe fracture of the bone above the left knee. He said that he had been sent to hospital, but that unfortunately cancer of the bone had set in and he had been returned home. He had been undergoing treatment, and when I asked him what pension he was receiving he said none at all. I asked if he had received a clothing allowance and he said he had. I quote from his letter:
I have received 28 or more treatments and have not received any since, only that I had to report back at the hospital in Regina every month since. Received the treatment in Regina Grey Nuns hospital. They quit giving me treatments on October 16.
I have spent on travelling, November 16, $8.10 and on December 18, $8.10, and now again
on February 18 will cost me another $8.10, which will amount to $24.30 on travelling alone and expenses besides cost me $7.50.
In another letter, he says:
Why should they cut my pay off and not start my pension as I was in to see them once about it and wrote twice and no answer or anything? What would be your opinion? Also they took my overcoat and overshoes away.
When I drew this matter to the attention of the board here I must say that they took immediate action. They arranged for an immediate investigation' of the case and placed the man on temporary one hundred per cent allowance, and the authorities were notified. Any government with such a long record of failure in the social field does not deserve nor will it retain the confidence of the people.
For those who are so smugly satisfied with what our governments have done in the past, I should like to read an extract from a pamphlet entitled, "Health on the March" which was issued by the Canadian federation of agriculture. In dealing with what has been done in New Zealand it said:
The results of New Zealand's plan for social security are already showing a great increase in the birth rate. For instance, when the labour government came into office, the birth rate was at its lowest level, 16-17 per 1,000 of population. In 1937, it rose to 16-64; 1937 saw a further rise to 17-29; 1938 to 17-93; 1939 to 18-73. After the maternity benefit was introduced in 1940, it rose to 2i-19; and 1941 to 22-81.
The story told by these figures is a tribute to the labour government, in a period in which the birth rate is still declining in most countries of the world. There has also been a decline of absenteeism in industry, due to illness; and an increased rate of production.
This is a lesson to us. Here we are, with the heritage of one half of a continent, and a totally inadequate population to develop it. You would think that we would have come to our senses long ago, and developed our human resources to the utmost.
Referring to the soviet union, the writer states:
From a condition of revolution, famine and disease; utter poverty; with 90 per cent of their people unable to read or write, they sprang from the age of candle-light, skipped the gas-light age, and emerged into the electrical age in a few years. What has been accomplished since 1922 is almost unbelievable to us, who are accustomed to the slow process of evolution of capitalist states.
And again:
It seems to me that the following four points represent the most characteristic features of the soviet health system. 1. Medical service is free and therefore available to all. 2. The prevention of disease is in the foreground of all health activities. 3. All health activities are directed by central bodies, the people's commissariats of health, with the result that 4. Health can be planned on a large scale.
The Address-Mr. Castleden

There can be no doubt that the soviet system of social insurance is infinitely superior to any insurance system in capitalist countries. The costs are what they should be, part of the cost of production. The benefits are infinitely greater than under any other insurance scheme. The worker is guaranteed complete medical service, he is given social security. He is entitled to it because, after all, he is creating the values that make such a scheme possible.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Who wrote that?


George Hugh Castleden: A former minister of health of the Alberta government, I believe. That is the soviet union, the country that is doing so much to save democracy to-day, the country that is showing such surprising reserves. The Canadian people, learning this, will not go back to the old regime of unemployment and want. The men who return from this war where they have risked everything to save and extend the democratic way of life will not be frustrated in their efforts to obtain a decent livelihood. There will be no constitutional difficulties placed in their way, difficulties laid down by the dead hand of the past in such things as the British North America Act. The laws of the land made to protect financial and industrial exploiters must be changed in a democratic way to suit the new order.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) seems to have started a sort of blitzkrieg in the house when he proposed representation in the House of Commons for the armed forces and recommended that the elections act should be amended to that end. I endorse what he said in that regard. The war of 1914-1918 was won on the battlefield, but the peace was lost to the politicians and the international bankers. I believe that the armed forces should have representation in the House of Commons. They should be permitted to nominate their candidates freely and to have free discussion of the issues within their own units. That was denied to them before, although they had the right to vote in the election of 1940. Their representation in the house should be in the same ratio of population that determines the election of members in the various constituencies throughout Canada. In this way we shall get the opinions, hopes and aspirations of the rank and file of the men and women of the armed forces who are doing their bit so nobly to-day. We want their voice heard in the reorganization of the world.
The old economic order is utterly incapable of giving security or freedom from want and fear. Economic democracy must be established. By that we mean that the resources
I Mr. Castleden.]
and the machinery of production of the nation must be democratically owned by the people and operated for the people. Then each person will be given his share of the nation's wealth in cultural advantages and economic security to satisfy his needs, and that in turn will be the incentive which will draw from each according to his ability to give. The economic and social well-being of the people will be the first duty of the state. Then and then only will there be an end to fear and an end to need. Then we shall have a state where fear cannot exist, and where health, education and recreation will be a national achievement. Then the old and the young, the crippled and the blind, shall live without fear, and those who work, being the creators of all wealth, shall have a claim on that wealth to satisfy their human needs before capital be permitted to take its toll. Such a programme determined by Canadians in annual democratic conventions, democratically controlled by those who toil in Canada, is the aim and objective of this party. A democratically elected council in the province of Quebec recently discovered that the milk distribution in its area was ineffective and wasteful. They decided to set up a municipal milk distribution plan. The farmers who supplied the milk then got more for their product; the people who consumed the milk got the milk cheaper; the people with the lower incomes got more milk, and they are the ones who need it most. I suppose my hon. friends to my right would call that socialism. Well, if that is socialism, I am pleased to be called a socialist. To those who fear such a programme, who fear for the rights of property, I will give this assurance:	They will be permitted
to own anything except the right and the power to exploit their fellow men.
The amendment which has been moved by the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation reads:
And further we regret that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to take the necessary action to achieve a total war effort by neglecting to apply the powers contained in the National Resources Mobilization Act to war industries and financial institutions in the same manner as they are being applied to the mobilization of man-power fey military service.
Those are the principles which we must follow in time of war if we are to fight a full and proper war, and when this war is won those are the principles which, being established in a democratic way, will make possible equality of opportunity in time of peace, just as there should be equality of sacrifice in time of war.

