[Stage Direction]
First report of standing committee on public accounts.-Mr. Fraser (Northumberland, Ont.).

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That the names of Messrs. Hanson (York-Sunbury), Green, Ross (Souris), Ward, Matthews and Deehene be substituted for those of Mrs. Casselman (Edmonton East); and Messrs. Anderson, Church, Brooks, Leader and Booth, on the standing committee on public accounts.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	AYhat items of equipment were included in the purchase by the government of the property formerly known as the Winnipeg Winter club, situated in the city of Winnipeg?
2.	What was the value of each of the above items at the time of purchase, and how was said value determined?
3.	AYhat has been done with the above items of equipment?
4.	What was the amount of the total net proceeds which the Winnipeg Winter club agreed to invest in victory bonds as a result of the above purchase (as indicated in sessional paper No. 193), and how was the amount of said total net proceeds arrived at?


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: and hot water urns, 2 ranges, electric,
1	oven toasting Moffat, with warmer, 5 cabinets, glass front, complete with shelves and *cupboards, 1 steam table, complete, cafeteria style, 1 meat chopping block, 2 fire *extinguishers, 1 table, 4 chairs, 1 ironing board on stand, 1 soup kettle, 7 aluminum trays,
8	oven trays, 1 wall clock, telechron, 1 alarm clock, 1 stool, wooden, assorted cookie jars, glass.
Dining room-1 clothes basket, 3 tables, 1 fire extinguisher, 3 rugs, 6 curtains and rods, .16 wall lights (lighting fixtures), 4 chandeliers.
Powder room-1 glass top table, 2 mirrors, 2 clothes racks, 1 rug, 1 fluorescent lighting ifixtuTe, 2 toilets with paper dispensers, 1 wash basin complete with 2 faucets, 1 enamel table,
2	paper towel dispensers, 1 plunger and brush,
3	rubber mats.
Ice lounge-3 fire extinguishers (2-,-gal.), 1 clothes rack, 1 table, 2 drapes, 3 wall lights (lighting fixtures), 8 curtains and rods, 109 locker stools, 18 wall lights (lighting fixtures), 112 chairs (dining room), 16 chairs (ice lounge), 83 chairs (mess), 4 tables, 3 rugs, 1 trilight complete with shade and 200-watt bulb, 5 chandeliers, 104 folding chairs, 12 lounge room chairs, 15 card room chairs, 1 piano with bench, 7 ash trays with stands, 1 vacuum cleaner.
Ladies' lounge-1 carpet 30' x 15', 1 electric fireplace, 8 blinds, 1 buffet, 2 drapes with rods, 1 fire extinguisher, 1 carpet covering stairway down with felt padding, 1 carpet (full length of room) with felt padding, 3 chandeliers,
4	sets of drapes and rods, 1 rubber mat, 12 wall lamps (lighting fixtures), ,1 screen for fireplace, 1 wicker basket.
Badminton courts-1 plant tub, 2 folding screens, 2 water polo scoring boards (goals), 14 tables with screw legs, 12 floodlights with shades with 200 w. to 350 w. bidbs, 2 medicine balls, 6 lamps, 3 extinguishers (2|-gal.), 1 notice board, 3 gym mats, 2 dividing curtains across the whole badminton court, 1 fire extinguisher (2J-gal.),8 round tables (ice lounge), 10 canteen tables, 5 card room tables, 37 dining room tables, 6 serving tables, 2 chesterfields (grey) ladies' room, 4 cushions to match, 1 chesterfield chair (grey), 1 chaise lounge, 1 writing desk (upholstered), 2 wicker stools, 22 cushions (lounge), 12 chairs, settee, cushions to match, 18 octagonal tables, 12 ash tray stands, 3 wicker stools, 5 wicker tables, 4 wicker settees (green), 6 wicker chairs (green), 1 wicker table (green), 8 lamps, 2 flower stands, 1 half table, 1 octagonal table, 6 couches, 1 wall clock (telechron), 3 pr. card room drapes,
9	pr. dining room drapes, 4 pr. ice lounge drapes, 10 pr. lace curtans, 21 card tables, approx. 40 assorted cushions, 1 extension lad-

der (40 ft.), 1 clock (telechron), 1 drinking fountain.
Badminton courts #2 - 27 lounging room cushions, 1 ladies' chair (grey), 6 wicker chairs,
1	set of drapes for ladies' room, 1 lamp shade,
2	settees, 2 chairs (high back), 2 chesterfields,
1	side stool, 4 oak benches (Jacobean), 3 benches with backs (Jacobean), 25 high back chairs, 1 entrance chair (Jacobean), 3 oak tables (Jacobean), 2 writing desks (Jacobean),
2	plant stands, 14 end tables, 2 writing table benches, 1 signing desk, 18 lamp shades for flood lights, 10 sets net standards, 3 chesterfields (upstairs), 3 chesterfield chairs (upstairs), 4 tables for ice lounge, 3 heaters (200 w.), 1 mincer, 12 lamp shades.
Card room-1 carpet, 25 feet by 18 feet;
3	drapes and rods; 8 light shades; 4 wall fixtures; carpet on stairway from lounge; 1 notice board; 1 fire extinguisher; 1 clock, telechron; 4 chandeliers; 2 carpets.
2.	Detailed valuation of each item of equipment is not available but total valuation of $40,000 is included and forms part of the total purchase price of the property.
3.	Instructions for disposal of equipment have been issued as follows: 1 large electric clock 16 inches for use at Naval Service Headquarters, to be shipped to the Naval Store Officer, 1153 Wellington Street, Ottawa; 1 large box of wire coat hangers for issuing to Naval Service Headquarters, to be shipped to the Naval Storekeeper, 1153 Wellington Street, Ottawa; 1 hair dryer with 3 outlets; 1 hair dryer with 1 outlet; 1 hair dryer, to be shipped to the commanding officer, W.R.C.N.S. Establishment, Galt, Ontario; 350 full length lockers, to be shipped to the commanding officer, H.M.C.S. Discovery, Vancouver, B.C.; 2 settees, wine with high back; 2 chairs to match above; 1 settee, wicker, with cushions; 1 table, round; 4 chairs, kitchen; 1 table, octagonal, to be shipped to the commanding officer, Reserve Divisions, Toronto, Ontario; 2 cash registers to be shipped to Naval Storekeeper, 1153 Wellington Street, Ottawa, for accounting at Naval Service Headquarters; 2 chesterfields with two matching chairs, to be shipped to H.M.C, Dockyard, Halifax, N.S. for W.R.C.N.S. personnel; 20 knockdown tables; 80 chairs to match, to be shipped to the Naval Storekeeper, 1153 Wellington Street, for use in canteen at Naval Service Headquarters; 203 full length steel lockers; 274 half length steel lockers; 20 quarter length steel lockers, to be shipped to the commanding officer, H.M.C.S. York, Toronto. The balance of equipment remains on charge to the commanding officer, H.M.C.S. Chippawa, Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Questions
4.	The book value as shown on the last balance sheet of the Winnipeg Winter Club dated April 30, 1942, of $247,942.51 plus the cost of additions purchased since that date, fuel on hand, moving the above excepted equipment, compensation necessary to be paid to employees in lieu of notice, and other expenses incidental to the club's operation; all of which it was agreed should not exceed the sum of $8,057.49, making a total consideration in all of $256,000.
The conditions were that the Winter Club will arrange the discharge of the present mortgage and all other encumbrances against the property, and deliver a clear title together with surveyor's certificate that the building is contained within the lot lines.
It was further agreed that the Winter Club would undertake to invest the net proceeds of the sales, less the amount necessary to discharge the mortgage and other encumbrances, if any, in victory loan bonds, and would undertake to have such bonds registered in its name; and further would undertake to retain, and not dispose of by sale, at least 50 per cent of the said bonds for the duration of the present war, or for a period of two years, whichever period shall be the lesser, but this condition shall not prevent the pledging or disposal of said bonds for the purpose of securing funds to purchase property or equipment for the establishment of new quarters for the club.


PRINTING BUREAU-GRIFFENHAGEN SURVEY
Mr. GILLIS:: 1.	What year was the Griffenhagen survey made of the operation of the printing bureau?
2.	What were the recommendations of these experts for proper operation and economy?
3.	What was the cost of this survey?
4.	Were the recommendations ever implemented?


Mr. McLARTY:: 1.	1919, 1920.
2.	After a thorough and detailed survey of the department of public printing and stationery, these experts submitted reports covering changes in the departmental organization, records, procedure and plant and office lay-outs which were considered necessary to place the department on an efficient operating basis. These recommendations included a proposal for changes in the plant involving an estimated expenditure of approximately $206,000 and an additional estimated expenditure of approximately $70,000 if the distribution office were brought into the Bureau Building. A recommendation was also made
that the staff of the department be reduced by approximately 400 employees.
All these recommendations were submitted by the commission to the governor in council who directed the commission to put them into effect.
3.	$33,689.12.
4.	Yes, with large annual economies in staff and expenditures.


DONALD GORDON
Mr. REID:: 1.	Is Donald Gordon still actively employed or engaged with the Bank of Canada?
2.	How many different boards under the government is he a member of, and what are the names of the different boards with the position Mr. Gordon holds in these?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Mr. Donald Gordon retains the office of the deputy governor of the bank of Canada. He is currently on loan to the wartime prices and trade board.
2.	The wartime prices and trade board- chairman; wartime industries control board-member; national selective service advisory board-member.


BRITISH COLUMBIA FISH TRAP LICENCES
Mr. REID:: 1.	Have any discussions, requests, letters or other communications been received by the Minister of Fisheries, his deputy or any other officials in his department from any person or company in connection with the granting of licences for fish traps either at Sooke, Vancouver island, or other points in British Columbia?
2.	If so, have any assurances been made or given that the granting of any fish trap licences may be considered or approved?


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: The answer to the first question is in the affirmative, and to the second in the negative.


CIVIL SERVICE-EXTRA PAY FOR SUPPLEMENTARY WAR DUTIES
Mr. CASSELMAN:: 1.	Have instructions been issued by treasury board governing the circumstances under which extra pay may be authorized for supplementary war duties on the part of civil servants?
2.	Does the authorization of increased pay outlined in said instructions apply equally to those qualifying as civil servants and those engaged in departments of government not under the civil service?
3.	If not, why not?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Answered by Nos. 1 and 2.
1540	COMMONS
Questions as Orders for Returns



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. ROY:: 1.	Did a number of soldiers of the 7th Division engaged in the construction of a military camp at Medicine Hat, Alberta, leave their work one Sunday morning in December to attend church?
2.	If so, (a) did they return to work after performing their religious duties; (b) was punishment imposed upon them because of their action; (c) what was the nature of the punishment; (d) what were the names of the military men concerned in this episode; (e) what is the name of the officer commanding the men at that time?


Mr. RALSTON:: Return tabled.


COST OF LIVING INDEX
Mr. BRUNELLE:: 1.	What are the articles upon which the cost of living index is based ?
2.	What are the sources of information used from time to time to establish the price of such articles?
3.	How often is information asked for from those sources?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: Return tabled.


LIVE STOCK-FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE
Mr. MARSHALL:: 1.	What is the total number of cattle raised in Canada during the years 1936, 1937, 1938, 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942?
2.	How many of such cattle were reported as suffering from foot and mouth disease in each year?
3.	How many were slaughtered, in each year, under order from the federal Department of Agriculture ?


WAR SAVINGS AND BONDS-SALESMEN ON MONTHLY SALARY
Mr. GREEN:: 1.	What persons, in each province of Canada, in receipt of a monthly salary from the national war finance committee for the sale of war savings certificates, war savings stamps, and/or victory loan bonds, are engaged on a part-time basis and at liberty to carry on some additional business or occupation?
2.	What salary is received by each of such persons ?


BURLINGTON BEACH, ONT., LIGHTKEEPER
Mr. TUSTIN:: 1.	Has an appointment been made to the position of lightkeeper, class 7, at Burlington Beach, Ontario?
2.	If so, at what date was such appointment made?

3.	What is the name of the appointee and what is his previous experience in this type of work?
4.	Upon whose recommendation was the appointment made?
5.	Was this position advertised and was a competitive examination held for it?
6.	What were the names of other applicants for the position?
7.	What experience had each of the other applicants in this type of work?


Mr. McLARTY:: Return tabled.



EXPENDITURES BY PROVINCES IN CERTAIN DEPARTMENTS

Mr. HAZEN:: How much money has been expended since the beginning of the war in each province by- 1. Department of Munitions and Supply, (a) dollar value of contracts, (b) capital expenditures?
2.	Department of National Defence (army) ?
3.	Department of National Defence (navy) ?
4.	Department of Transport, (a) airports,
(b)	seamen's branch, (c) national harbour boards, (d) Canadian National Railways?
5.	Department of Public Works?



CANADIAN HIGH COMMISSIONER IN AUSTRALIA

Mr. TUSTIN:: 1.	When was the Hon. T. C. Davis appointed as Canadian high commissioner to Australia?
2.	What does he receive annually in such position for, (a) salary, (b) expenses, (c) other allowances and accommodation?
3.	Is he a member of the Saskatchewan court of appeal?
4.	When was he appointed to such court?
5.	What is the yearly salary of a member of such court?
6.	How many members of such court are actually engaged in the work of such court at the present time?
7.	What is the total composition of that court ?
8.	Has the Hon. T. C. Davis tendered his resignation as a member of the said court?
9.	Was the Hon. T. C. Davis chairman of the board of review in Saskatchewan for any period?
10.	If so, for what period was he such chairman and what sums were paid to him by way of per diem allowances for such work in addition to such salary as a judge?
11.	What additional sum was paid to him for travelling and other expenses in such position?
12.	Was the Hon. T. C. Davis a deputy minister of national war services in the federal government?
13.	If so, for what period was he such deputy minister and what sum was paid to him by way of per diem allowances in addition to his salary as a judge?
14.	What additional sums were paid to him for travelling expenses in such position?

Canadian Forces



WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD-IMPORTS OF FARM MACHINERY

Mr. REID:: How many permits were issued by the wartime prices and trade board for the importation of farm machinery during 1942, giving details of the various kinds of farm machinery for which permits were given, as well as the various companies from whom these were imported with the numbers of and value from each company?


Mr. ILSLEY:: Upon looking at this order it would seem to me that some information is sought which might be of a confidential character. Subject to that qualification I should be prepared to have it pass as an order for return.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Passed as an order for return, subject to the reservation made by the minister.



GOVERNMENT-OWNED ELEVATORS UNDER LEASE TO PRIVATE INTERESTS

Mr. PERLEY:: How many government-owned elevators, interior and terminal, are under lease to private grain companies or private interests and what are the terms and particulars of the lease in each case?



OTTAWA WAR-TIME STAFFS-NUTRITION

Mr. BRUCE:: 1.	Has a survey been made by the government of the adequacy of the feeding facilities for the extra war-time staffs now doing government work at Ottawa?
2.	Has the government's attention been drawn to the advantages which would accrue in the way of, (a) better nutrition for the workers; (b) greater cleanliness of service because of modern equipment; (c) saving of time of the workers; (d) greater economy in fuel and supplies from the operation of large restaurants?
3.	Have restaurants or cafeterias been provided by the government for the use of the staffs working in various government buildings in Ottawa?
4.	What is being done in respect of this at the present time?



CANADIAN FORCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to ask a question of the Postmaster General. I note that the Toronto board of control is asking the Postmaster General to investigate charges that Canadians overseas have not been receiving parcels from home, and have received parcels which have been opened prior to arrival at their destination. According to the press dispatch one of the members of the board of
control stated that thefts had increased until it was now estimated that only sixty per cent of the cigarettes sent to Canadian soldiers have been reaching them. If these statements be true, it would appear to indicate that a serious situation exists. I should like the Postmaster General, if he is now in a position to do so, to comment on the statements and indicate what steps his department is taking to ensure safe delivery, subject to the usual ocean risks, of all mail and parcels addressed to our armed forces in other parts of the world.


Hon. W. P. MULOCK (Postmaster General):: I saw the press report and heard the radio news, but as yet no resolution has been received by the department or by myself. I wired the board of control at Toronto, and also controller Fred Hamilton, who made certain charges, asking for particulars, and asking that they forward the information to me. Of course I shall make a full statement, but in the meantime I would say that the reports received from officials in the postal corps overseas, and from officials in Canada, do not bear out the statements appearing in the press report.