The Address-Mr. McNiven


Donald Alexander McNiven: Mr. Speaker it is not my intention to run the whole gamut of the speech from the throne or to embark upon a review of world events. The speech from the throne has been discussed at great length, and it has been approved and condemned, eulogized and criticized. It has been called apt and inept, depending on the mood of the speaker and his political complexion. I intend to discuss but three paragraphs of the speech from the throne, and to discuss them briefly because there will be another opportunity to develop them at greater length.
At the very outset I should like to express my personal thanks and my own appreciation to the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Mac-Nicol) for his continued interest in western Canada and in the province of Saskatchewan. The hon. gentleman has employed the time during the recess in visiting our western provinces in order to cultivate an all-Canadian viewpoint, and from personal experience he has found on the rolling prairies a home for countless millions in the future. And that hope is based upon what? He there finds the finest and largest continuous stretch of good agricultural land that lies out-of-doors anywhere. He has carried his explorations further. He has come to agree with us who reside on the prairies that ours is a badly balanced economy. In northern Saskatchewan, following those two great rivers, the North and South Saskatchewans, he has found potential power sites which will support industry to be established in the years to ctme. He agrees with the hon. member for The Battlefords (Mr. Gregory), wdio described the gas fields that have been developed at Lloydminster, which could and should be used as a basis for industrial development; with the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Evans), also from our province, who knows all the deposits of pottery and building clays inexhaustible in their extent; with the hon. member for Wood Mountain (Mr. Donnelly) in whose constituency are to be found huge deposits of china clays equal to the best to be found in the county of Kent, England; and with the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) who will take ten minutes off any time to elaborate upon the deposits of firebrick clay to be found in his constituency, and who will tell you, along with the hon. member for Davenport, that all the firebrick used in the fire boxes of the engines of the Canadian Pacific and Canadian National railways in the west are manufactured' south of Moose Jaw. If we go further south into the constituency of Assindboia, the hon. member (Mr. Tripp) rejoices with us that in, his constituency there are twenty
billion tons of lignite coal, with an overburden of from 40 to 150 feet. The value of that coal is emphasized in a little book I hold in my hand entitled "Brown Coal and Magic", It tells the story of how the brown coals of Australia have been developed and used to support cities of half a million-, and- their whole industrial development is based upon that coal. There is in the Estevan area a potential development of power in unlimited quantities. Not only that, but the coal we have in southern Saskatchewan is superior to that of Australia. Australian coal has a moisture content of 65 per cent, and ours has a moisture content of 30 per cent. Once again may I point out that the whole industrial development of Germany is based on the brown coals of that country. I need refer only to the dye industry and the chemical -industry. We have not even scratched the surface of this great potential natural resource.
Not only has -the hon. member for Davenport done us the honour to which I have referred, but he has done more, and I thank him for it most sincerely. He has come to eastern Canada and told the story to the sceptics, to the men and women who here, a few years ago, would have given the land back to the Indians. We invite him back to our province, and we shall be glad if he will continue his speeches in eastern Canada. I can assure him that he will have an evergrowing and ever more appreciative audience.
There is a passage in the speech from the throne to which I should like to make a brief reference. I do so because it is the subject-matter of many communications to myself, many editorials and news items in the newspapers and, I would say, it is uppermost in the minds of ninety-nine per cent of the taxpayers of this country. The passage is as follows:
These will include the further development of the method of payment of the personal income tax in the year in which income is received, thus carrying to its logical conclusion the approach made last year to the collection of taxes on a current basis.
In the popular mind and in the newspapers that plan is associated with the name of Beardsley Ruml, and in so far as the United States of America is concerned it is properly associated with 'him. But in- Canada that plan should be referred' to as the Hsley plan, for in the budget of last year the principle of that plan was introduced, and came into effect on the 1st day of September. For that reason I welcome the passage in the speech from the throne which indicates further progress of the pay-as-you-go policy in the matter of personal income. It will afford relief to a
The Address-Mr. McNiven

very large number of people who do not like to be ini debt to anyone, .even to their own government.
I should also like to make a brief reference to another matter referred to in the speech from the throne:
My ministers believe that a comprehensive national scheme of social insurance should be worked out at once which will constitute a charter of social security for the whole of Canada.
I will not enlarge upon that at any great length, for practically all of those who have preceded me have spoken on it and have agreed with the substance of that declaration in the speech from the throne. In that regard the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden), who preceded me, was no exception; but I must say that the nature of his remarks was decidedly different from the great majority of the contributions to this debate. I know the hon. member quite well; I also know the bon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) and the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas); I delight in having conversations with them, and I assure the house that in my personal conversations with these three hon. members they do not give birth to such statements as we hear from them on the floor of the house. Let me recall some of the remarks which have been made by the hon. member for Yorkton. He speaks of destitution, of Canadians being completely destitute. He speaks of lack of sincerity. He speaks of no assurance of living or of security. He speaks of frustration. He speaks of a blot against this country. He speaks about complaints. He speaks about a long record of failure. One would imagine, from what he has declared just within the last thirty minutes, that he and those associated with him had a monopoly on success, but I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that that is very far removed from the fact. Why, sir, he called upon this government to institute a minimum standard of education, and he criticized them severely 'because they had thus far failed to introduce a standardized1 system of education. Apparently he is not familiar with the British North America Act, which gives the provinces exclusive jurisdiction over education.


Thomas Reid: And I hope it stays there.
Mr. McNIV'EN: The hon. member for Yorkton uses that as a pretext to criticize this government; and then, when I pointed out to him that bursaries and scholarships were provided in the dark days of 1937 and 1938 he said, "And what did they amount to?"
(Mr. McNiven.]
I want to tell him that the educational instir tutions of Canada are being widely used by our young men and young women.


George Hugh Castleden: Would the hon. member permit a question? Could he give me the approximate percentage of students who leave the public and high schools of this dominion and who ever reach a university?


Thomas Reid: Do not answer that.


Donald Alexander McNiven: I will not attempt to. But I know of a great many students who, but for the assistance they have received from scholarships granted by this government and by the various provincial governments, would have been denied an university education.
Again, the hon. member speaks about health standards. I am quite ready to admit that they are not perfect, that they are not as good as we would like them to be. But the tone of all the utterances, both- here and elsewhere, of the group to which my hon. friend belongs,-C.C.F.-is that nothing of that kind is being done in this country. All the hon. gentleman has to do is to go to our own province, where for eighteen years tuberculosis has been treated free of charge, in two public institutions, with the result that our province enjoys one of the lowest mortality rates from tuberculosis of any province or similar area in the world. Our cancer clinic is open to all those who cannot pay. I recall that a few years ago the hon. gentleman cited one isolated case, just as he did here this evening, wherein, he said, some individual had been refused medical treatment. In reply I described his remarks as an insult to the medical profession of our province. I repeat that to-day. We have in our province, in the men and women belonging to the medical and nursing professions, including those engaged in the hospitals, just as fine a body of men and women as will be found anywhere.


George Hugh Castleden: Does the hon. member know how many there are?


Donald Alexander McNiven: Yes; and I would say that fully half of them are to-day in the armed forces. I know that fifty per cent of the doctors from my own city have enlisted.
The hon. gentleman, too, deprecates the fact that provision has not already been made for soldier representation in the House of Commons. In that connection I suppose he would charge the government with lack of sincerity and suggest that they do not desire to recognize the soldiers' rights. But I say, sir, that the province from which he comes

The Address-Mr. McNiven
was one of the first to recognize the soldiers in the last' war and did give them representation.


George Hugh Castleden: On a point of order, the hon. member for Regina City stated that I deprecated the fact that there was no representation of the armed forces in the house at the present time. That is not my statement and I should like to have it withdrawn.


Thomas Vien: That is not a point of order.


Donald Alexander McNiven: Well, sir, I want to repeat that in the fall of 1916-


George Hugh Castleden: On a point of order-


Thomas Vien: What the hon. gentleman states is not a point of order. It is a denial.


George Hugh Castleden: I ask that the hon. member withdraw it.


James Garfield Gardiner: He did not say what the hon. gentleman says he said.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member has not stated anything against the hon. gentleman except to offer an opinion with regard to remarks which he made, and that is perfectly in order.


George Hugh Castleden: I did not make those remarks.