LEAVE TO SOLDIERS FOR WORK ON FARMS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Layton Ralston: Yesterday the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lockhart) inquired with regard to the terms upon which agricultural leave is being granted by the department. The' terms of this leave are set out in a circular letter which was sent to the general officers commanding both the Atlantic and Pacific commands, the commanders of Borden and Peta-wawa camps, the general officers commanding the sixth, seventh and eighth divisions and the district officers commanding. I suggest that perhaps the best thing to do would be to table the circular letter and ask, with the leave of the house, that it be printed in Votes and Proceedings.
May I just say that I do not want the hopes of the members of the house, or those who are engaged in farming, to be raised too high on account of this circular. The matter has been very carefully considered and the department is doing the best it can to conform with the desires and the wishes of agriculturists across Canada and to help in any way they can in that respect. But the department has certain responsibilities and those responsibilities have to be safeguarded.
Since the circular letter will be printed in Votes and Proceedings, I will not attempt to summarize it completely, but subject to the conditions in the circular I may say that those who are eligible to apply for spring seeding
Canadian Forces

leave are those who have some experience in farm work and who in the opinion of the general, divisional or district officer commanding can be spared with due regard to the military exigencies existing at the time. The circular applies, first, to those who are on the personnel of the home war establishment of district depots. That means administrative and training staffs of the district depots. Second, personnel on strength of district depots who are not awaiting dispatch to basic training centres or who, having completed training, are not awaiting allocation as reinforcements or to units. Third, veterans guard who can be spared from their duties, and, fourth, not more than 5 per cent of personnel employed on operational units, provided such personnel have completed their individual training and are not earmarked for overseas service. The majority of the troops both on the east and west coast are in the operational units.
The method to be adopted is to have the soldier make application to his commanding officer, who, if he recommends, will forward the same to his next superior officer, whoever it may be, for official approval. In this regard there has been some complaint as to the slowness of the operation. This has been the complaint in connection with applications for leave in previous instances, not so much with regard to agricultural leave as with regard to applications for compassionate leave.
In connection with this leave, instructions are going out impressing on all concerned that the applications should be dealt with promptly. We realize that he gives twice who gives quickly. I do want to impress upon the house and the country that it is most desirable that the applicant assist by submitting to the commanding officer the necessary information on two points. First, his qualifications and his experience, and the likelihood of his being really efficient and effective in connection with farming operations, having regard to his past experience. Second, the necessity for his services in the particular place where he desires to go. '
_ I assure the hon. member that with that information at hand, every endeavour will be made to deal with the applications as quickly and as sympathetically as possible.


Gordon Graydon: Perhaps I should wait until I read what has been tabled, but I wonder if the minister would make this one point clear now. Do I take it from what the minister has just said that none of those who are undergoing basic training will be given farm leave under the present ruling?


James Layton Ralston: That is so.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: May I ask a supplementary question? The minister referred only to leave for spring seeding, but I think the order ought to be wide enough to cover the sons of market gardeners. That is very important.


James Layton Ralston: I tabled the order and it is not before me at the moment. I think it is intended to cover a case of that kind- that is to say, spring work in connection with agriculture.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Does it cover men in the air force as well as men in the army?


James Layton Ralston: I cannot say. I do not know of any order having been issued by the air force.


Major James William Coldwell: The minister for air is not in his seat.


James Layton Ralston: I shall make inquiries.


Mr. WRIGHT:: Will any provision be
made for meeting the transportation costs of these men who are given farm leave?


James Layton Ralston: That is set out in the order. Perhaps I had better read that portion. Some of the conditions are:
(a)	Leave will not exceed six weeks' duration and may be cancelled at any time if the* exigencies of the service require such cancellation.
(b)	Pay, subsistence, travelling allowance, or other allowances of any kind will not be issuable during this special leave.
(c)	Soldiers will not be entitled to medical or dental attention, hospitalization or compensation due to illness, injury or death while on leave.
(d)	Only soldiers who have experience in farm work are eligible.
(e)	Agricultural leave will be limited strictly for the purpose its name implies.



INTERNATIONAL CURRENCY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister, based on a report in the Ottawa Citizen of March 24, under the caption "To-day in Europe." The London Times of March 24, 1943, dealing editorially with Prime Minister Churchill's recent speech, is reported as having said there is uneasiness at present about the currency and monetary exchange negotiations proceeding privately in London between the allied and the dominion governments. The users-


Thomas Vien: That is a question for
the order paper. It is not a question which should be asked on the orders of the day.

International Currency


John Horne Blackmore: The question, is a
vital one. Before one could get an answer by way of the. order paper the discussions would have been completed', and Canada would be bound. May I ask my question, Mr. Speaker?


Thomas Vien: I have already ruled that questions in the form now asked by the hon. member should not be asked when the orders of the day are called. This is a question involving government policy, and one which is not readily answerable on the orders of the day. If the Prime Minister wishes to answer, of course I will not say he should not do so. But I have already made a ruling, as clearly as I could make it, that such questions should not be asked on the orders of the day.


Major James William Coldwell: On a point of order, it is difficult to see the difference between the question now asked by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) and that asked by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon). It seems to me that they both must fall in the same category. We should have a clear understanding respecting the questions we may or may not ask.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think it
would be easy to make clear-


Thomas Vien: Order. In my judgment
the question asked by the leader of the opposition dealt with a matter of immediate importance. He was asking about the nondelivery of parcels sent to soldiers, a matter which I believe the house and country would wish to be informed upon. But the question asked by the hon. member for Lethbridge involves government policy.


Major James William Coldwell: No.


John Horne Blackmore: Oh, no; Your Honour did not hear me.


Thomas Vien: I heard the hon. member say that in Mr. Churchill's speech there was some question with regard to currency,-


John Horne Blackmore: No.


Thomas Vien: -and he asked the Prime Minister to reply. Certainly that is a question which should not be asked on the orders of the day.


Major James William Coldwell: The question was
whether a conference w:as proceeding, and if it was arriving at any decisions. The hon. member pointed out that those decisions might have world-wide consequences.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was about to say that I believe this question will make perfectly clear the difference between questions which should be answered immediately and those which might stand for the order paper. My hon. friend was kind enough to send me a notice of the question he was going to ask. I received his memorandum just as I came into the house. It is the same question he has asked on two previous occasions and which I have answered on two previous occasions. All I can say now is that the answer I have given him on the two previous occasions is the answer I should like to give him now. If he will let this stand as a notice, I will give him something perhaps a little more formal in another statement later, but it will practically repeat what I have said up to the present.


John Horne Blackmore: The only reason I asked the question is that this is a new set of negotiations.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If it is a new set of negotiations, I am afraid my answer does not apply. As I read my hon. friend's question, he is asking as to what has been going on in the way of conferences or discussions over monetary matters. That is a pretty old question. Certainly it is one which he has now asked three times this session. I will give him a formal reply at another sitting. I can, I think, assure him that any conferences will not be ended before the reply is made.



SHIPSHAW DEVELOPMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Horne Blackmore: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Munitions and Supply. In the press of March 24 there appears an article by R. T. Elson from the Washington news bureau of the evening Citizen under the following heading:	"Feel Howe's Defence of Shipshaw
Incomplete." I was wondering if the minister would care to make a supplementary statement on this question in the light of that statement.


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: I saw the article and it led me to believe that the text of my statement had not reached Washington when the article was written. It refers to two matters as not having been dealt with, when in, fact I dealt with them fully. I think I have nothing to add to the statement.


Thomas Vien: I was on my feet when Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury): The ministhe Prime Minister was on his. If he wishes ter would not say that the statement was to speak, he may do so.	complete?

Privilege-Mr. Donnelly



PRIVILEGE-MR. DONNELLY REFERENCE TO REMARKS OF MEMBER FOR BROADVIEW ON QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE ON MARCH 24

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. F. DONNELLY (Wood Mountain):: Yesterday the hon. member for Broadview spoke in the house as follows, as reported at page 1516 of Hansard:
I wish to call to the attention of the house a speech made on March 22 by a friend of mine, the hon. member for Wood Mountain (Mr. Donnelly). I should like to read the words about which I complain, which appear at page 1447 of Hansard, and then to say a few words in order to indicate that the hon. gentleman has made a grave error. The hon. member said: "Let me turn for a moment to other members of the government. I remember back in 1927 and 1928 or thereabouts when our navy consisted of the Rainbow and the Niobe, the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) spoke in this house and referred to our navy as consisting of these two ships and he asked: Where is our fleet now? And he answered in derision: Tied up in a garage at Halifax. Ah, but he does not say that now. Our fleet is to-day doing a man-sized job, sailing and patrolling the seven seas, and we are all proud of it. It is doing forty per cent of the convoy work in the north Atlantic. We are proud of our navy and the work it is doing, and hon. gentlemen do not deride it and poke fun at it to-day as they did in 1927 and 1928. It has grown from the two ships we had then to the splendid fleet we have now."
The hon. member then goes on to say: Not one word in the paragraph is correct.
I do not know what he is complaining about. Further down on the same page he is reported as follows:
My remarks about Halifax were made on June 21, 1926, at which time I said that if we were going to become an independent country under the statute of Westminster any foreign fleet might sail up the St. Lawrence and we could not oppose it because our navy might be locked up in a garage at Halifax.
I turn now to Hansard of February 1, 1928, at page 103, where I find the following:
We have a contemptible little navy which hugs the shores, never leaves our coasts, and for the past year has been locked up in a garage at Halifax.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who said that?


Thomas F. Donnelly: The hon. member for Broadview. I do not know what he is complaining about. As to the correctness of the rest of the statement, I leave it to the house.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: On a question of privilege, the hon. gentleman should be kind enough to read all of what I said in 1928 and other years-it covers five pages of Hansard in 1928-and not quote only four or five lines. The same with the 
other speeches on rearmament made fifteen years ago. There was then no fleet except two small ships which were obsolete. Under the Naval Act of 1910, it was provided that if anything happened out in the ocean an order in council would have to be passed before the fleet could fire off a gun. I never reflected at all on the men of the navy. I have always supported rearmament and if the hon. gentleman had done the same thing we would not have a five billion dollar tax bill to-day. He should read the whole of these speeches.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. G. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Munitions and Supply, based on a telegram I have received, arising out of a statement made in the house the other day by the minister. I shall read only part of the telegram:
We have asked you in the name of humanity to do something for the people of St. Paul's-riding. Some families are living in one room with five small children, other families of eight living under the same conditions. Many of these houses are infested with rats and lousy with bugs and cockroaches. We are making this telegram as plain as possible to you.
There are a lot of soldiers' families living under those conditions, and I want to make that plain to the Minister of Munitions and' Supply. He stated the other day that a survey had been made in the city of Toronto-by his department and that there was no necessity for any housing to be put up there. Will the minister give me a reply ?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think the matter is wholly" one for the city of Toronto. I cannot see how it affects matters of supply.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: The minister says that the matter was wholly one for the city of Toronto. I want to tell him that we are taking into Toronto plenty of people because of war industries.



LABOUR CONDITIONS

[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY AS TO REPORTED LAY-OFF AT ANGUS SHOPS On the orders of the day:
Mr. GASPARD FAUTEUX (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question, to the Minister of Munitions and Supply, in view of the very great concern felt by a large number of employees of the Angus shops, Montreal, as to their future. What steps are

Labour Conditions
being taken by the Department of Munitions and Supply to give supplementary contracts to the Angus shops so that when the tank construction is completed there will be no layoff of these employees?


Thomas Vien: Order. That question will have to be placed on the order paper.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have permission, if I may, to answer the question. I think that it is important that the facts be made known, as there is some present unrest in the plant mentioned.
Some weeks ago, in reply to a question by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), I told the house that no decision had been made with regard to the continuation of the tank order at the Angus shops. Since then the changing strategy of war has made it evident that we should not undertake further tank production in that shop after the present order is completed. Orders have been placed for the full capacity of the shop in connection with the escort shipbuilding programme, and my first intimation from the management was that all the present employees would be required. Accordingly, I so advised my colleague the Minister of Labour, and he so advised a delegation of employees from the Angus shops. But within the last two days I have been advised by the management that there will be a lay-off at the Angus shops of approximately 1,100 men, about 485 men between April 1 and April 15, and about 620 between April 15 and April 30. I may say that my colleague is arranging through national selective service to transfer these men to other employment where they are urgently required. I think that the men to be transferred will not be worse off after the transfer than they are to-day.



PRESS REPORT AS TO EMPLOYMENT OF QUEBEC


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn) on Monday, March 22, I intimated that the question of Canadians going into the northern part of Maine to harvest maple sugar was under consideration.
Along the international boundary between the province of Quebec and the state of Maine there has been an annual migration of families to United States territory for the purpose of harvesting the maple sugar crop. My information is that the sap is collected in northern Maine and brought into Canada 72537-98}
in bond and the finished product is shipped back to the United States and sold. This movement has taken place over a very long period of time. At the suggestion of the government of the province of Quebec and the United States authorities and because of the desirability of assuring the harvesting of this crop, arrangements have been made to permit a limited number again this year to work in the Maine sugar camps. Approximately one hundred and twenty-five families, consisting of men, women and children, are being allowed to cross the border on the understanding that Quebec farm work will not suffer and that the absence will not exceed twenty-nine days.
The mobilization boards will, of course, be consulted with respect to any men who are in the designated military age classes.



TOMATOES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. NORMAN J. M. LOCKHART (Lincoln): Mr. Speaker, again I say that on the orders of the day members rise in this house with fear and trepidation, after the hesitating way in which the minister rose to answer a question a moment or two ago. I want to express my appreciation to the hon. Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) for clearing up that point about the six weeks' farm leave. I have a question to ask of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) and I hope he will clear it up as well as the Minister of National Defence cleared up the question that was put to him. Without going into details I will send over to the minister this report with reference to the subsidy to be paid to the 7,000 farmers who are going to produce tomatoes. They have that idea very definitely in their minds, as will be clear from this report. Can the minister make a statement so that the tomato growers will know the true situation so far as the subsidy is concerned?
James Lorimer Ilsley: That is a question for the Minister of Agriculture.


Mr. LOCKHART:: As the matter comes under the Minister of Agriculture, I will send this report over to him.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, March 24, 1943, consideration of the motion of Hon. J. L. Ilsley (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house
The Budget-Mr. Nicholson
[Stage Direction]
"to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Black-more, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. A. M. NICHOLSON (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, part of the subamendment moved by the leader of this group expresses regret at-
-the failure of the government to provide for increases in the amounts paid to old age and blind pensioners, or to make adequate provisions for veterans of the last or the present war, or their widows and dependents.
Judging by the large number of faon. members sitting in all parts of this house who have complained about the inadequate provision for the old age pensioners, it might have been expected that something would be done to make their lot somewhat easier. I find in the estimates tabled by the minister :a short time ago that the amount which the : government proposes to spend this year to assist the aged and the blind totals $31,246,500. According to the 1942 year book, there were 186,834 old age pensioners and 6,208 blind pensioners in Canada, a total of 193,042. This means that the Dominion of Canada is spending about $163 a year, or a little less than $14 a month, to assist each of those who are over seventy and have been unable to provide for themselves in the evening of life. I find that in the same estimates we provide pensions for retired judges. There are only fifty-five, but they receive according to statute $273,133.31, or $4,966 each, that is, over $413 per month. It is difficult to justify such bigh pensions for one group of our old people who have received a generous allowance during a lifetime, when the average pension received by the old age pensioner is less than $20 per month.
I have here a resolution, passed by the Eston branch of the Canadian Legion, which- -records its protest against the inadequacy of the maintenance and unemployment benefits of $9 per week for single men, and $13 per week for married men, as set forth in acts and orders in council governing the rehabilitation of returned soldiers: that we condemn the limitations contained in those acts and orders in council, and deplore the fact that reestablishment measures, so far, have been based upon the presumption of the existence of a set of post-war [DOT]conditions which we feel should not be taken into consideration in the framing of an effective rehabilitation programme.
In the brief which the Eston branch submit, they point out that-
In New Zealand, the old age pension allowance is thirty shillings per week per individual, which is approximately $60 per month per married couple-eight dollars per month more than we allow a married returned soldier.
(Mr. Lockhart.]
They mention a press dispatch from Saskatoon stating that the collegiate board agreed that $85 per month was inadequate for janitors, and increased their salaries to $102.50 and $105 per month. I may mention that the Eston branch has an enviable record in connection with every possible project to further the war effort. More consideration should have been given by the government to providing for the needs of those who have risked their lives in the present conflict.
There have been two or three speeches during the present debate which in my opinion might very well not have been made; I refer to addresses of the hon. member for Wood Mountain (Mr. Donnelly), the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward), and the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson). It would appear that these hon. members hate the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation so bitterly that they find difficulty in thinking straight when they get wound up.