Donald Alexander McNiven: I repeat that in the fall of 1916 or in the spring of 1917 the Saskatchewan legislature made provision for soldier representation in that legislature. Liberalism recognized it as a principle then, and three members were elected, two from the active forces in France, and the third from those on active service in England. So that the hon. member does not have to go beyond the confines of our own province to find full recognition of soldiers' rights in the matter of representation.
The party to which I belong, as well as the province from which I come has expressed itself recently on this matter of social security, and I cannot do better than read to the house a resolution that was passed at the annual meeting of the Saskatchewan Liberal Association on January 12 with regard to the subject.


Mr. GILLIS:: What year was that?


Donald Alexander McNiven: 1943.


Ernest Edward Perley: After the Winnipeg convention.


Donald Alexander McNiven: If I may deal with the interrupters in order, substance of the interruptions being the same namely, the suggestion that it was a last minute conversion to the policy of social security, may I ask the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) to take the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) into the corridor after the house adjourns, and tell him what has been done in the way of social security in our own province over the last twenty-five years. Let him tell that hon. gentleman of the policies introduced there. They do not go as far as we would have them go, I will admit, but the principle has been recognized, and it will be developed and carried along until the day comes, we hope, when proper provision will be made for all those who find themselves in unfortunate and difficult circumstances.


Mr. ROWE:: There was not much progress until the Winnipeg convention.


Donald Alexander McNiven: If the hon. member for Qu'Appelle will take the hon. member who has just interrupted and give him a lesson in what has taken place in our province he will not be so satisfied as to the merits of his position.


William Earl Rowe: We talked it all over at
Winnipeg.


Donald Alexander McNiven: Then if they talked it over at Winnipeg I give the hon. member from our province credit for bringing his party up to the standard which has already been attained by the Liberal party.


William Earl Rowe: Give him the credit he
deserves, so long as we arrive.


Donald Alexander McNiven: I hope you do arrive. We shall welcome help in any direction which will accomplish a measure of social security for those who deserve it and are unable to provide it for themselves.


William Earl Rowe: I expect the hon. member will be with us before it is over.


Donald Alexander McNiven: When I read this resolution by hon. friend will wish that he had had a better lesson before he reached the Winnipeg convention. This is the resolution:
Whereas the present and future generations are greatly indebted to the pioneer for much of what we enjoy to-day;
And whereas the interests of Canada are best advanced by a healthy and robust citizenship;
And whereas the youth of Canada constitute its greatest asset;
And whereas the home is the foundation unit of every worth-while citizenship;
And whereas national strength is achieved proportionately as a nation assumes and per-
The Address-Mr. McNiven

forms its maximum duty to the aged, the pioneer, the unfortunate, the youth and the home:
Therefore be it resolved that the council of the Liberal association for the province of Saskatchewan unequivocally pledges the Liberal party of Saskatchewan to a policy of social security effective immediately, and the Liberal party will recommend to the Saskatchewan and dominion governments that such a policy of social security, without limiting the scope of such policy, shall include:
1.	An immediate increase of $5 in the monthly payment presently payable under the Old Age Pensions Act, and that a study of prevailing conditions applicable to the old age pensions be forthwith undertaken to determine the schedule of monthly payments which will provide an improved standard of living.
2.	An increase of the maximum annual income of the pensioner under the Old Age Pensions Act from $360 to $500.
3.	A progressive reduction in the age limit now fixed by the Old Age Pensions Act in order to provide openings in employment for the men and women now in the armed forces of Canada and likewise those engaged in war work.
4.	An adequate allowance to widows with small children and in particular those with large families to enable such widows to devote their time and attention to the care and upbringing of their children.
5.	An increase in the allowance presently made for each child under the mothers' allowance act.
6.	A substantial increase in the schedule of payments now made to sightless persons, together with improved facilities and greater opportunity for the training and advancement of those sightless persons who are below the age limit.
May I pause here to make this observation. It was this government that in 1927 introduced old age pensions. It was this government that, in 1937 or 1938, provided pensions for sightless persons. And now members have the temerity to charge this government with lack of sincerity and lack of consideration. It has not done all that we should like to have done, but surely it is not subject to that charge in any event. To continue:
7.	That a dominion-wide system of compulsory old age insurance be worked out and adopted at the earliest possible date with a variable age of retirement.
8.	That a dominion-wide system of compulsory contributory health insurance, or alternatively a dominion-wide contributory plan making provision for medical care and hospitalization be worked out and made effective at the earliest possible date.
9.	That the present scheme of unemployment insurance be carefully supervised in order to iron out existing inequalities and to extend its benefits to an ever-widening circle of employees.
And that for the purposes aforesaid the provincial and dominion governments assume by agreement their fair share of the financial responsibility involved, or alternatively that the government of Canada obtain the necessary authority by way of amendments to the British