Mr. MacINNIS:: They have the same difficulty all the time.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: 
Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: And overpaid
at that.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: eration hold; and thus you confuse them. I suggest that we should describe fascism as it is and accept the point of view that members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation in this house and in the country are anxious to do everything they can to see that fascism is destroyed.
While our views differ from the views expressed by the former leader of the opposition, we do make our contribution. He would like to see the soldiers come back to the good old *days. Well, the party he supports was in office from 1930 to 1935, and while I have no special brief for the present administration, I ask hon. members to think back to those years and consider whether they should like to have an administration that would do as little about unemployment and depressed conditions as did the government under Viscount Bennett. If there ever was a man in Canada who had something at stake it was the man who was prime minister of Canada from 1930 to 1935. He had made a success under the present system, he had tremendous energy, and if capitalism could be made to work surely he would have made it work. The hon. member for York-Sunbury was a member of that government.
I am sorry time does not permit me to deal with three cases I have here, men who fought in the last war, who are now doing useful work in Canada, but for- whom during the Bennett regime the best the Conservative government in Canada and Saskatchewan could do was to set aside $100 from each of the federal and provincial governments for a whole year to reestablish them. They were given $50 to build a house and $100 to buy *equipment; they received $10 a month for food and within a period of a year they were expected to become self-supporting.
I have one case here, that of Mr. Sig Watland-I have mentioned it in the house before-a man whose standard of living was forced down to $10 a month during those terrible years. I have told the house of the trouble I had in getting him off his homestead and down here. Here is what he wrote to me last week:
I had no difficulty in obtaining a position as senior draftsman with the John T. Hepburn Company with a salary of $210 a month. During the last two months I have been doing catalogue drawing. This is specialized work and very few draftsmen can do it, as any draftsman can tell you. I am well pleased here. I am.geting my farm paid for. My family have had cash in the house this winter and consequently have been off relief. My eldest daughter enlisted in the CWAC last summer, and has been stationed in Ottawa this winter. Together with my. income tax and the $10 per month I am paying on victory bonds I am just paying Margaret's allowance in the army and this is a great . satisfaction to me.

It is a great satisfaction to any Canadian to see a man who during those years in which the hon. member for York-Sunbury was occupying a cabinet position was not considered worth any more to society than $10 a month, a trained mechanical draftsman who now after all he has been through is demonstrating that he can come back and earn $210 a month.
I would not accuse the hon. member for York-Sunbury of plagiarism, but I read an article by David Low which appeared in the Toronto Star the other day, about Colonel Blimp, and there is a remarkable similarity between the views expressed by Colonel Blimp and those of the hon. members for York-Sunbury, Wood Mountain and Dauphin. The article represents Colonel Blimp as saying:
Now we have these dashed planners running about, planning everything. Absolute anarchy. Fellows wanting to improve the British way of life. Dashed unpatriotic. These planners say they're out to avoid chaos. Say what you like about chaos. It provides freedom for enterprise and initiative. And what's going to be needed more after the war than enterprise and initiative?
Then there's the bishops. Public control of credit, land and water! Dash it, you can't mix religion with business. It's unethical. What this country needs is a religious revival against the teachings of the Archbishop of Canterbury. And now this fellow Beveridge comes along, wanting to undermine the stability of the country with security. Everybody knows that insurance discourages thrift even more than saving.
Then he has something to say about postwar conditions:
True, post-war conditions may involve some reorganization for efficiency. But the best people to handle all that are the big industrialists. It stands to reason that private people know more about what is good for the country than the M.P's, because private people are inspired by the profit motive, which is the spirit of service.
A lot of bosh is talked by the dashed Reds about the profit motive, but you have got to have people making profits or you cannot have business development (except in Russia, where they don't understand economics). The great danger of concentrating industrial power under public control is that any adventurer may get the majority of votes, then command the lot. Too dangerous. Much safer to hand over the whole thing to private monopolies that are not dependent on votes and cannot be interfered with.
Colonel Blimp made a "powerful" speech last week-I forget whether it was in the House of Commons or the American Congress.
"It appears certain now," he said, "that victory will be won as soon as we have defeated the enemy. But I'll never sheathe the sword until freedom is restored and all those who disagree with me are locked up. Let us put our backs to the wall with stiff upper lips and all pull together against collectivism, and the future will be before us."

The Budget-Mr. McGeer
I do not expect that a majority of the members in this house will support our amendment. But I do hope that the opinions expressed in the debate by the members of this group will receive favourable consideration by the ministry at an early day so that Canadians may make their greatest contribution as partners in a great struggle.


Mr. G. G. McGEER (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, we are now discussing the fourth budget of the war. This budget has some marks of great distinction as compared with former budgets in other times of war. If one were called upon to measure in a sentence the difference between the budgets in this time of war and the budgets from 1914-18, that is, the budgets for war under Liberal leadership and the budgets for war under Tory administration, one could find it in the difference in the rates of interest paid and1 in the methods now adopted in regard to finance. To-day we have no five and a half per cent tax-free war bonds; in contrast we have a ministry of finance that is raising an enormous loan at the rate of three-quarters of one per cent. History is in the making in many ways, no less in the sphere of financial administration than otherwise. I remember that during the dark days of the depression, when millions of jobs were crying to be done and millions of people remained in artificial idleness, the governor of the Bank of England brushed aside the clamorous voice of monetary reform with the cryptic declaration: "The dogs bark but the caravan moves on." Well, Mr. Speaker, time and history move on; but it is well to remember that it is in war time that the dealers in debt always reap their greatest harvest. It should never be forgotten that when the dogs of war break the leash to bedevil mankind, the hounds of usury run free. I remember my own puny efforts to help improve the lot of Canadians during the years of the pathetic depression of the Bennett administration.


Richard Burpee Hanson: When did it begin?


Mr. MacNIGOL:: You should not say "of the Bennett depression." You should say, "all over the world."


Gerald Grattan McGeer: I once remarked to a leader of this opposition that he could not listen himself into trouble.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But you can talk yourself into trouble.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: I am no more adept at that than the former leader of the Tory party. To-day, however, I did not want to deal with the controversial issue of monetary reform so much as to draw attention to some of the
things that are taking place in the history which the men and women of our day and generation are making. '
In the toll of time we have witnessed recently the passing of a great American and a great Canadian. In the passing of Mr. J. P. Morgan and Sir Edward Beatty we see something of the passing of the golden age of laissez-faire, the golden age which reared a rugged individualism, which in turn laid the great foundations upon which our modem commerce and industry are founded. It was my privilege to contest with the Canadian Pacific Railway, during the presidency of Sir Edward Beatty, the issue of the mountain differential in British Columbia.


Richard Burpee Hanson: At how much per day?


Gerald Grattan McGeer: At a very good fee for very good service rendered. In fact it came to be known as the case in which the faith to move mountains was required. Well, we did not move the mountains, but we did remove the mountain differential on grain and made Vancouver the greatest grain port in the Dominion of Canada. It was my privilege to come to know Sir Edward Beatty during that period of time; and later as mayor of the city of Vancouver I had the privilege of conferring upon him the freedom of that city. I found him to be a great Canadian and a great leader, one who commanded' the respect of all Canadians, who was revered and loved by every member of the great staff that maintained the Canadian Pacific Railway, from the humblest apprentice and office boy to the highest executive. His passing marks the passing of a great era of constructive enterprise in Canada.
As we mourn the loss of Sir Edward Beatty, we are all grateful for the fact that the war leader of the British empire has been restored to health and is again fulfilling the greatest chapter in his amazing career. I think everyone who has read Churchill's magnificent record of the life of the Duke of Marlborough cannot help but realize the profound influence which that remarkable contribution to British empire history has had upon the statecraft and the success of Winston Churchill. In appreciating the life work of the Duke of Marlborough, Churchill has said:
Marlborough's victorious sword established upon sure foundations the constitutional and parliamentary structure of our country almost as it has come down to us to-day. He carried all that was best in the life work of Oliver Cromwell and William III to an abiding conclusion. ... He animated the war at sea no less than on land and established till the present time the British naval supremacy in the Mediterranean. His eye ranged far across the oceans, and the foundations of British dominions
The Budget-Mr. McGeer

were launched or strengthened as the result of his continental policy. He was for six years the commander in chief of the allies, but though subject, the virtual master of England, he was head of the most glorious administration in her history.
Churchill in reality is reliving the life of his illustrious predecessor. He is a master scholar in the most difficult art of history, and I was particularly impressed by his expression in regard to history's interpretation. He says:
All men and events are moving forward together in a throng. Each individual decision is the result of all the forces at work at any given moment; and the passage of even a few years enables, nay compels, men and peoples to think, feel and act quite differently without any insincerity or baseness.
No doubt my friends in the Progressive Conservative party will get a little comfort out of that. He goes on to say:
In understanding history, if readers will look back over the last three or four years of their own lives, or that of their country, and pass in detailed review events as they occurred and successive opinions they have formed upon them they will appreciate the pervading mutability of all human affairs. Combinations long abhorred become the order of the day. Ideas last year deemed inadmissible form the pavement of daily routine. Political antagonists make common cause and abandoning old friends, find new . . . The popularity of governments departs as the too bright hopes on which it was founded fade into normal and general disappointments. But all this seems natural to those who live through a period of change.
Churchill, born a blue-blooded Tory, serving the demands of progress left the Tory party and became the great crusading knight of British Liberalism. In that great era of reform at the beginning of this century, when old-age pensions, anti-sweat laws, the rights of trade union organizations, unemployment insurance and the right of parliament to be free from interference in fiscal matters from the House of Lords, ' wrere burning issues, Churchill became the reincarnation of St. George, and the House of Lords was the dragon of reactionism sustaining the unrighteousness of privileged monopoly.
In those days I was serving my time as an iron moulder and vitally interested in the labour leadership and the influence of great men like Samuel Gompers of the American Federation of Labor. But we young men of Canada looked to Churchill as much as to our labour leader for the reforms that we hoped would come. We looked forward to the reading of his speeches with hopeful confidence. Let me quote from one of them, typical of his attack upon the Tory government of England in that day:
_ We want a government that will think a little more about the toilers at the bottom of

the mines, and a little less about the fluctuations of the share market in London. We want a government which instead of looking mainly abroad will look mainly if not, I think, entirely at home. We want a government and policy which will think the condition of a slum in an English city is not less worthy of the attention of statesmen and of parliament than the jungle of Somaliland. We know very well what to expect from a great leader of a protectionist party

a party of great vested interests: corruption at home, aggression to cover it up abroad, the trickery of tariff juggles, and tyranny of a party machine, sentiment by the bucketful, patriotism by the imperial pint, the open hand at the public exchequer, the open door at the public house, dear food for the millions, cheap labour for the millionaire.
That was the Churchill who laid the foundation for the faith and confidence that the working masses have placed in him. in this hour of England's crisis. It was during that period that his influence was brought to the Dominion of Canada, and it was then that Sir Wilfrid Laui'ier established the first Department of Labour, and called upon a young Canadian to be the first minister to preside over that department, who afterwards became the Prime Minister of the Dominion of Canada, enjoying the greatest measure of confidence that has ever been extended to any prime minister in the history of our nation's political life. Not only that, but he became- and to some degree through the medium of his own statesmanship-the leader of a united Dominion of Canada which, as Churchill has declared, became in the world's greatest crisis the linchpin between the British empire and the United States of America. Thus in the golden threads of history we find the public service of Churchill, the war leader of the empire, and Mackenzie King, the war leader of Canada, linked together, just as we find the history of our own dominion inseparably blended with that of the empire.
Just as the history of the house of Marlborough and the British empire was the inspiration to Churchill, the history of our young dominion offers to us the inspiration of our Canadian future.
As I look back upon our history and think of what the fathers of confederation laboured to found, I remember with regard and respect some of the expressions they coined in those days not so far away. Back in 1824 William Lyon Mackenzie, writing to Canning, said this:
A union of all the colonies, with a government suitably poised and modelled, so as to have under its eye the resources of our whole territory and having the means in its power to administer impartial justice in all its bounds, to no one part at the expense of another, -would require few boons from Britain, and would advance her interests much more in a few years

The Budget-Mr. McGeer
than the bare rights of possession of a barren, uncultivated wilderness of lake and forest, with some three or four inhabitants to the square mile, can do in centuries.
That hope of "a self-governing dominion empowered to administer impartial justice, in all its bounds," came as a right to Canadians, and it came from the British parliament. And the hope that it would prove a boon to Great Britain has been more than, fulfilled.
Yes, there were other thoughts expressed by the men who laid the foundations for this dominion. They were linked then, as is this great conflict of to-day, with the hope of freedom. George Etienne Cartier, speaking on confederation, declared:
We cannot by law make the differences of race disappear, but I am convinced that the Anglo-Canadians and the FrenchUanachans will appreciate the advantages of their position. Set side by side, like a great family, their contact will produce a happy spirit of emulation. The diversity of races will in spirit, believe me, contribute to the common prosperity. The whole difficulty will be in the manner of rendering justice to minorities. In Upper Canada the Roman Catholics will be in the minority, in Lower Canada it will be the Protestants who will be in the minority, whilst in the maritime provinces the two communions will equalize each other. Is it possible then to suppose that the general government or the provincial govern-merits can become guilty of arbitrary acts. What would be the result, even supposing that one of the provincial governments should attempt it? Measures of such a character would undoubtedly be repudiated by the mass of the people. There is no reason then to fear that it will ever be sought to deprive a minority of ' its rights.
Sir John A. Macdonald was inspired no less by the same hope of security for minorities, which he expressed in these words:
So long, too, as we form a portion of the British empire, we shall have the example of her free institutions, of the high standard of the character of her statesmen and public men, of the purity of her legislation, and the upright administration of her laws.
We shall enjoy here that which is the great test of constitutional freedom-we shall have the rights of the minority respected. In all countries the rights of the majority take care of themselves, but it is only in countries like England, enjoying constitutional liberty, and safe from the tyranny of a single despot or of an unbridled democracy, that the rights of the minorities are regarded."
But it remained for a great Canadian, a man who had the universal love and respect of all the dominion, a French Canadian, a Roman Catholic, a man who was prime minister of this dominion from 1896 to 1911, to declare the extent to which freedom in Canada has been sustained when he said:
England has proved at all times that she can fight her own battles, but if the day were ever to come when England was in danger, let the bugle sound, let the fires be lit on the hills, and
in all parts of the colonies, though we might not be able to do much, whatever we can do shall be done by the colonies to help her.
The sun in his daily career does not shed its light upon any people on the face of the earth enjoying more liberty than my countrymen of French extraction. And my last words to the doubters, to the scoffers, is that freedom is worth fighting for and worth dying for.
We have not forgotten the dark days of 1940 when France was overwhelmed and England beleaguered stood behind the barricades of her ancient island home. It was then that Churchill came forward to declare and to demonstrate that England in danger is always England at her best. He said:
We shall fight on to the end. ... We shall never surrender. And even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British fleet, will carry on its struggle until in God's good time the new world with all its power and might sets forth to the liberation and rescue of the old.
His faith has been vindicated. To-day upon this continent we are realizing the fruits of a great experiment. We have seen the reconciliation of two great races, each retaining its religion, laws, customs and institutions, living together and building together in one great national home. But the experiment went further than that. It carried on the doctrines of the Rush-Bagot treaty of 1818, under which the great lakes were disarmed and all the boundaries between the United States and the British colonies were freed from fortifications. Canada, with her French and English, as a sovereign nation is working out the fulfilment of a partnership with the United States which has brought about the development of the continent of North America to a point where to-day it is the hope of freedom throughout all the world. Yes, that great work has fulfilled the fondest hopes of the fathers of confederation, and it offers to the whole world something of the kind of relations under which all men in all places and at all times can live and dwell together in peace.
In this war, testing whether or not governments established on the principle of human freedom can be maintained against the effort to establish world domination upon the exclusive foundation of human bondage, Canada is playing a part which should lift Canadians above the petty bickerings and conflicts of party politics and up to the level of service and sacrifice which is being displayed upon every battle front. There is no front to-day on which Canadians are not to be found and on which the product of Canadian war indust ry is not making its contribution.
The Budget-Mr. McGeer