North America Act to enable it to introduce legislation designed to give the widest possible security to the aged, the unfortunate, the youth, together with the largest possible measure of protection for the homes of Canada.
There stand the Liberal party of Saskatchewan, prepared to implement those parts of this scheme that lie within their jurisdiction. They have not carried it to the length they would wish, but they are looking confidently to the time when adequate provision will be made for those who are unable to take care of themselves and when the Liberal party of Saskatchewan will be in a position to implement that programme in its entirety.
With' regard to those who have criticized this government concerning old age pensions, I should like to hear from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) as to what, if any, representations have been made to him by the provinces since he declared in this house in November, 1941, that he would be willing to receive and consider any representations that might be made by all or a majority of the Canadian provinces for an increase in old age pensions. Not ' so long ago I saw in the press that the eastern provinces had not made any such representations though, if I know the Minister of Finance as I think I do, once having made that statement he will stand by it; and when the Canadian provinces, whose responsibility it is to care for aged persons, come to the dominion government they will be received by a gentleman who will listen to their plea. I am in favour of an increase in the old age pension. I have great respect for the pioneer, for the old man and the old woman, and I do not think we in this house, or the young men and young women of this country, should ever be allowed to forget the contribution that has been made to the development of this country by those old people. Much of what we enjoy to-day in our cities, our towns, our villages, our schools, in connection with our highways and so on, we owe to the enterprise, initiative, courage and financial contribution of many of those men and women who have since fallen upon evil days.
I was interested in reading a pamphlet issued by the much maligned public information department, called "Canada and the People's War," which I find replete with information. It gives an historical survey of the development of the armed forces and the industrial life of Canada, and after a perusal of this pamphlet there is no reason why every man and woman in this country should not be fully informed as to what Canada a>t war has accomplished. Canada has been at war for some forty-one months. A hurried review of the twenty years that preceded the declara-

The Address-Mr. McNiven
tion of war reveals that Canada had no foreign policy as this is known in other coun-' tries. Canada maintained1 no diplomatic service in the European capitals, nor was Canada concerned in any of the intrigues that went on there. Time and again during five years preceding the war the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) stated that we have no commitments in Europe. Canada was not anxious to secure an improved position in the capitals of the world by arranging for the marriage of the Prime Minister, or the first leader of the present opposition, Viscount Bennett, or the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie), into some of the royal families of Europe.
This country had no desire for territory which any other country possessed. Aggrandizement was not part of our policy, no matter what party was in power. Ours was a policy of being willing to trade, a policy which might be summarized as that of the open hand and the friendly gesture, a willingness to trade with anyone who would trade with us on a reasonably equal basis. For such a policy Canada needed no great armada, no immense standing army, no great aerial fleet, no great industry for the manufacture of munitions and warlike supplies. For these reasons Canada, in common with the other twenty-eight united nations including Great Britain and the United States, was caught totally unprepared for war. At that time the Prime Minister of Great Britain said that it would be three years before the democracies would be ready to meet the hun on his own terms. The Prime Minister of this country concurred in that statement, and made it a fundamental, primary principle of his policy that we should have unity at home as a pre-requisite to a maximum, balanced, continuous war effort from the beginning of the war until peace finally returned. That, sir, has been accomplished in splendid fashion, well within the time indicated by the hon. gentlemen. I distinctly recall during the last three years many people criticized this government for being slow, unwilling, wasteful; for lacking sincerity in the prosecution of the war. But to-day many of those critics are wondering in hushed tones if this government has not undertaken too much, if it has not embarked upon too great a programme for twelve million people. This afternoon we heard the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson), who was one of the severest critics of the government, give expression to a statement of that kind.
I started to say that this is a people's war. We find that in the three years of which Mr. Churchill spoke 721,000 of our young men and
women have rallied to the colours. We find that our output of munitions and the impedimenta of war has an annual value of about 3-7 billion dollars. We find that over a million people, of whom 145,000 are women, are employed in industry, and therefore we in this house, irrespective of our political affiliations, can join in paying tribute to the manner in which labour has worked with capital and capital has worked with labour in order to produce a continuous flow of munitions to the various war zones. Truly, sir, it is a people's war. Then, too, we come to the production of food on a threefold front-food for the civilians of this country, food for the armed forces of this country, and food for the nations, the allies of this country. Canadian farmers have responded1 to every call and 'have produced in unbelievable quantities, Which thanks to our fleet and our convoy system have been going across the Atlantic in an endless chain. I want to pay my tribute to our farmers for what they have accomplished and also to pay whole-hearted and sincere tribute to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) for his guidance and planning and direction of that effort which has given such surprising and marvellous results.
Then in the matter of finance, there is scarcely a man or woman in this country who three years ago would have believed that Canada could bear and would submit to taxation in the huge amounts now required to meet our war expenditures. There are very few who would have even suggested that this country was capable of producing the immense sums of money which have been subscribed for the three victory loans. When we realize that Canada's vote for war purposes in the fiscal year 1942-43 with the supplementary estimates is approximately three times the entire amount spent by Canada in the whole of the last war we have some measure of the accomplishment of the Canadian people in financing this war. Truly, sir, it is a people's war, and the taxpayers of this country have responded nobly.
Every province is making its comparable contribution to this meritorious result, not even excepting the province of Saskatchewan, which has been so loudly berated this evening. Sometimes, because of the addresses delivered from time to time during the last six or seven years from the C.C.F. section of "the house our province has become known as the "orphan Annie", the poor relation, the unwanted child, of the Canadian family; some even go so far as to say, give it back to the Indians. But in those self same three years of which I speak, our province had recruited to the end of October 53,900 soldiers for the
The Address-Mr. McNiven

armed forces, and recruits have been pouring in since then at the rate of twelve hundred a month. I mentioned a moment ago that this is a people's war, irrespective of class, race or creed, and is so regarded in our province. There comes to my mind a citizen of the town of Wolseley, a French Canadian with seven sons, all of them in t'he armed forces, and Rudolph Deutcher, a German farmer at Odessa with eight sons, of whom six are in the armed forces, the seventh in an important war industry and the eighth impatiently waiting on the calendar until he can join his brothers. I think of a Jewish family at Kamsack with five sons in the armed forces; I think of old Mr. Reinlander in Regina, born in Russia, with four sons in the armed forces. My mind goes back to that sunny afternoon of August 8 with the Prime Minister present in our city when two women were presented to him-Mrs. Muirhead, of Estevan, of Scotch-Irish origin, and Mrs. Uren, of Regina, both she and her husband born in Austria. These two women were, presented to the Prime Minister and received from him his personal thanks and the thanks of the people of Canada because each of them had six sons and two sons-in-law in our armed forces.
I am using only a few illustrations, but I have no doubt every hon. member can multiply, times without number, illustrations such as I have used. I want to emphasize again that in our province and, I believe, in every province, this is a people's war, irrespective of class, race or creed.
This province of ours, sometimes known as the "orphan Annie" province, has been pictured as the special domain of the mortgage companies. What I protest against most vigorously is that the other side of the picture is never given by the C.C.F. section of the house. For their information and1 the information of hon. members generally I say that we in Saskatchewan are proud of our province, and I am going to put on the record some statistics in order to show what has been accomplished in the matter of production and -the increase in the last three years:
Production in bushels 1939	1942
Wheat	
271,300,000	335,000,000Barley	
26,000,000	92,000,000Oats	
112,000,000	255,000,000Flax	
1,250,000	10,500,000Rye	
9,300,000	15,000,000
As to cattle, hon, members will remember the year 1937 when 375,000 head of our cattle were slaughtered because we had a complete crop failure on account of the drought. In 1939 Saskatchewan marketed 172,865 head of cattle, and in 1942 marketed 256,186. As to

hogs, listen to this: in 1939 we marketed 312,188; in 1942 we marketed 964,622. In the same period the annual marketing of sheep has increased from 63,807 to 88,908, and the production of creamery butter has increased from 25,000,000 pounds to over 41,000,000, pounds.
The farmers of Saskatchewan heard the call. Canada required butter, and they answered it by an increase in production of nearly 100 per cent. In 1935 our production of honey was a little over a million pounds. In 1942 it was approximately five million pounds. In lumber our production for 1939 was 37,974,000 feet, and last year it was 125,853,000 feet.
With regard to coal, of which I spoke a little while ago, the production in 1939 was 959,595 tons, and in 1942, 1299,891 tons, or an increase of 340,000 tons, and there are people all over western Canada who are grateful, on nights such as this, for that increased production.


Mr. R. W. MAYHEW (Victoria B.C.):: If I fail this evening in extending the usual compliments to the mover and the seconder of the address, it is not on account of a lack of respect for those two hon. gentlemen, or for the uniform they wear; it is not because I have not a full appreciation of the contribution which they have made, but simply because so many previous speakers have paid compliments to them in a manner which I could not do. Therefore I shall let it go at that. Because of the time at my disposal I will change almost completely what I had intended to say. I should like to finish before eleven o'clock. I had hoped to use practically all my time on the speech from the throne itself, because I consider that this document will go down in history, either as one of great credit to this government or as one that will condemn it.
The other evening the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) said that it was a barren statement, but I do not agree with him. I think it has everything in it to make us proud. If we follow it out it will make for us a great nation, one of which we shall be proud, one worthy of the sacrifices of those who have gone before and of those who are fighting for us at the present time. But if we allow trivialities and politics to interfere with our path of progress, then we may easily expect confusion. I think we can say of this, to use the words of Robert Service:
The choice is ours, to make or mar
To count the ties, or drive a motor car.
If we choose to follow what is set out in the speech from the throne we can make out of it something worthwhile. But I shall not