In times of crisis, of course, new declarations appear. To-day we have the Atlantic charter with its new ideals expressed in the terms of the four great freedoms-freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom from fear, and freedom from want. I think we should add another one, freedom from the slavery of involuntary debt.
For a brief moment I should like to touch upon the history of Canada in the realm of constructive finance. I have studied the life of Abraham Lincoln. I feel that in his executive administration of the United States he founded some new concepts of political economy. When Lincoln came to the presidency of the United States that nation was carrying the debt load of the Mexican war. Many there were at that time who declared that because of financial weakness and incapacity the federal government lacked the strength to subdue a revolution of the proportions which brought on the civil war. But Lincoln had been a student of finance. He had married into the banking circles of Kentucky when he married Mary Todd. He was a representative of the bankers for six years on the floor of the legislature of the state of Illinois and he came to the White House equipped' with a knowledge and understanding of the techniques of private bankers and finance, greatly superior to that of many members of this house to-day.
He tried some seven different forms of currency-at that time there were seven thousand banks in the United States-and finally he exercised1 the power given him under the constitution of the United States to issue paper currency as the money of the nation. There was issued $450,000,000 of that currency, which was practically twice the total volume of the currency in issue at the commencement of the civil war. With national currency he found no difficulty in financing the successful prosecution of the greatest war that had been fought in history up to that time. Believing that one could follow with safety a statesman with the profound understanding and recognized genius that Lincoln possessed, I made bold to work out a programme which I published in 1935. May I take a moment to read just a page, as follows:
Lincoln fully appreciated that his national currency system -would not and could not of itself create or maintain stable prosperity. He recognized, however, that the establishment of a national currency system was the first step in any scheme designed to stabilize progress and to_ rationalize prosperity. Experience since Lincoln's time has taught us that in addition to the mint there are at least four administrative institutions that must be set up before progress financed with national currency and public credit monetized in a national banking 
system can be maintained with any substantial degree of economic and social security. These institutions constitute the basis of the five-point plan that is essential to the reestablishment of normal prosperity. The fundamental institutions making up this five-point plan consist of:
(1)	The Mint.
(2)	A national banking system.
(3)	An effective plan of scientific taxation.
(4)	A department of economic regulation and
control.
(5)	A department of international trade and
credit control.
Let me now summarize broadly the functions of these proposed governmental innovations, commencing with the Mint:
(1)	The Mint should mint, print and issue all metal and paper currency.
The time has gone by when a private corporation should print the bills for the bank of Canada.
(2)	National banking.
The national banking system should be empowered-
(a) To manage the gold and silver reserves of the nation; to control the minting, printing and issuing of all currency, including metal coins, paper bills, and bank credits which, when transferred by cheque, serve as a substitute for currency.
fb) To issue all the currency and credit requirements of the privately-owned and operated merchant or commercial banking system and to supervise and regulate the operation of all merchant and commercial banks.
(c)	To regulate and control all long-term capital investment, including investments such as advances for farm and home investments; all long-term industrial investments and all investments required for the expansion and development of international trade.
(d)	To regulate and control the nation's international buying power and all international currency and credit transactions.
(e)	To finance national, state, provincial and municipal government.
I then declared reasons why I shall vote against the amendment calling upon this house to nationalize the merchant banking system. Then I gave the same .reasons I now hold, when I wrote:
These proposals recognize that the creation and original issue of currency and credit as the spending power of government, the regulation of circulation, and the management of international exchange and credit are public functions that should be performed by departments of the national government. They also recognize that commercial or merchant banking is essentially a private enterprise that should be carried on by individuals operating in a private capacity but under proper government regulation and control.
There is no need for the nationalization of the merchant or commercial banlung system, nor should there be any attempt made to socialize private finance.
Mark what has happened since that was written. To-day we own the Bank of Canada,

The Budget-Mr. McGeer
and I am proud of the part that I had in making that institution the property of the people of the Dominion of Canada. To-day it has in its portfolios one billion dollars of dominion, government and provincial government securities. To-day it has in issue almost one billion dollars of Canadian paper currency -national currency issued by an institution owned by the people of Canada and serving in this war. Of course the Tories said to me in those days: That kind of thing was heresy. The former leader of the opposition, the member for York-Sunbury, was chairman of the banking and commerce committee the day I appeared before that body in 1934, and he remembers the attitude that was taken.
I then declared that we were in a war with poverty and that we should exercise the same powers to restore proper working conditions in Canada that we would be compelled to exercise were we threatened with aggression from abroad. I then declared to those who were claiming that "we could not finance by government spending to prosperity, that we could not lift ourselves by our own bootstraps, that all my ideas were the visionary things and the concepts of crackpots and funny money people, men who did not understand the fundamental bases of the higher realms of political economy"-I then declared that if war ever came we should find no difficulty in financing the cost, no matter how great it would be. Now the great lesson that we have learned in this war is the lesson that all the poverty and all the tragedy of unemployment and all of the demoralization of the dole came because we had followed the advice of leaders who were surrounded by advisers who did not know what they were talking about. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that in the course of my legal career I have examined a great many experts in many fields of activity, and I have always found that when expert opinion does not conform to plain reason and common sense you can be sure of one of two things: either the expert does not know what he is talking about, or he is deliberately fooling you.
I propose to offer to this parliament for its consideration in the way of recommendations to the government when we consider the budget resolutions some suggestions by which I believe we can greatly improve the war strength of the Dominion of Canada, some suggestions which if followed out and developed will give us a much greater power to meet with success the problems of reconstruction that are before us. Let me suggest this to members of this parliament who carry responsibility to-day not only for
financing this war but for carrying it through to a successful conclusion, and who have some responsibility to wage it in such a way that in the post-war period we shall emerge equipped to make this Canada of ours worthy of the men who have given so much, and who are giving more in this war than men have ever given in any other war that has ever been fought. We may secure, Mr. Speaker, all that is indicated by the Beveridge plan, and indicated in much wider degree in the plan proposed by the National Resources Planning Board of United States, indicated by our own Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie), who is directing Canada's programme of rehabilitation, in great measure with the employment power of national currency. Such plans can be carried out with success if financed with national currency. But we cannot even approach them or carry them out with anything but disaster if we persist in depending only upon our power to issue unpayable national debt.
In conclusion I just want to say this. Let no one feel that we in Canada have as yet been called upon to make in this war any serious measure of sacrifice. If we will only appreciate the suffering and the sacrifices of the people of China and compare our position with theirs, if we will go through Stalingrad and Leningrad and into the area which was the home of more than fifty million Russian people, if we will go into any part of the devastated areas in Europe we cannot help but come to a realization that the full extent of our power of service is as yet far from reached. Yes, and let no one come to the conclusion that this war is being won in the factories of Canada. It is being won, as every war is won, by the men who are crusading in the air, the men who are fighting on the seas, the tank men and the artillery men and the infantrymen who are fighting on the land. Let us measure our efforts in the light of known sacrifices; and so guided we may in parliament prove worthy of the sacrifices and devotion to duty that are expressed in every field of action by our armed' services, then and then only we can look forward to having the men who are fighting and winning the war return with some little appreciation of our efforts.
Mr. KARL K. HOMUTH (Waterloo South): Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to follow the arguments of the hon. member who has just spoken, except that I wish to thank him most sincerely on behalf of this group for the very kind tributes he paid to that great Progressive Conservative leader, Mr. The Budget-Mr. Homuth

Churchill. The leadership he is giving to England is the type of leadership which the people of Canada can expect from the Progressive Conservative party.
I had no intention of taking part in this debate, until two speeches were made this week in this house. The first was made by the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) the day before yesterday, and in the course of it he used these words as reported in Hansard, ~page 1470:
I may say in passing, that I should not like to have Colonel Drew's responsibility for explaining what he did in this great war, as a contribution to the winning of this war. He is a man trained as a soldier. So far as I know, he has not offered his services in any capacity of that kind.
I am sorry that the minister is not in his seat, because I want- to say this to him. I have not risen in my place in this house for the purpose of defending Colonel George Drew. Colonel Drew is well able to defend himself, as he has proved on more than one occasion. Were it not for the fact that the governmerit know his ability to defend himself, perhaps they might have gone much further than they did with the charges they laid against him under the defence of Canada regulations. But what I am defending, and what I intend to continue to defend and will always defend, is the right of any citizen of this country, any member of parliament, whether federal or provincial, to criticize this government and its acts without having his loyalty to Canada questioned.
The minister would seek to imply that only those who have offered their services in this war are entitled to criticize or, apparently, to play any part in the carrying on of this war. Well, at least I am in the happy position that even under that dictum I am able to criticize the government if I do so wish, because I did offer my services at the very beginning of the war, not as a dollar a year man or as one seeking any expenses; my services were offered free gratis to the former minister of national defence.
Be that as it may, suppose we should accept the dictum of the Minister of Munitions and Supply; suppose we should extend it, as we certainly could, if it is to be the measure of a man's right to criticize his government, and say that only those who fought or were in the armed services in the last war could serve in the government or be connected with it during the present war; were that principle to be applied, many hon. members now sitting in the cabinet and on the government side would not be there. I desire to express my 
condemnation of any such statement as that made by the Minister of Munitions and Supply.
At the beginning of this session the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) pleaded with us and with all hon. members to carry on this debate without rancour and without bitterness. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) pleaded the other day for cooperation. No government which has ever exercised power in this country has had greater cooperation from an opposition than this government has had. I think back to the years 1930 to 1935, when we were fighting, not a war with guns and tanks and planes, but one of the most disastrous economic wars which this country or this world ever saw. Go and read Hansard and see what sort of cooperation the government of that day received from hon. members who sat in the opposition at that time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie), for one.


Mr. HOMUTH:: If the boorishness and the short temper which are being displayed by hon. gentlemen on the government benches are to be the measure of debate in this house, if that is what we are to expect as a gauge of battle on the various matters which come before this house, they can rest assured that we will accept that gauge of battle. Their boorishness does not fluster us, it does not scare us; we do not scare that easily; and I tell them here and now that if that sort of thing is to continue in this house, they can only expect the same sort of treatment from members of the opposition.
As I have said, the statement of the Minister of Munitions and Supply is one of the reasons why I rose at this time. Further, I feel that he was extremely discourteous to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) when he refused to allow him to ask a question. One's temper may be short at times; under great stress, perhaps, one says what he should not say, but discourtesy in this house is absolutely uncalled for.


Mr. MARTIN:: Hear, hear.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Yes, and you had better begin to practise courtesy over there.
I am speaking in this debate to-day also because of the speech made on March 22 by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas), in which he says, as reported in Hansard,-page 1439:
The reason is that ever since this session opened there has been a concerted campaign by the capitalist groups in this house and by the capitalist press outside it, to launch a storm of vilification and abuse at the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation.

The Budget-Mr. Homuth
The leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group, speaking in the house a week or so ago, said that he was sick and1 tired of the lecturing he had received continually from the group to his left, and he resented it. I resent, and have resented ever since the house opened this session, the speeches made by hon. members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group in trying to paint a picture of other hon. members who do not belong to their group as men who are not sincere, not honest in their expressions of policy and in their representation of their people.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I do not think we have ever said that or implied that. We disagree with them fundamentally, but we have never implied a lack of sincerity or honesty. I hope my hon. friend will withdraw that statement.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: The implication was there, if not expressed in words. It was an effort to build up in the minds of the people of this country the idea that even though we have enunciated in our policy certain things in which we believe, we cannot be trusted to carry them out; that no faith can be placed in what we say. That has been the sum and substance of nearly every Cooperative Commonwealth Federation speech made in this house this session.
There are hon. members in this house, in different parties, who have_ been reelected time after time, honoured with the votes of the people of their constituencies. Surely the people must have some faith in those men to return them election after election. I do not agree with many of the policies of hon. members on the government side, but I would be the last to suggest that they are not sincere in those policies. I have always felt that when a man offers himself for public office he does it with an honest desire to serve his people and better their condition. I resent this "holier than thou" attitude on the part of members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. We have heard nothing from hon. members of the socialist group except a tirade against the parties in this house which from the time of confederation have built up this country to what it is to-day. Speeches of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation inside and outside this house have no other purpose than to build up in the mind of the people an idea of the great righteousness of their cause and the cause of those who adhere to their party, and doubts as to the probity of those who do not.
The hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) read letters painting a dismal picture of poverty and squalor in certain parts of this country. True there is poverty, and much of it can be and must be overcome. There is squalor, and much of it can be overcome with the betterment of conditions. But the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation are going to bring in regimentation,
I suppose, and will say to everyone in this country: You must have a bathtub; you must have all the plumbing facilities in your house. Fine; they should have them. But is the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation also going to say by legislation: You have to take a bath? Is it going to have peeping Toms going around to see that people do take a bath?
I think often of the story that has been told, and sometimes I believe there must be some foundation for it, of a man saying at a Cooperative Commonwealth Federation meeting: "If we get into power you will all have strawberries and cream." A man in the back of the hall said, "I don't like strawberries and cream." The speaker said, "It doesn't matter whether you like it or not; you are going to have it." Members might well be measured sometimes by the example they show in their own constituencies as to their right and qualification to hold public office. I look around this house at men who, it is said, will not carry out any progressive legislation if they should get into power. I think of hon. members of whose achievements I know something. I think of the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris) and the work he has done in his own district in building that monument, the Toronto East General hospital. I think of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church), who through all his public life has been known as the soldier's friend. During the last war not a troop train arrived at or left Toronto that he, as mayor of the city, was not there to meet or see off, to say a word of welcome or farewell. I think of how at any hour of the night, hearing that a train was coming with some wounded, he as mayor of the city was there to meet them. I think of the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) and the work he has done for the British war victims' relief fund sponsored by the Toronto Telegram, and for the Toronto Star Red Cross fund. I think of the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Desmond), who long before he came to this house did such splendid work in organizing the tobacco growers and other producers in his district; the hon. member for Essex South (Mr. Clark), the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. MacKenzie)-the work they did of a
The Budget-Mr. Homuth

similar kind in their districts, and other hon. members too numerous to mention; men who really accomplished something back home. These are the men who, according to the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation speakers, even though they have a very progressive platform, cannot be trusted to carry it out. The implication is that there is only one party that will fulfil its promises, and that is the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. They are doing everything possible to enlist support so that they can increase their numbers in this house or perhaps form a government. Their efforts remind me very much of someone two thousand years ago who went into the temple to pray and said, God, I thank Thee that I am not as other men are, or even as this publican.
My county is a little different from many others. It is settled by people from almost eveiy country in the world. I think of those old Scotch settlers who came from Dumfries and built one of the finest cities in Canada, the.city of Galt. I think of the hardships they went through, and I am happy to realize the prosperity they enjoy to-day and all that they have done to build up this country. I like to think of the Irish and English in my county who have done such good work. I think of the men of German birth who came here one hundred or one hundred and forty years ago to escape regimentation and militarism and find freedom under the British flag, and who did so much to build up this country. I think of the people who came from Pennsylvania, trekked through the swamps and settled in our part of the country, and the great work they have done to build up Canada, about whom the book "The Trail of the Conestoga" was written. I think of the many Ukrainian citizens, not only in my county but throughout this country, who are to-day ably represented in this house by the hon. member for Vegre-ville (Mr. Hlynka). I like to think of Canada not as a land of poverty and squalor but as a land of happy homes and prosperous farms, of developed water powers and industries. That is the picture I like to see. I see the boys and girls being educated under one of the finest school systems in the world1 and finding opportunity to make something of themselves, provided that they are prepared to put something of themselves into the job. They are not looking for some soft spot. We want them to have an opportunity to develop, and it is our responsibility to see that they have it. Surely this utopia that is being promised by certain speakers on platforms throughout the country is not the sort of life to which the boys and girls of this country are looking forward.

Then on several occasions another member of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group seemed to be in great travail on account of the sending of beer to Libya. I interpret his efforts in that connection in two ways. In the first place we realize that, with the war on, there is in this country a body of public opinion-true, its strength is far more vocal than numerical-seeking to use the war as an excuse to bring about prohibition in Canada. The hon. member to whom I refer has frequently criticized the shipment of beer to Libya. I feel that this is a subtle attempt to get the support of the prohibition element of this country for the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party when an election comes.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman is imputing a motive to the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson), which under the rules of this house he ought not to do.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Then I withdraw it; it is said, but I withdraw it. However, in his efforts in this connection the hon. member has frequently mentioned the name of a man who holds a very high position with the allied governments, in an attempt to show that he had some influence which enabled him to obtain some preference in regard to shipping space in order that this beer might be sent to Libya, I am quite prepared to leave to the British high command the question of whether or not beer should go to the troops in Libya. I am quite prepared to leave it to their judgment as to whether or not the troops in Libya should have beer; and if they should have it, then for heaven's sake let us see that they get it. Think of those men driving tanks in that hell-hole of Libya and Tunisia; flying planes; fighting in the sandstorms, and all the rest of it! Surely the high command of Britain can be depended upon to do what they think is in the best interests of the warfare there. They will not buy beer from Canada simply to satisfy Mr. Taylor, who is the head of a brewing corporation. Let us have done with this sort of thing. If there are those members of this house who feel that we should have prohibition in Canada, let them rise in their places and move a resolution to that effect, and let the members of this house go on record as to how they stand on this whole question.
Then the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) delivered a speech in which reference was made to the men who are running the war effort of this country-the dollar-a-year men, the bankers, the capitalists and the industrialists. The hon. member would try to leave in the minds of the people of this

The Budget-Mr. Homuth
country the idea that these men are not there to help win the war; that they are not concerned with driving the vicious philosophy of nazism from this earth, but that they are there for only one purpose, namely, to gain wealth as a result of our war effort, to throw contracts and rewards to the companies with which they were connected. I have had a great deal to do with many of these men. It is true that there are some instances of square pegs in round holes; that can happen when thousands upon thousands of men are being hired. I should like to see that changed; I should like to see every man fit into his job. But I know these men, and I know the work they are doing. I know that many of them work seven days a week, and long hours every day. These men are concerned with winning this war, because they know as well as anyone knows that if we lose this war nothing w7e have will matter. So that I resent any attempt to build up in the minds of the Canadian people a distrust of the men who in their own way are doing the best they can. Certainly there may be room for improvement, but let us not try to make the people of this country feel that anyone who happens to be connected with industry or with financial institutions is taking part in the war effort for only one purpose, namely, to better the financial position of himself and his friends.
Then we find a campaign being carried on by the Committee of Industrial Organization and the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation in collaboration. In organizing their unions the Committee of Industrial Organization seem to be more concerned with calling meetings at which they have Cooperative Commonwealth Federation political speakers; and to me their concern seems to be much greater for the future of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party than for the welfare of the industrial workers whom they are trying to organize. I have seen a good deal of this. I have seen some instances of it in my own riding. I will speak about them in a few moments. I know something about the labour movement. I have been closely associated with it throughout my political life, during which I have always fought for those things for which the trade unions stand. Apparently some of the unions have pledged their support to Cooperative Commonwealth Federation candidates. Not only are the Committee of Industrial Organization organizers trying to urge the working men to support the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation candidates; if they get sufficiently powerful they will force the working men to do so, and they are doing their utmost to take from the working men the most sacred freedom we
have in this or any other democratic country, namely, the freedom and secrecy of the ballot. The very success of the trade union movement in the old country has been due to the fact that it never became a political party.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Hon. members may laugh. It is true that the heads of trade unions are part and1 parcel of the Labour party in Britain, but the unions as such are not mixed up with that party. The day that trade unions in this country enter politics as unions, that day the trade unions will die. However, realizing what is the platform of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party, one can readily appreciate that if they got into power and had the right to bring about the regimentation which they are urging, then there would be no need for trade unions; trade unions would die, as they have died in Germany, Italy and other countries.
I should like now to give the house a few instances of the methods the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation are using to build up their party, for these are methods to which I do not think the Canadian people are going to take very kindly. I now mention a personal matter, because a denial through the newspapers would be of no avail. The lie has already gone out. I want to show the type of campaign these people are carrying on. In the present instance there was some difficulty in some of the factories in Waterloo South. A large meeting w'as called, and was held in the theatre in Galt. The meeting was well advertised-I hold the advertisement in my hand-as a meeting of the organized steel workers of Galt and district. The fact of the matter is that there was no organization at that meeting. The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) was there as guest speaker. The whole sum and substance of the meeting was the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, and the need for the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation in this company's operations.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Propagation of the faith.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: During the course of the meeting one of the smaller fry in the organization, one who is there as a Committee of Industrial Organization organizer, made a statement concerning myself and Mr. Hipel, Minister of Labour and Public Welfare in the Ontario legislature. There had been some difficulty in the plant of the Butler Stampings and Machine Screws company at Preston. That company came to our town about four years ago. We then had two
The Budget-Mr. Homuth

empty factory buildings. Mr. Hipel and I, along with many other citizens, took an active part in bringing that company to the town, with the result that to-day they are employing three or four hundred hands. They are occupying those factories, and doing a great job in the war effort.
However, during the course of the meeting the man Williams, rising from his seat, said: "The only reason we cannot expect any consideration or assistance from the two members for this constituency is that they are- both shareholders andl directors of the Butler company." He knew that statement was a deliberate lie; but it was a sample of the type of malicious propaganda that is being carried on throughout this country, in order to bolster up the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. That was a lie. Neither of us had any financial interest in the company. Our only interest was to bring a new industry into the district, and we were successful in doing so. But that is typical of the kind of campaign being carried on.
It is not confined to the smaller fry in the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. According to the Weyburn Review, after Mr. Meighen had1 become leader of this group the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation made a speech at Weyburn. These were the words he used: "I would rather live under Hitler than under Meighen."


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a correction, and when that statement appeared in the press I made the same correction. I did not use those words. I did not say what I was reported to^ have said. I made the correction, and the newspaper published it. They admitted it was an error in reporting.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But the hon. member said something like it.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I have never yet found any fault with the press. They always have the last kick anyway, so what is the use of protesting? Maybe it was a misprint, but it is not very different from some of the propaganda that is going out to-day.
I say that the people of Canada will not be misled by propaganda of that kind.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I object to what the hon. member says. He quotes a report. Then, having withdrawn it, he repeats that the country will not be fooled by such propaganda as that. I ask him to withdraw, because I have denied making the statement.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Any reference I may have made to the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation with regard to a statement which appeared in the Weyburn Review, I withdraw. But I do say it would be a wonderful thing, not only for his party, but for the building up of unity in this country if he, and his followers in the house and outside the house, tried to show some of the better side of Canadian public life, and Canadian life generally, rather than the side they are always showing.
But the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation has changed its policy to some extent, if we may judge from speeches we have heard in the house. No longer do they advocate the socialization of industry. They now refer only to the socialization of monopolistic industry. I do not know what they mean by that.


John Ritchie MacNicol: They do not know, themselves.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: For instance, here is a man who makes a better mouse-trap. He may be the only man in Canada who makes it, and therefore he has a monopoly. Is his mouse-trap business to be taken over by the government? I do not know; neither do I know what they mean. But I do know this, that statements which are being made in the house by hon. members of that group who, apparently, are trying to be a little more conservative in their policy, ought to be made known to their provincial leaders, so that those leaders across the country will have the same policy as the federal party.


Major James William Coldwell: They have.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Oh, let us see if they have. What does Mr. Winch, the leader of the party in British Columbia, have to say? Mr. Winch was asked the question, "What is your policy?" And he said:
I'll tell you what our stand is. The objective and programme of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation is to move forward step by step, as a government, under the constitution, to achieve as rapidly as possible the public ownership of the means of life.
That was the policy enunciated by Mr. Winch, the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party in British Columbia. And what are the means of life? Farming is a means of life. Industry is a means of life. Every activity in the country is a means of life. So that we find what Mr. Winch would do when that great day comes-God forbid- when that party would take power. Then everything will come under government control. One man will be told what he can do; another will be told what he can do, and so on through the piece.

The Budget-Mr. Hlynka
Then the provincial leader in Ontario, Mr. Jolliffe said this in a speech at Preston, when asked what he meant by the regimentation of industry: "I mean this, that the shoe factories of this country will be told how many types of shoes they can make. There will be no free enterprise about it."


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What is the hon. member quoting from?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Quoting from?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I am not quoting at all; I am telling the house Tvhat he said. I have never made statements in the house that I cannot support, nor have I in all my years of public life.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Either quote it, or do not use it.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Quote? Oh, I get sick of quoting such stuff as that. What I wish to say is that Mr. Jolliffe said they would have regimentation. Here is a shoe manufacturer who has some ideas respecting new styles of shoes, something fancy, something that will appeal to the women. But he can not make them. You will be handed a pair of shoes and, like the fellow who got the strawberries and cream, you will wear them whether you like them or not.
There is much more I should like to say-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: -but I do wish to say that there never was -a time in the history of our country when we should be more active in developing a spirit of trust among all the various factions who go to make up our population. We must deal with that problem in a country so vast, and with such a small population, a country with so tremendous a future ahead1 of it. With careful planning and careful working out of such plans, this country has fifty or a hundred years of prosperity ahead of it. These things can be ours. This future can be the future of our children and of our children's children if we are prepared in all parts of this dominion to give and take when dealing with these matters. There can be no east or no west; there can be no Ontario or no Quebec; there must be just Canada. That is what we must have. There must be that spirit of give and take; we must be willing to give more and take less.
If we build upon that foundation we have nothing whatever to fear. But you cannot build as the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation is trying to build to-day. You cannot build by trying to create distrust by one faction of another. You cannot build by
creating the feeling that one faction is right and the other is wrong, by talking against the general welfare of this country. That is not the foundation upon which we want to build Canada. It is certainly not the situation as it exists in Canada to-day. When they paint that picture, they paint a picture that is not true. These hon. gentlemen have painted certain word pictures in this house about conditions in Canada and about the type of men who are running this country. When the man overseas reads these dispatches he cannot help wondering what is going on in Canada. So that I say: Let us as Canadians make up our minds that there is only one thing we are concerned about, the building up of a happy future for those men who are doing such a good job in defending this country and who will continue to defend it as long as the war continues, and for those children who are now growing up and who are deserving of a splendid future.


Mr. ANTHONY HLYNKA (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, first I wish to say that I like the spirit displayed by the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth) in delivering his speech. Whenever he speaks he puts forth the utmost of his energies, and that is what makes him so interesting, as can be judged by the applause from both sides of the house. Following the two hon. gentlemen who have preceded me, I find myself in a iposition. similar to that of a young man who was run over by a car. When the doctor examined him and saw there was little hope, he asked the unfortunate man if he were married. The young man said, "No, this is the worst fix I have ever been in." Following two such brilliant speakers, I find myself in a similar position. Nevertheless, I should like to bring to the attention of the government and the members of the house a few of the problems which I believe face us to-day or will face us in the near future. One problem is the victory loan campaign, and the other is the shortage of farm labour which faces the farmers of Canada, particularly those of western Canada. I believe something should be done to assist those people in meeting their problems and so that they may do their part in Canada's-war effort.
During the last two years we have heard a great deal in Canada about the many charters and about the various freedoms which are promised to the people of this country and to those of the allied nations, and perhaps to the people of the other countries of the world when the war is over. As a member representing a farming constituency, I wish to place before this house the views of my people who are deeply interested in all charters
The Budget-Mr. Hlynka

that will guarantee security to our nation and in freedoms that will guarantee security to every individual in this dominion. In addition, the farmers of my constituency and, I believe, most farmers of Canada are interested in more freedoms.
The President of the United States announced only four freedoms, but I found that I could not condense the freedoms wanted by the farmers into less than eight. The farmers of Canada want, first, freedom from fear of the sheriff and financial institutions. Second, they want freedom from thousands of orders in council and the bureaucracy which has [DOT]grown up. Third, they want freedom from incompetency and mismanagement of people's -affairs. Fourth, they want freedom from amfulfilled promises made for political reasons only. Fifth, they want freedom from crushing taxation upon those in the lower income brackets. Sixth, they want freedom from fear and want in the midst of plenty. Seventh, they want freedom from those who thrive by keeping people in misery. Eighth, they want freedom from confusion. It seems to me that there is more confusion in Canada than is good for us. Many of the problems facing the Canadian people are not as bad as they appear to be on the surface, but the confusion that exists makes them appear much worse than they really are. Can we not approach these problems by first removing some of this confusion?
I have received a number of letters from the headquarters of the victory loan campaign in Edmonton and Calgary asking me as a member of the house to assist them in putting *over the campaign. I am sure that hon. members know the stand of this group on -victory loan campaigns. At all times we are only too anxious to assist the government in its campaigns, even though we do not agree with the manner in which the government is financing most of its expenditures. As one of the members of this group I wish at all times to assist the government in whatever way I can and may. I have done so during the past three sessions and shall continue to do so, particularly in connection with the larger problems that are facing our nation.
May I draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, and to the attention of the house the fact that I have actually seen farmers in my constituency weeping when they could not afford to buy victory bonds or war savings certificates. I have seen men of fifty, sixty and seventy years of age most despondent because they were not in a position to buy bonds and certificates. One particular farmer told me that he had to meet a mortgage obligation within

fifteen days, and that if he did not do so the mortgage company would foreclose. He said to me, " How can I possibly help Canada in this victory loan campaign if my own home and everything I have toiled for during the past fifty years will be taken away from me if I do not meet this mortgage payment?" He went on to say, " The quota on wheat deliveries is so low that I cannot possibly meet this payment, and yet if my district does not reach its quota in this victory loan it will be branded as not being loyal to Canada and to our cause in this war." If the government is concerned about these farmers and about placing them in a position so that they may be able to purchase victory bonds, the mortgage companies should be told-no, a measure should be passed by this house forbidding the collection of private farm debts now and cancelling all interest arrears. Then the farmer would be in a position to purchase victory bonds with the money which he would otherwise use to meet his debt obligations, and after the war he would be in a position to cash 'his bonds and pay off his contractual obligations, which seem to be so sacred to this. government. That is the only way in which we can make it possible for every farmer to buy victory bonds and war saving certificates, and I commend that suggestion to the government.
I have come to the conclusion, after the three sessions that I have sat in this house, that many hon. members really do not understand conditions in the west. It is not that they are not honest or do not mean well, but they simply do not understand the conditions of the western farmer. They have perhaps never seen an elderly gentleman of sixty-five or seventy years of age weeping because he has been dispossessed of his land and home. But that is a spectacle that may be seen right across the western provinces, and among these farmers will be found the finest type of pioneers that this country has ever had, men who have been toiling for years, clearing the land and building their homes and bringing up their families, men who in reality have been the builders of this nation and who should be entitled to some reward instead of being turned out of their homes. But what do they get? The heartless mortgage company walks in and tells the farmer to get out or the consequences will be worse for him-they will put him in gaol if he does not. After living among these people for many years and travelling throughout the country, I know that these are not men who squandered their incomes on things they did not need. They have not lived a

The Budget-Mr. Hlynka
life that does not entitle them to save something at least from their labours. They have done their very best. In this connection I should like to quote a few figures taken from Farm Forum Facts, a non-political publication published in Toronto. It quotes figures from the bureau of statistics for 1931 and 1936 showing that the tenancy of land in Canada is gradually passing from private individual owners to mortgage companies. Mark you, Mr. Speaker, the census of 1941 was taken two years ago, and we have not as yet been given the figures showing the trend in more recent years. I ask why? The figures may be so appalling, so frightening to the people of Canada that no government would be able to justify itself in permitting such conditions to continue or for allowing them to come about. The figures for 1931 show that Nova Scotia had the highest number of owned, mortgage-free farms, with about 85 per cent of her farms being in that group; New Brunswick had 77 per cent mortgage-free; Quebec, 63 per cent; Prince Edward Island, 62 per cent; British Columbia, 60 per cent; Ontario 48 per cent; Alberta, 44 per cent; Manitoba, 42 per cent; and Saskatchewan, about 36 per cent. Will anyone suggest to me that these farmers have not done their best to meet their debt obligations out of the meagre income they have received from their produce, and that is the only income they have because they have no side-line of any kind? Will any one say that this is a happy state of affairs? The hon. member for Waterloo-South said in his address this afternoon that he would like to see this a land of happy homes. Every honest Canadian would like to see Canada a land of happy homes. We cannot, however, have happy homes while mortgages cover the properties of our pioneers right across the country. Let me quote further from this publication:
The trend away from farm ownership continued in the years following 1931. No statistics will be available to show this trend for the whole of Canada, until the 1941 census has been compiled. But the trend, as revealed by the 1936 prairie census, is marked.
There the number of fully owned, mortgage-free farms had declined, by 1936, to 24 per cent of the total; the number of owned, mortgaged farms had risen to 40 per cent; the number of farmers renting rose to 19 per cent, and the number of partly owned, partly rented farms rose to about 17 per cent.
Here is another quotation from the same article:
Fall in Value
The value of the farm property actually owned by the farmers fell from 56 per cent to 40 per cent, while the value held by landlords rose from 28 to 34 per cent, and that held by mortgagees from 16 to 26 per cent.
The point I wish to make here, and with which I am sure there will be a general agreement, is that when the returns from the 1941 census are available it will be shown that fewer than half the farmers of western Canada own their homes. Fewer than half have any say as to the wealth they produce. Where are we going? Whither are we drifting? It will be seen that within the next five to ten years, mortgage companies and other financial institutions will operate farms in large units and will be in competition with the farmers of western Canada in regard to the price on wheat and other products which are raised by the farmers. Then an individual farmer will not be able to exist, because it will not be possible for him to compete. This is a trend which has been permitted to continue now for more than twelve years, and it should be stopped. If our farmers are dispossessed of their properties and are allowed to work only as tenants, the consequences to Canada would be really terrible. We would lose the creative genius which has characterized the country's pioneers.
Let me for a moment draw attention to the incomes of our farmers. I have here a publication of the Canadian federation of agriculture showing farm incomes in percentages compared with those of other groups. Remember that one-third of the total population in Canada is engaged in agriculture, so that it would be * logical to expect that the farmers would receive one-third of the total national income, and that would mean parity prices, and that is how it should be. But here are the facts:
Percentage of
Year	national income
1926		 17-8*
1927		 16-4
1928		 17-6
1929		 14-6
1930		 9-6
1931		 6-3
1932		 5-0
1933		 6-6
'Instead of 33-33 per cent.
And so down the line until 1940, in which year the percentage, instead of being 33-3 per cent was 11-0 per cent. I have not the figures for 1941 and 1942, but it is certain that the percentage will not be one-third; indeed, I am certain that it will be less than half that figure.
How then can the farmer meet his obligations? How can he be expected' to pay his debts, buy victory bonds, clothe and feed his children and send' them to school, and pay his hospital and doctor bills? I do not care what sort of picture is painted about the prices the farmers are getting for their hogs, honey and other commodities; so long as the farmers are not receiving one-third of the national income, someone else is getting it.
The Budget-Mr. Hlynka