The Address-Mr. Mayhew
say anything more about it at the present time because I want to deal with some other matters.
One thing about which I want to make my position clear is the pay of our junior officers in the army. The other night the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Ross) had something to say on this subject, with all of which I agreed. But there are some things he did not say which should be said. Most of the young men going into the armed services are leaving positions of importance. Many of them are professional men, and they are sacrificing much in the way of remuneration in
men upon whom we must depend for leadership; they are the type of men whom we would want our sons to follow when they are in the army. We should not expect such men to make a double sacrifice or more than is necessary. I think this government could well afford to exempt these junior officers from payment of income tax. I have before me a statement giving the net pay of all officers in the army from colonel to class C sergeant, covering single men, married men, married men with one dependent, and married men with two dependents. I should like to have the privilege of placing this on Hansard. The statement is
order to do their duty. They are the type of as follows:
Net Available Monthly Income
Single
Lt.-Col	
$185	89Major	
154	02W.O. class I Grade A	
150	56Captain	
133	67
W.O. class I as referred to
income tax amendment	133	43W.O. II grade A	
117	10Lieut	
108	58S/Sgt. class A	
98	852nd Lieut	
96	97Sgt. class	A	
89	73Sgt. class	B	
82	12Sgt. class	C	
74	51Married	MarriedMarried	(1 Dependent) (2 Dependents)$235	07	$249	73	$264	49197	48	212	72	227	86190	56	202	56	214	56175	11	190	35	205	27173	33	185	33	197	33152	10	164	10	176	10147	80	163	52	179	32133	85	145	85	157	85135	02	150	74	166	46124	73	136	73	148	73117	12	129	12	141	12109	51	121	51	133	51
I do not like to present a statement of this kind without offering some suggestions as to how it can be brought about. I know that in offering these suggestions I shall probably be open to criticism by some of my own friends. I contend that when a man is willing to go into the army and wear the badge "Canada" on his shoulders, once he is found to be physically fit to go overseas, from that time on he should be exempted from payment of income tax. This creates a difference between the man who is in the army and not able to go overseas and the man who is in the army but able to go overseas.
I know those who are at home are doing a mighty fine job; they are making sacrifices the same as the rest of the citizens of Canada, but I do not think they have any right to complain. I do not wish to belabour this point any further because I under-stand that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) will have something to say about the Ruml plan. Probably the solution of this problem will be found in that plan, so that I shall leave the matter at this point.


Thomas Miller Bell: Would the hon. member include merchant seamen as well as young officers in his plea?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I certainly would; I would probably put them first. I am glad the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) is in his seat because I should like to refer to those soldiers who have been discharged from the army on account of tuberculosis. There are two men in the hospital at Victoria who went before the medical board, were attested and examined by the doctors, including X-ray examination of their chest; they went into the army and served for some months, I think for a year, and are now in hospital suffering from tuberculosis. They get no pension or allowance, although they do get treatment. I realize that a number of these men are receiving hospital treatment as well as compassionate allowances.
I have made inquiries about this matter; I have seen Doctor Kincaid, who is in charge of tuberculosis in the provincial government at Victoria. He is an authority on this subject, and he advises me that there is very little excuse for this disease not being determined at the time of enlistment. He says that science has gone far enough that we can determine this pretty well. I think we have reached the time when the onus of proving that a man's health has been impaired, that
The Address-Mr. Mayhew

he has contracted tuberculosis on account of military service, should not be his responsibility but should be the other way around; that the government should have to prove to the soldier that he did not contract the disease while away. These boys get their hospitalization. But when they leave they have no money, and they are compelled to go into the labour market and find themselves a job. They can last only a short time, and then they come back into hospital in a worse condition than before. In the meantime they have been a menace to the health of the people in the community. I know that the Minister of Pensions and National Health is sympathetic, and I hope he will bring in some amendments at this session to cover that situation. [DOT]
I wish to say a word about old age pensions. It does seem too bad that these old people, many of whom have helped to lay the corner-stones of this country, have cleared our farms and helped to build our railroads and practically all the institutions we have, should find themselves living to-day on a bare subsistence. Their allowance is not enough in many parts of this dominion to enable them to live in comfort. British Columbia recently made some advances to give these old age pensioners an extra five dollars a month, and I think the old age pensioners in that province are probably as well cared for as in any province, but I suggest to the Minister of Finance and to the government that at this time they should give these 'old people the cost-of-living bonus. There are many others whom I should like to see receiving the old age pension. I have spoken of that before. Every time I have spoken in this house I have expressed my opinion that we should have in this country a compulsory, contributory, all-in pension system.
There is one other point I wish to make, particularly because I see the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) in his seat. I want to congratulate him upon the speech he made the other day and upon his work as Minister of Agriculture. But I was surprised to learn to-day that his department is not going to give the guarantee which it has formerly given in aid of seed growing in Canada. The people of my district are very much concerned about that. Prior to the beginning of the war most of our seed was grown in the old country and exported to Canada, but at the start of the war the dominion government, in cooperation with the provincial governments, guaranteed a price for certain vegetable seed. I understand that sixty per cent of our vegetable seed is grown in British Columbia, and a good deal of it is grown very close to my own
I Mr. Mayhew.]
home. Our people are concerned about what they are going to do, not particularly about this year's crop, but about the crops of future years. It takes two years to grow this seed. British Columbia thought that this was a matter of national concern and that the dominion government should guarantee the whole subsidy for the growing of seed, but apparently the dominion government is not prepared to do that. I understand that the seed branch at Ottawa sends out men, and when they find a farmer with a suitable piece of land for growing seed they tell him how to go about it and guarantee to take at a guaranteed price, all the seed he produces, but up to date they have never had to buy any of that seed because there has always been a sufficient sale for it without calling upon the dominion government to buy it. I understand that now the dominion government is not going to give that guarantee, but I hope I am wrong.