I will now turn to the subject of grading of live stock and point out what seems to me to be a ridiculous situation. I have here a clipping which was sent to me by one of my constituents, who a^ks, "Will you ask the government to explain why a situation of this sort exists?" This clipping is taken, I believe, from the Edmonton Journal, and states:
Note: new cuts on heavies, $3 per carcass discount; extra heavies $2 per cwt. discount; redglings $5 each discount.	.
Here is a letter to the editor of the same newspaper and on the same subject: Inconsistency
Sir-Have just finished listening to a radio announcer exhorting the housewives of Canada to save fats, and he wound up his plea with the statement that "10 pounds of fat would provide explosive for 29 anti-aircraft shells." A commendable plea, doubtless instigated by the federal government, but the government's plea to save fats, badly needed for explosives, and the statement of my hog returns which I have in my pocket do not make sense. These returns for hogs for the week of Jan. 12, 1913, state: "One heavy, 188 pounds (two pounds overweight, deduction or penalty $1.88) % Return for Jan. 19, one heavy, 192 pounds (six pounds overweight, deduction $2.88)." Therefore, I was penalized $4.76 for producing eight pounds of fat too much. Will the consumer receive the benefit of this $4.76 deduction? . . .
We know the old argument that "our standards must be maintained to retain the British market after the war", but haven't we been told there is an emergency and to increase pork production? And also that the meat ration per person for the civilian population of England is four ounces per week? Me thinks the British consumer *would be pleased to get a litle extra fat.
If the federal government allowed the Canadian farmer to put another twenty pounds on each hog we farmers would produce more fat for explosives in a month than the housewives of this country could save in six years.
There may be something rotten in the state of Denmark, but we hog producers are convinced there is something definitely rotten in the hog grading system in the state of Canada. The inconsistency of the government's pleas and their actions in this regard rouses a strong feeling of disgust.-Yours, H. R. Boutillier.


Mr. WOOD:: Will the hon. member permit a question? Does he know that the farmers are producing hogs of such quality that 80 per cent of them qualify for Wiltshire sides, equal to those of Denmark at any time? His friend has a poor quality of hogs.


Anthony Hlynka: The hon. member is in the habit of cross-questioning this side of the house when some of these problems are brought before the government. If he ever decided to take a trip across my constituency, I am afraid there would be a by-election in his. I like the hon. member and like his nerve.


George Ernest Wood: Is that the way in which the hon. member answers that argument?


Anthony Hlynka: The hon. member at all times wants to paint a picture before this house showing the enviable position of the farmer. He may be one of the prosperous farmers, but he must remember that he has a sideline, being a member of this house. Thousands of farmers in my constituency have no income other than the farm income. I am trying to point out the conditions under which they exist. I should be glad to discuss with the hon. member his point of view, but I think we can do so somewhere else and not take up my time here.
The income of the farmer is only one phase of the problem. We may point out that the farmer is getting a little more for his hogs, for his cream and for other commodities, but we must take into consideration other things such as the freight the farmer of western Canada must pay on everything he buys from Ontario and Quebec, and on everything he sells as well, and has to ship east of Edmonton or Saskatoon or Winnipeg. He must pay the freight .both ways. The farmer is the only person in Canada who has to do that. Why should it be permitted? Why should not the manufacturer in the east say, all right, I will pay the freight on my binder because I am selling it to the farmer in Alberta, and the farmer in Alberta will pay freight on his wheat. But no, the farmer has to bear the cost both ways. It is ridiculous. Candidates of the government party have been campaigning for years in western Canada promising the farmer that the freight rate structure will be overhauled. But there has not been a move made in that direction.


Mr. GARDINER:: You are complaining that they did overhaul it.


Anthony Hlynka: They overhauled it in such a way that farmers in the west are now being foreclosed by the thousands. They cannot meet their debts.


Mr. HANSELL:: They still have to pay the freight both ways.


Anthony Hlynka: Let us consider another problem that faces the farmer. At the present time the implement companies have closed the little shops they had in the outlying towns for the sale of farm machinery parts. If today the farmer needs something for his tractor or binder, he has to get out his car, use rubber and gas that should be saved, and go fifteen or twenty or more miles, and every farmer has to do the same. That is a mistake. The government should make it possible for the farmers to have these parts available within walking distance or a horseback ride. I know farmers sixty or seventy miles from Edmonton who have to make a trip to get a little gadget

The Budget-Mr. Hlynka
for the binder. In the same connection there may be some small part broken that might cost only 25 cents, but the machine company says, You cannot get that little part; you must buy the whole thing, and you must pay $5 for it. The farmer has nothing to say; he must hand in the old piece of machinery to get the new piece. Who gets the benefit? All the company has to do is to adjust the piece handed in and sell it again for five dollars. That is absolutely unfair.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed1 at eight o'clock.



SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1942-43

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting further supplementary estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1943, was presented by Hon. J. L. Ilsley (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.
James Lorimer Ilsley: Perhaps I may be permitted to add that if it is at all possible I hope to take up these estimates to-morrow afternoon, together with interim supply both for war and for non-war appropriations.


Richard Burpee Hanson: For how much are you asking in interim supply?


James Lorimer Ilsley: One-sixth.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Hon. J. L. Ilsley (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Blackmore, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Anthony Hlynka: In the five minutes left at my disposal, Mr. Speaker, I should like to touch on the shortage of farm labour. In the first place, agriculture must.definitely be considered an essential war industry; then, that being so, postponements should be granted more readily to farmers and farmers' sons. In practice the onus of proof rests upon the applicant. I know many young men in my constituency who were called up and who applied for postponements, but were either refused or granted postponements too
short to enable them to get rid of their stock. So that many of these young men left everything standing as it was and went into the service. The country loses a great deal by hurried decisions of that kind. I suggest that many men in the service to-day should be granted leave for two weeks, six weeks or whatever time may be necessary in order that they may get rid of their stock and settle their affairs.
That is the first thing that must be done. Then I believe it is essential that we standardize the form of these applications for postponement. I know many young men have had legitimate cases for postponement; but because they were not able to word their applications as well as some others, their requests were refused. Another chap may be a bit shrewder; his application may perhaps be more attractive or his request presented in a better form, so that while his case may not be as worthy of consideration as that of the other chap, his application may be granted1.
There are two other points I should like to mention in this connection. The first is with regard to private debts of soldiers. I have a number of letters in my office from young men who tell me that mortgage companies are threatening to foreclose upon their land while they are away at war. That is unfair. There should not be a single foreclosure on the property of any man who happens to be defending this country, as well as the mortgage companies. I wish to bring that point to the attention of this house as forcibly as I can. In addition, the interest is accumulating on the debts of these men. That should not be the case. No one should expect interest on a debt owed by a soldier while he is away in the service of his country.
My time is slipping away rapidly, but my last point is that many of these young men were given only eight days in which to apply for a postponement, and if they failed to have their applications before the board within that time, their cases were not even heard or reviewed. Even to-day these cases should be reviewed, and they should be given an opportunity to apply for a leave to enable them to go home, dispose of their stock and make any arrangements necessary. I have received from my constituency many appeals which I have referred to the Department of National Defence. Most of them are hurriedly brushed aside, the answer I usually get being that the application has been refused, and that is the end of it. A board of appeal under the Department of National Defence should be set up in order that these cases may have a fair hearing when they are brought up.

The Budget-Mr. Maelnnis


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to speak in this debate, since I felt that anything I had to say on the budget could be said during the discussion of the resolutions. However, so much has been said during this debate in regard to the programme, the aims, the policies and the social philosophy of this group that at times I was not sure whether the budget had been introduced by the Minister of Finance or by some member from this comer of the house. I will try to reply to some of the statements that have been made and to bring some light into dark comers. Perhaps it is a waste of time. I hear the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) laughing; I imagine he realizes the futility of what I intend to try to do. However, I shall try to do it, regardless of the fact that I am aware that none are so blind as those who will not see or so deaf as those who will not hear.
I shall deal first with the former leader of the opposition, the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson). In the course of his speech the other day he said that this group, this party, was spreading the gospel of hate throughout the country. Well, if I talked with such venom when I spoke about the Tory party as he does when he talks about the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, I should be inclined to agree with him. Speaking on March 18, he is reported at page 1358 of Hansard as follows:
The system of free enterprise may have been exploited and abused, if you will. I admit that. But with all its abuses it is a far better system than government regimentation and national socialism. What does it mean? What is the ultimate aim of national socialism? Well, it is fascism.	_
Mr. Douglas (Weyburn) : There is no national socialism in this country.
Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury): They can deny it, but I can see as far through a stone wall as anybody.
I do not doubt the ability of my hon. friend to see through a stone wall as far as anybody. But his difficulty is that when he is playing politics, as he usually is in the house, he can see just as far through a stone wall as he can through a telescope.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Now, isn't that clever?


Angus MacInnis: When my hon. friend
applies the appellation of national socialism to the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation he is doing what he knows to be incorrect, or he does not know the difference between national socialism and democratic socialism.
I would draw the attention of the house to the fact that Hitler's national socialism did not

seem so abhorrent to my hon. friends a few years ago. May I read to the house the eulogy of the leader of national socialism in Germany made in this house by a former leader of the Conservative party, Doctor R. J. Manion. This is what he said on September 8, 1939, as reported at page 14 of Hansard for the special war session:
But, sir, Germany is controlled at the present time by an unscrupulous egoist. It is true he served Germany well, and had he stopped at a certain point he might well have gone down into history as a great German hero. He raised the German people from discouragement, gave them back their pride after a just but humiliating defeat. Had he stopped there he would have been accepted perhaps by all the world as a German hero. But he did not stop there.
Yes, he would have been accepted by people with minds like my hon. friend; but he would not have been accepted by socialists anywhere in the world as a German hero. He would have been accepted as the gangster that he is.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You are a little late in your denunciation.


Angus MacInnis: If my hon. friend wants to read the record he will find my denunciation of nazism clear and sound from the very beginning.
What I have quoted represents the attitude of all Conservative-minded people. I have in my hand another statement by another Conservative-not in this country. This was the man sent from Great Britain in a last effort to appease Hitler. I refer to the late Sir Nevile Henderson, ambassador to Germany from 1937 to the beginning of the war. Upon his return to Great Britain he wrote a book entitled " Failure of a Mission." One would think that he and Doctor Manion had agreed between them as to what they wished to say. Sir Nevile Henderson said:
Nor are all dictatorships, even if prolonged, reprehensible.
Only communist dictatorships are reprehensible to Conservatives.
One cannot, just because he is a dictator, refuse to admit the great services which Signor Mussolini has rendered to Italy-
This is the man Churchill called a jackal, -nor would the world have failed to acclaim Hitler as a great German if- he had known when and where to stop-
If he had known enough to stop before he began to attack us, or before he became dangerous to our interests, he would have been a great man. But he did not stop there. I quote further:
. . . if for instance after Munich and the Nuremberg decrees for the Jews.

The Budget-Mr. Maelnnis
Doctor Manion and Sir Nevile Henderson were still willing to acclaim Hitler a great hero, despite the fact that he had ground a large section of the German population into the dust, and subjected the rest to the worst dictatorship the world had ever known.


An hon. MEMBER:: And what about trade unions?
Mr. MaeINNIS: And he destroyed trade unionism; I am coming to that.
So long as Hitler was suppressing trade unions, destroying cooperatives, and imprisoning and shooting socialists, no fault was found with him by -my Conservative friends. This is what they used to say when they were among themselves-"Great Fellow, this Hitler -a little crude, maybe; but he certainly knows how to handle those dirty trade unionists. I wish we had someone here who had the guts to deal with our agitators in the same way." That was their attitude, and that is why we are fighting a war.
Where is the man in this house, either on the Conservative or the Liberal side, who protested or raised his voice when Hitler and Mussolini joined to force fascism on the Spanish people? There is no such man. We placed an embargo on Spain to prevent her from defending herself, and we shipped all the materials of war Hitler and Mussolini required.
Not only does the hon. member for York-Sunbury speak in the house about the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, but outside the house we are the theme of his every speech. He cannot get us off his mind. I feel somewhat encouraged by that fact. There is another thing that encourages me, also, that is that the more he talks the more our position improves.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We are both happy, then; let us leave it at that.
Mr. MaeINNIS: No, I am not going to leave it at that. This is what the hon. member said when he spoke at the Progressive Conservative association dinner on March 13, according to a report in the Ottawa Citizen:
Mr. Hanson in his address said post-war plans were necessary, but the greatest struggle for survival was raging, and to win it should be the first consideration. "We have a long way to go yet and the people of Canada have many sacrifices to make," he said.
Mr. Hanson said the trouble wTith Canada's war effort was lack of national leadership. The prime purpose and objective of Prime Minister Mackenzie King was to maintain the solidarity and power of the Liberal party. The Prime Minister had entered the war with a policy of "moderate" participation, said Mr. Hanson,
and the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation had declared against sending an expeditionary force overseas.
The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party was striving not to win the war "but to win the next general election" and was "holding out the bribe" of nationalization of big industries.
I wonder what my hon. friend was doing when he made that speech? Was he trying to win the next general election? I think that is the purpose of most of his speeches. But do hon. members note the superiority?- everyone is out of step but our Dick. I hate to put a stain on the lily-white record he thinks he has, but I must say that if there is any one man in or out of the house who has consistently played politics since May 16, 1940, that man is the hon. member for York-Sunbury.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should like to page the Prime Minister on that point.
Mr. MaeINNIS: You can share the honours between you. I will go on a little further and show what my hon. friends have been doing for the last year and a half. I had not intended to speak of this because there is more important work at hand. But I wonder why the Conservative party is doing these things. Is it to win the next general election, or to lose it? Some of their actions seem to indicate that the purpose is to lose it.
About November, 1941, the National Conservatives held a conference in Ottawa, the purpose of which was to select a leader. Rightly or wrongly, of all the prominent public men in this country they selected the man most detested by labour. Writing to friends in Toronto when it became evident that this man was to be the new leader and saying that the action of the party in selecting Mr. Meighen seemed to me like the action of an organism that wanted to die but shrank from sudden death. It took the York South by-election to convince them of their mistake. Remember, they were not sorry because of the type of man they had selected; they were merely sorry because they had made a mistake. It took another little affair to really put the-I was just about to say something that would not be parliamentary-fear into them. On July 25, 1942, an informal labour conference took place in Toronto. This conference passed the following resolution.
Be it resolved that we believe and affirm that organized labour will be doing itself a great service and hastening the realization of its aims by entering into affiliation for political action with the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation at the earliest possible moment, and that until such affiliation is an accomplished
The Budget-Mr. Maclnnis

fact, this conference calls upon all unions to endorse the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation as the official political arm of the trade union movement in Canada.
I wish to tell this house as a man who has been connected with organized labour for more than thirty years that that is the best day's work that organized labour did for itself during that time.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Angus MacInnis: Just a moment, now. The results were swift and they were impressive. Organized labour had been asldng the province of Ontario for a trade union bill for years. Two weeks after that resolution was passed, Peter Heenan, the minister of labour in the government of Ontario, said that there would be a trade union bill. Mr. Conant said a little later that a special session would be called to put through a trade union bill. That was before they had heard from Ontario employers. The resolution also had quite an effect upon a gentleman known as Mitchell Hepburn, one-time premier of Ontario, one-time friend of the Prime Minister of Canada, an all-time hater of organized labour. Overnight Mitchell Hepburn became the champion of civil liberties. In fact, one could see Mitch standing on the steps of Toronto gaols embracing communists or alleged communists as the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) released them.
Shortly after that labour conference the Conservatives decided to hold an informal conference and with due regard for the general fitness of things, they decided to hold it at Port Hope. Another thing they did, the first glimmering of intelligence I have noted in the Conservative party for the past thirteen years, was to exclude Conservative members of parliament from the conference. They did another thing that indicated growing intelligence. One of the members of their brain trust-I shall not mention his name, but there are not so many-borrowed from a friend of mine a book entitled "Social Planning for Canada" and took it to Port Hope to see if they could not get some ideas or inspiration out of it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What about the book "Liberal Way"?


Angus MacInnis: The party who had the book "Liberal Way" were not going the Liberal way. Therefore the Conservatives decided that book would not do and they got something else. To come back for a moment to the conference held in Ottawa in 1941: As I said, they selected a leader who was to

be the pillar of fire that would lead them into the promised land of political power. But the pillar of fire of 1941 became the incubus of 1942, so that when they met at Winnipeg he was thrown out the window. They then proceeded to select a new leader and a new name. However, it should be noted that the new name depended upon the new leader. If N was to be the new leader, the name would be national Conservative party; if P was to be the new leader, the name would be Progressive Conservative party. That is how they came by the new name.
May I remind the members of this house that the aims and policies and even the social philosophy of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and of this group are not something that is particularly and peculiarly ours. Our policies are similar to those of labour parties in the other parts of the British commonwealth, such as Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand, and they are the same as the policies of democratic socialists no matter where they are found throughout the world. Therefore, when my hon. friends cast aspersions on the members of this group they are casting aspersions not only on this group but on men like Walter Nash, former minister of finance in the Labour government in New Zealand; they are casting aspersions on men like Herbert Morrison, member of the British war cabinet; they are casting aspersions on men like John Curtin, Prime Minister of Australia; they are casting aspersions on men like Sir Stafford Cripps, a member of the British war cabinet. In fact, Mr. Speaker, they are casting aspersions on scores of statesmen throughout the British empire, men without whom the world would be very much the poorer and its hope for the future very much darker.
I wish to say to this house that the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation is closely associated with the British Labour party and with the Labour party of Australia and New Zealand. I have in my hand a copy of a letter which was considered at an executive meeting of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation on September 19, 1942. The letter is dated from London, August 25, and is addressed to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. It reads:
My dear Coldwell,
In the course of his address to our annual conference at Whitsuntide, the Rt. Hon. Dr. Evatt, a member of the Australian Commonwealth government said:
"If we are to progress together one thing is plain, and I ask you to consider it. The present relations between the labour organizations of

The Budget-Mr. Maclnnis
the British commonwealth of nations must become more intimate. It is only right and proper that the labour movements in all British countries should plan for the future together. I hope that steps to establish a closer liaison will be taken by you and taken soon."
Our national executive committee have expressed their agreement with the principle of holding a British commonwealth labour conference of the political labour parties in the British commonwealth and would welcome any proposals from your executive committee with regard to the time, place, composition and agenda of such a conference, and any other relevant observations or material, before taking any decisions in detail. We hope that your executive committee will give this matter their earnest consideration.
Yours sincerely,
William Gillies,
Secretary,
International Department, of the British Labour Party.
I wish to say a few words now about a matter which was raised by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) on Tuesday evening in this house. If talking to my friends to my right is a waste of time, I presume that talking for the benefit of the hon. member for Temiscouata is doubly so. In any event the hon. member for Temiscouata issued a challenge to this group to define profit and to teH the house how we could get along if no one made a profit. Then he gave his own definition of profit. He said:
When a man works hard for a few dollars a day, lives within his means and succeeds in saving perhaps a dollar or two each day, and then puts it in a bank or buys insurance with it, that is a profit, and it is a legitimate profit.
The hon. member for Temiscouata may have his own ideas of what is profit and what is legitimate profit. But the instance he gave is not profit. The man received a wage for a commodity sold-his labour power. When we talk about profit or profits I imagine we are using those words in their economic sense. I heard the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Iiinley), I think it was, say the other day that the flowers of the field made a profit. My understanding is that the lilies of the field toil not, neither do they spin, and consequently they do not make a profit for themselves or for anybody else. But for the benefit of the hon. member for Temiscouata I should like to give a definition of profit from "Webster's New International Dictionary," which defines profit as:
The share of the employing classes in the distribution of the product of industry, as distinct from wages which constitute the share of the labouring classes, and rent which constitutes the share of the landlord classes.
That is a proper definition of profit in political-economic terms. But if the hon. member for Temiscouata desires to get a clearer understanding of what profit really is, I would suggest that he read the report of the royal commission on price spreads in 1935. At page 115 of that report he will find the question of wages and profits in the tobacco industry dealt with. I quote from page 115:
The most striking fact revealed by our evidence on the tobacco industry is the combination of low wages and high profits.
In 1930, the average annual earnings of the workers in this industry, $662, were the third lowest in the forty industries for which the dominion bureau of statistics published data. Since that date, they have declined to as low as $555, which can be attributed to a 17 per cent decrease in the volume of employment and to a decrease in basic wage rates.
I quote again-:
Certain figures for the Imperial Tobacco Company, which is by far the largest single unit in this industry, are of special interest. In 1931, net profits were $5,914,079 and factory payrolls were $3,430,952, or 58 per cent of net profits; in 1933, factory payrolls totalled only 52 per cent of net profits.
In the Macdonald Tobacco Company, undivided profits at the end of 1933 stood at $594,432, notwithstanding the withdrawal of $260,000 annually by the president since 1930.
May I point out that at the rate of wages prevailing in 1933, $555, an employee of that company would have to work for 468 years before he would take out as much in wages as the president took out in one year. So that, if my hon. friend the member for Temiscouata cannot now understand the difference between wages and profits, the fault is not mine.
That was the condition found in 1935, and there have been no curbs applied and no changes made since, except for what may have happened since the war began. That is the condition which will prevail as soon as normal times return unless we find some way of curbing it. That is the profit system. That is free enterprise. It is what we object to, and I am satisfied that it is what an increasing number of people in this country are beginning to object to, as well.
I should like to develop that a little further because it is an interesting point; however, my time will not allow. But further information is very easily obtainable.
I said that I did not want to take part in this sort of debate, but I want my hoc. friends to know that if they desire a fight of this kind they can have it at any time they like.
I am sure that no man who has any understanding of the tremendous problems-military, social, political, racial, and a hundred

The Budget-Mr. LaCroix

and one others-which confront the world today, and will very likely confront it in an intensified way after the war, can deal lightly or carelessly with such issues.
Just a closing word. The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation is the result of the social and economic developments in this country so far. Its roots are deep in the soil of Canada. Its growth cannot be stopped oy railing or misrepresentation. The only way in which it can be stopped is if some other party does the things we are advocating. Our aims and our policies are in tune with the times, and they will prevail.
Mr. WILFRID LaCROIX (Quebec-Mont-morency) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, everyone admits, I believe, that we shall come out of this war with a public debt of at least $15,000,000,000, for the interest on which we shall have to pay every year about $400,000,000. After the war we shall be unable to balance our budget without a deficit, without new loans or, still, without levying heavy taxes at a time when the national income will be considerably reduced. In fact, we shall then have to enforce a new social security legislation, and in the estimation of Professor Marsh, the cost of that social security plan,-which will necessarily have to be carried out,-will alone amount to about $900,000,000.
Everyone admits that the ceiling has been reached as regards taxes, at least in the case of wage-earners, because the tax which the latter have to pay at the source is higher in Canada than in the United States or England. Some will say "Why should we pay $400,000,000 a year for interest on a debt which will amount to about $15,000,000,000?" In reply I may say that I sincerely believe it is possible to eliminate those huge interest payments and lighten by a like amount the tax levied from wage-earners, especially those in the lower and medium brackets, who form the mass of our population and whose burden will necessarily have to be lightened if most of them are not to become, after the war, an even greater charge upon the government.
Why not put to greater use our Bank of Canada, instead of borrowing from the chartered banks and the public? The honourable the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) has stated in his budget speech that he had borrowed from the chartered banks only inasmuch as such loans were essential to meet our war expenditures. I blame the Minister of Finance for having overlooked the government's sovereignty in currency matters when he applied to chartered banks and the public instead of dealing solely with the Bank of Canada.
IMr. Maclnnis.]
It may be objected that loans from the Bank of Canada would be more harmful than loans from the chartered banks. What difference is there between a Bank of Canada note and a dominion bond?
A Bank of Canada note is a- promise on the part of the government or of its'bank,-which means the same thing-to pay to the bearer on demand, a certain sum of money. It is therefore an interest-free promissory note payable on demand, which does not mean much since the government has, some years ago, taken the precaution to free itself from any obligation by establishing forced currency (Chapter 45, 3 George VI, of the Dominion statutes). Under that act, Bank of Canada notes are now legal tender for all, and in any private or public contract gold clauses or gold values are null and void.
I may add that since Canada's entry in the war and the appointment of a foreign exchange control board, the government even reserves the right to accept or refuse its own notes (that is to say its own pledges) in return for the American funds it holds. That is a security measure, but it nevertheless shows that the words "Pay to the bearer" have no longer any meaning.
A dominion bond is a promise on the part of the government to pay to the bearer, on demand, after the lapse of a certain period, that is on. such a date, such a sum. Like the bank note, the dominion bond is a promise to pay, but a promise that is deferred and bears interest. A promise to pay what? Merely interest-free notes issued by the Bank of Canada. After all, the only difference between a bank note and a dominion bond is that the Latter bears interest while the former does not. As the money so obtained from chartered banks and individuals is used by the government, the currency circulation in this country does not decrease, but neither does it increase. Such a situation obtains as long as individuals do not get rid of their bonds. If they do, the dam breaks; the government loses the benefit of the delay granted for the redemption of its bonds, and it fails to achieve one of the aims of the loan, which is to reduce temporarily or for the duration of the war the purchasing power of the people and to prevent them from spending.
It can thus be positively stated that while bearer-bonds issued to the public do not, in themselves, entail currency expansion to such a degree, they nevertheless open the way for it. This has been exemplified after the last war, in European countries where the people who held government bonds in France or those who in other countries held government

The Budget-Mr. LaCroix
bonds bearing interest at a low rate, started almost at the same time to put them on the market, within twelve months after the war, thereby causing a fantastic fall in the value of those bonds, a fall which also affected the currency of those countries. That is easy to understand) because while individuals cannot, in war time purchase anything or participate in the establishment of any industry and they are compelled to purchase government bonds, the reverse happens after the war, when they try to get rid of their government bonds as quickly as possible iri order to invest their money in industrial or business firms from which they can obtain a higher rate of interest. Although the war is not yet over, we can already notice such a trend. The figures published in connection with the second victory loan show that since their issue in February, 1942, no less than 339,000 bonds of $50 to $100 have been cashed by their original holders. In October last, they were coming back to Ottawa at the rate of 78,000 a month, or nearly 3,000 a day. Out of this total 339,000 bonds so cashed, 268,000 were fifty-dollar and
71,000	one hundred-dollar bonds. To date, they have been cashed at the chartered banks in a proportion of 24 per cent. As regards war savings certificates, they are being redeemed in a proportion of 34 per cent,, subscribers investing each month $6,000,000 in them and the government having to redeem them at the rate of $2,000,000 a month.
We have therefore every reason to wonder what will be done after the war by banks and insurance companies which at the present time pay no dividends on premiums. They will be looking for a rapid increase in their income by getting rid of their dominion bonds so as to improve their assets and obtain a 6 or 7 per cent return.
The same question may be asked about the chartered banks, because if they cannot at this time lend money to industrial or business firms and must be satisfied with a profit made up of the difference between what they pay to their depositors and what the government pays them for interest, we can ask ourselves whether they will not endeavour to lend money to industrial or business firms which will be reorganized after the war, in order to obtain a six per cent return, thus unloading upon the market, within twelve months after the end of hostilities, a supply of government bonds which will not be offset by a corresponding demand and which may cause a tremendous fall in the value of those bonds. The problem could easily be solved were all those bonds held by the Bank of Canada-that is to say, the government- 72537-99}
which would be careful in using them thereby ensuring the market stability that is essential if our currency is to remain sound.
The advantage of dealing solely with the Bank of Canada would eliminate from our budget that yearly $400,000,000 interest payment which we shall have to make to chartered banks or individuals; it would stabilize our currency and prevent the sudden appearance of inflation after victory has been achieved.
Besides, such a policy would lighten the tax burden on wage-earners, by this amount of $400 million subtracted from our budget.
I understand the policy followed by tf>e government so far has placed an increased amount of money in the hands of the public,, for the bank deposits from all sources, governmental, public and foreign, have soared from $3,144,000,000 in 1939, to $4,209,000,000 at the present time, an increase of over a billion dollars. This monetary expansion policy might have an extremely nefarious effect on the value of the Canadian dollar, if we allow the public and the chartered banks to keep too large an amount of government bonds. I sincerely believe that this practice of the dominion government of borrowing from the chartered banks is fraught with dangers; indeed, if, to-day, the chartered banks, in order to lend money, must not only use up their excess reserve of legal tender, but also find persons willing to go into debt, the situation will be reversed after the war, for a considerable number of people will then certainly be willing to borrow money from the banks in order ta engage in business ventures.	.
On the other hand, most of the industries' presently financed by dominion government funds and which, after the war, will own all developments paid for by the state, will endeavour to use their increased facilities by placing them on a peace-time footing. To attain this end they will no doubt throw on the market bonds and shares bearing a higher rate of interest than government bonds do at present and we shall then experience the strange situation of business enterprises fully financed by the government competing with the state in the financial field.
I sincerely regret that it has not been thought advisable to nationalize the banking system so as to make possible the full utilization of the Bank of Canada for the financing of the war. I have no liking whatever for the chartered banks, especially in our province, where the-salary they pay or have paid their employees-is but a mere pittance. Moreover, the nationalization of these banks would not affect an institution which is indispensable in our province, the "caisses populaires" which are-
The Budget-Mr. LaCroix

authorized to do business with their members exclusively and are not allowed to extend loans beyond their actual capital. On the contrary, the nationalization of banking would he favourable to the expansion of "caisses populaires" which afford a more readily accessible paeans of accumulating savings, for .the deposits they would place with the Bank e>f Canada would be more secure; as it must not be forgotten that these institutions at the present time deposit their funds with the chartered banks. Besides, "caisses populaires" operate under a provincial statute entitled an act concerning cooperative syndicates (Chapter 290, Revised Statues of Quebec) and their loans are subject to prescription at the end of 30 years only, instead of 5 years.
Until now, the chartered banks have endeavoured to organize extremely powerful trusts, such as those formed when Mr. Holt became president of the Royal Bank. These trusts have caused economic disturbances heavily felt in the province of Quebec, especially in the fields of electric power and public utilities.
An hon. member has claimed, in this house, that we should oppose the nationalization of banks because some directors of the Bank of [DOT]Canada did not satisfy him. In answer, I should like to point out that no man is immortal, that any man may be replaced and that this does not in any way diminish the advantages nor does it alter the principle underlying the nationalization of our banking institutions.
I also wish, Mr. Speaker, to point out that the budget gives no consideration whatever to the fact that the upkeep of adolescents of convent or college age costs more to their parents than that of very young children. In their case, the least that should have been done was to allow for a greater proportion of the income tax to be refundable.
The budget submitted by the Minister of Finance does not afford sufficient protection to large families.
I also favour an increase in the amounts paid to old age and blind pensioners, for the sums they now receive, if the cost of living is taken into account, is not even sufficient to cover the mere necessities of life.
I also regret that the control of our industries and businesses has been handed over to dollar a year men who, in most cases, are representatives of monopolistic industries and financial organizations already established in our midst and that, in the drafting of regulations for the control of the various industrial activities, they evidently follow the dictates of

the trusts, thereby contributing to the elimination of small industrial and business enterprises, especially in the province of Quebec. Indeed, it is hard to believe how many small concerns have been run out of business since these controllers, representing high finance, have taken charge of our national economy.
Those are the reasons, Mr. Speaker, why I shall vote for the subamendment proposed by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), which reads as follows:
That all the words after "That" in the amendment be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"this house regrets the failure of the government to provide for the nationalization of the banking system so as to make possible the full utilization of the Bank of Canada for the financing of the war;
And further this house regrets the failure of the government to provide for increases in the amounts paid to old age and blind pensioners, or to make adequate provisions for veterans of the last or the present war, or their wives and dependents;
And further this house regrets the extent to which the government has vested the control of the Canadian economy in monopolistic industry and finance."
However, I want to state that even if I support this amendment, to which I fully agree, it must not be construed that I adhere to all the theories expounded by the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, for I feel that an hon. member of this house should consider it his duty to judge an amendment on its text, rather than on considerations as to what political group sponsors it.
In concluding, allow me to hope that, at least in connection with the problems of postwar reconstruction and reestablishment, the French Canadians will be represented on the committee organized under the chairmanship of Mr. Cyril James, principal of McGill university. Since Mr. Edouard Montpetit handed in his resignation, we have no representative on this committee. If the recommendations of the James committee are to be imbued with ideas' of sound ethnical duality, it is extremely important and urgent that a successor be appointed to Mr. Montpetit. This would give us an opportunity to make our influence felt in the drafting of post-war economic and social legislation. At present the James committee comprises seven English-speaking Canadians; it is therefore absolutely necessary that at least two Canadians of French extraction take part in future deliberations.
You will allow me, Mr. Speaker, to suggest to the government the names of two persons who rank among our best economists by virtue of their studies and achievements in the economic and social fields of our country; they