James Garfield Gardiner: If I might just make a remark, I think the intention is to follow the same plan this year as we followed the previous year, but we have not agreed to pay the whole cost which was asked by the provinces.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: My time is passing and I want to say a word or two on shipbuilding. In 1940 I advocated in this house a programme of shipbuilding. That programme was not started for nearly a year afterwards. But when it was started it went very much farther and very much faster than we expected it would go. Our province is now building more than double the amount of ships that we expected it would, but still that is not enough. We need merchant ships; we need ships that will convoy them across the seas; we need ships that are going to patrol our coasts; and we have not sufficient of any of these three types of boats. I am going to suggest, and I think it is time, that we consider the advisability of converting some of our man-power and some of our steel into the building of ships. We do not need to go very far from Ottawa to find along the railway tracks quite a quantity of materials which, for lack of shipping, we are unable to ship across the seas. True, Mr. Churchill said that we were gaining; that in spite of all the sinkings we had over a million and a half more tons of shipping now than we had six months ago. But I think we should put shipbuilding first on our programme at this time. We should spend every effort upon it. We have at the present time plants wihch are turning out tanks and munitions. If they had to stop and idle for a time in order to allow the steel they use to be used

The Address-Mr. Mayhew
for shipbuilding, they could readily resume work when more munitions were wanted abroad. I do not see much sense in raising huge crops and manufacturing huge quantities of war materials if we find it difficult to transport them across the water. We should devote our efforts at the present time to building more ships. We also need a good many more boats than we now have for our coastal patrol. Almost daily, I was going to say, but that would be an exaggeration, but every week since I have been here someone has written or wired to me saying "the government is going to take my boat for some other purpose than commercial enterprise."
To be quite frank, without wishing to be too critical of our government, I doubt whether the three departments have yet made up their minds as to how much equipment and how many patrol boats are needed on our coast. They will hand out an order for a couple of boats here and a couple of boats some other place, and our yards are running in a hit-or-miss fashion without any programme. I believe it is time that we asked the government to formulate a programme and I would be failing in my duty as the member for the city of Victoria if I did not say so. We need an adequate coast patrol, because all our dangers are not yet behind us.
In conclusion, I will say a word or two about the income tax situation. I shall not discuss it at any length, because I believe that the Minister of Finance will bring in a change as regards the collection of at least the personal tax, and I hope he will also introduce some change in the matter of collecting the corporation tax. I suppose this will be along the lines of the Ruml plan; I hope it is. There is one suggestion I wish to make to him. At the present time he is collecting twenty per cent of the excess profits tax and treating it as a loan to the government. But the people from whom he is taking it have nothing but their own statement as to how much that is. I suggest to him that he could issue some kind of scrip to show what these people have paid in the way of a tax which will be returnable. A better way of doing it than the way it is done at the present time would be to treat the tax as an interest-free loan from the corporations, to be returned to them upon condition that each corporation, after the war is over, submits to the government a plan of development which will modernize or extend its plant, and which is satisfactory to some regional board established by the government for that purpose. The total amount will be a good many million dollars. It would be the first step toward increasing the amount of labour which will be needed in this country for building or
modernizing industries, and, probably, for operating the plants when they are ready. Think, for example how large an amount would be available in connection with out railways alone. I do not think we want the money to be paid in to the government at the present time merely to go back into our hands. I say this although I happen to be a manufacturer, one of those fellows who apparently are not thought worthy of much respect from some quarters in this house. Nevertheless I do not believe the majority of the people wish this money to go back to the corporations to be split up as a melon among stockholders; they would like to feel that it would be put to work for the good of the country and in particular for the good of the district in which they live.
I should have liked to make some observations in connection with rehabilitation matters, but I have sweated enough about even rising to speak at all to-day, and I would rather end my speech here than adjourn the debate, knowing that I would have to rise in my place again to-morrow.
On motion of Mr. MacKinnon (Kootenay East) the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, February 16, 1943