The Budget-Mr. Hansell
are Mr. Esdras Minville, of the Ecole des Hautes Etudes, of Montreal and Reverend Father Bouvier, a Jesuit. The works of these two men of striking personality on the matters that should arrest our attention in the postwar period are worthy of our best consideration.
A last suggestion and I am through. As Doctor James has but one secretary, Mr. J. E. MacKay, a French Canadian assistant should be appointed. Similarly, the executive committee on reconstruction has one secretary only. Mr. Robert Engranl. Why should we not give him a French-speaking assistant? Thus the French element of this country would be better able to take a larger part in parliamentary activities related to the organization of our post-war economy. Besides, it would thus be easier to give the members of parliament and the public reports written and published simultaneously in both official national languages.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Speaker, the other day we were pleased to learn of the forthcoming visit of Mr. Anthony Eden to Canada. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) made his statement to the house it will be recalled that I ventured to ask whether or not Mr. Eden could be called before the committee on post-war reconstruction and also before the committee on external affairs. The Prime Minister was quite gentlemanly in his answer and said that he would draw the request to the attention of Mr. Eden, but that of course Mr. Eden would be a very busy man. When I asked the question I thought I detected a bit of a murmur in some sections of this house, particularly that section directly opposite the Prime Minister; in fact one hon. member afterwards met me in the lobby and asked if it was my intention to have Mr. Eden subpoenaed. Well, of course he was not fooling me at all; I knew what was behind that remark. I am well aware that men of such distinction should be treated with the courtesy which their high diplomatic position deserves. I am not by any manner of means suggesting that Mr. Eden be subpoenaed before any committee, but I believe he has appeared before one or two very important congressional committees in the United States, as well as the senate committee on post-war reconstruction, and I maintain it is not unreasonable to expect that such a distinguished gentleman, holding such a particular and unique position in connection with world affairs and post-war design, should be called before the appropriate committees of this parliament whose responsibility it is to deal with these matters.
Some of us, Mr. Speaker, are particularly anxious in regard to what may be going on behind the scenes in respect of possible postwar problems. As soon as post-war problems are mentioned, someone is almost bound to rise and say, "Let us get on with the war." I think the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) is perhapsthe worst offender along this line; but let me tell him that if the particular kind of peace we are to have' is not settled, and settled right, before this war is over, he will be saying the same thing, "Let us get on with the war," some time about 1975, but it will be in respect of world war number three.
Post-war talks and conferences, to be of a permanent and effective nature, must deal with the problem of a new world order after the cessation of hostilities. The people themselves, therefore, have a right to know what sort of new world order is to be. The people have only one voice in these affairs, namely, the voice of their representatives in parliament. I am well aware of the fact that talks must be carried on by high diplomatic officials. I know that these negotiations must take place from time to time. I am not suggesting for one moment that all the details of these negotiations should be publicized north, soutli, east and west. But I do say that the representatives of the people assembling from time to time in parliament have a right to know what is going on behind the scenes.
I do not think I am the only one who deplores the fact that sometimes Canada seems to have to take the hindermost, that we seem to be on the tail end of everything. Certain conferences are held; diplomatic officials meet, and we wonder why Canada is not more distinctly represented. We wonder if certain things are being done, if certain things will be prepared and laid at the doorstep of the Canadian people for their acceptance, whether they like it or not. I say that is not just good enough for a nation like -Canada, in view of the magnificent effort she is now making in order to attain complete victory, and in a world which hopes to move on to a new order.
Mr. Eden arrived in America. No one seemed to know he was coming. Of course-it may not be best for the world to know, but the fact is that he arrived for these postwar talks. We wonder why our Prime Minister, who resides a flight of only an hour or two from Washington, could not be there, or send an appropriate representative. Mr. Churchill and Mr. Roosevelt met somewhere in the Atlantic, off the coast of Newfoundland. Of course we know that Mr. Churchill repre-
The Budget-Mr. Hansel*


Paul Joseph James Martin: He is perfectly harmless.


Ernest George Hansell: I agree with that.
He is clever, realistic, and seriously interested in his work. During the next session the work of his committee will take a step forward.
It will take a step forward. Watch this man. A few weeks ago my son passed through Ottawa on his way to Halifax. The youngster is only nineteen years of age, but he has his air gunner's wings and his sergeant's stripes.

The Budget-Mr. Hansell
He wanted' to get over to England, but he stopped off to spend a few days with his dad.
I was sitting in the gallery with him and he found things very interesting. Naturally I am concerned about his welfare, especially when he returns. I told him that there were committees working on post-war reconstruction and I read this little piece to him. When sitting in the gallery one day. he wanted to know where this particular hon. gentleman was sitting. I pointed him out, and my son looked at him and said, "Watch this man? What is the use of watching him, dad, he is no bigger than you are?''


John Ritchie MacNicol: He weighs a little more.


Ernest George Hansell: I do not know about that.
I trust the hon. member is speaking about physical weight.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Exactly; he has broader proportions.


Ernest George Hansell: I will give him the benefit of the doubt as to being weightier in other matters. I have sat in on the post-war reconstruction committee several times, and I am convinced that they are just not dealing with the problem.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: I rise to a point of order. I refer Your Honour to paragraph 665 of standing order 66 which reads:
Until the report and evidence have been laid upon the table, it is irregular to refer to them in debate, or to put questions in reference to the proceedings of the committee.


Thomas Vien: I was just deliberating whether to call the hon. gentleman's attention to the words already cited by the Minister of Pensions and National Health. It is not permissible at this time to criticize the work of a committee when its report is not before the house.


Ernest George Hansell: I trust that does not mean that we cannot discuss post-war problems.


Thomas Vien: I am not objecting to the hon. member discussing post-war problems. What I am objecting to is the hon. member referring to a committee whose report is not yet before the house.


Ernest George Hansell: I am glad that that point is clear. Since it is clear, I promise you, sir, that when the committee does report I shall have something to say about it. There are certain individuals whom I would like to have called before the appropriate parliamentary committee. I should like to see Mr. Eden, not only meet here and speak to us on the floor of this house but meet with them. I would not object to that meeting being in
camera if necessary, but let Mr. Eden put his cards on the table and tell the post-war reconstruction committee just what is being done. Vice-President Wallace seems to be the spokesman in the United States for postwar planning, and I suggest that he or at least one of his representatives be called. The governor of the Bank of Canada and the deputy minister of finance should be called, A number of the big industrialists and perhaps the president of the bankers' association should also be called. These men could give valuable information in respect of what we may expect in the post-war world.
I should like to ask these men through the avenue of parliament a few pertinent questions. I should like to ask some of them why it is that they could not solve our pre-war depression. There is one thing that never happens in a discussion of these matters. They never try to discover the fundamental error of our present economic arrangements under which we are now living in comparative prosperity but under which, a few years ago, we went through one of the worst depressions the world has ever seen. They never try to discover that fundamental ill, and until that fundamental wrong is discovered, how on earth can we prescribe for the patient? It reminds me of the young doctor with very little experience who had a patient die on him. The doctor was very much surprised and said, "I do not understand why the man died. I gave him every sort of medicine I could think of." Of course, that was just the trouble. Similarly, the powers that prescribe this, that, and the other remedy without first discovering what the fundamental wrong is. I should like to ask those men who have been sitting in the saddle for so many years why it is that they could not cure the pre-war depression? I would ask them this very pertinent question: Why is it that they can find money enough to feed Hitler with bombs, but cannot find money enough to feed our aged parents with bread? If we need a battleship -it might cost five million dollars-five million dollars spring into existence. If the people cannot lend the money, the credit institutions of the country create it. It is simply a matter of mathematics.^ The whole monetary system is only a matter of figures; make no mistake about that. If we want a battleship, I say, a few million dollars at once spring into existence. If we want two battleships, then more million dollars spring into existence. If we want a dozen battleships-all right; there is the money. It does not matter where the battleships go. We hope, of course, that they will remain on top of the ocean and destroy
The Budget-Mr. Hansell

the fleets of the axis powers, but they may go to the bottom of the ocean. Still, the money is of no consequence. Yet somehow or another these supermen, with the superminds, cannot get a few extra dollars, not even the cost of living bonus, to give to our aged parents.
I said, Mr. Speaker, that there was nothing mysterious about the monetary system. It is simply that not until the last few years, when pressure has been exercised by groups, has the subject been brought out into the light of day. The hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Fraser), when he was speaking in the hotlse the other night, held up an Alberta prosperity certificate, and those who were in the chamber at the time know what happened. That prosperity certificate Was a dollar prosperity certificate. Oh, yes, this was "funny money," the hon. member said and went on, I will take a cent for it; I will take two cents. The hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Black-more) offered him two dollars. I have since asked the hon. member for Lethbridge if he was able to buy it, but he told me that he had not been able to buy it.


Mr. FRASER (Northumberland, Ont.):: The two dollars was only a second thought.
_ Mr. HANSELL: Oh, I see the hon. member is sitting right opposite me now.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I am right here.


Ernest George Hansell: Well, I will pick up quite a different type of dollar bill. I see the hon. member is getting his iqoney out. Here is a $5 bill. Of course, this is not funny money; at least, my hon. friend would not regard it as funny money. I will tell a little story. I wonder how many members have read what it says on this bill.


Thomas Reid: I will give you two dollars for it.
HANSELL: I trust, Mr. Speaker, you are taking note of the interruptions because my time is running on. On this bill I read these words: "Bank of Canada will pay to the bearer on demand five dollars." I went into a bank one day with a SI bill. I pushed it across the counter to the teller and sdid, "Here is a W bill, and I would like to get a dollar for it." He looked at me and said, "Why, this is a dollar." "Well," I said, "it says here, 'will pay to the bearer on demand one dollar,' and I am giving you this and demanding one dollar." He looked at me again and then called the bank manager over. The bank manager said, "How do you do, Mr. Hansell? Having some trouble?" "I do not know if
(Mr. Hansell.]
you would call it trouble;" I said, "but I read on this SI bill that I would be paid one dollar on demand and I just asked the teller to give me the dollar that I demanded in exchange for this." The bank manager said to me, "Don't be funny." I said, "I am not funny' I just want the dollar." Then he put my $1 bill into the till and picked out another $1 bill and gave it to me, and I said, "Thank you, but I should like to know who is being funny."


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Have you not found out yet?


Ernest George Hansell: Yes; I found out that this $1 bill I had was somehow or another very funny. I might go further in that explanation. But let me say this, that the prosperity certificate which my hon. friend displayed in the house the other evening bought something which a $1 bill sometimes will not buy to-day.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is experience.


Ernest George Hansell: That prosperity certificate built roads in Alberta, and it passed over the counters of the grocery stores, shoe stores and clothing stores and bought things for the people who did work on those roads.
Mr. HL\ NKA: And they did not have to go into debt.


Ernest George Hansell: They did not have to go into debt to get it. Unless we recognize the fundamental wrong of the old order, we shall never be able to plan for the new. I am alarmed. I will use Mr. Churchill's phrase of last Sunday, "I will end my speech where I began." If I did not tell you, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Churchill said that, you might think I was attempting to he funny. But I will close where I started. Surely we are looking forward to a new world. When it will come I do not know; I trust it will come soon. But if we are to have a world in which there is any security we must plan now; we must know where we are going; we must find out what is fundamentally wrong and correct those fundamental errors. If we fail here, we shall fail those who are sacrificing so much; we shall fail them as we failed those who gave their blood on the battlefields of world war number one. Let us not permit these things to happen behind the scenes and find ourselves saddled with a system which eventually will take us into a slavery even worse than that of the dark ages.
In conclusion, I would say a word with respect to the amendment upon which, perhaps, we shall soon vote. I refer to the subamendment moved by the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group. I am dis-

The Budget-Mr. Adamson
appointed with the wording of this subamendment. I believe that our Cooperative Commonwealth Federation friends, while wording it as they did, could have added to our amendment instead of deleting it. They call for the nationalization of the chartered banks. Personally it does not matter to me a particle whether the chartered banks are nationalized or not. I could vote for this subamendment and be happy about it; and perhaps I will; I may so decide during the last second or two; but I know that if I do, I am placed in the position of voting to strike out our amendment. I say in all kindness to my hon. friends that amendments of that kind do not tend to draw these two progressive groups any closer together. I think we should be able to come to an understanding with regard to some of these matters.
May I, in conclusion, place on the record a brief statement with respect to the nationalization of banks? It is an extract from a speech by Major C. H. Douglas at Oslo, Norway, in 1935:
The institution and keeping of the national credit account does not require any nationalization of the banks. As a matter of fact, such nationalization would be a great mistake. I am not myself, for instance, an advocate of the nationalization of banks. I believe this again to be one of those misapprehensions so common in regard to these matters, for the nationalization of banks is merely an administrative change: it does not mean a change in policy, and a mere administrative change cannot be expected to produce any result whatever in regard to this matter. A change in monetary policy can be made without interfering with the administration or ownership of a single bank in the world.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are agitated because my time is gone. Thank you very much for your indulgence: and once more I promise the post-war reconstruction committee that I will talk a little about them when they bring down their next report.


Mr. A. R. ADAMSON (York West):: This budget debate has been like a long, cold, hard winter; many of us have wondered when it was going to be over. No doubt the last speeches are like the April blizzards which we occasionally get. But I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that mine will be short-the thaw will soon come.
About this time in a budget debate there is a sort of open season on banks. I, too, have unpleasant memories of my banker. I frequently have distressing experiences; my bank manager calls me and says unkind things to me, using a lot of long words which I do not rightly understand. Therefore if there is to be an open season on banks, I should like to be 72537-100
armed with the tommy gun of my hon. friends on the left and let loose, because I could have a great deal of fun.
But before we do that, let us see what we are to do if we should nationalize the banks. Let us see what these much abused chartered banks have done for us.
I do not pretend to be an expert on money. But I think I understand a little about what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) said in his budget speech. In 1942 the new financing in Canada amounted to the colossal sum of $4,290,000,000, of which the two war loans came to approximately $1,978,000,000, leaving $2,312,000,000 in short-term government money, which was financed very largely by the chartered banks. There was a certain amount of municipal financing, but it was small compared with what was obtained by the government from the chartered banks.
All of us know about the income tax. For the coming year the income tax is expected to raise $568,000,000; the corporation tax, $805,000,000, and the excise tax, $477,000,000, or a total of $1,850,000,000 as against the 1941 total of $1,261,000,000.
Let us look at what the banks did. The government admitted that it borrowed from the chartered banks $790,000,000, and from the Bank of Canada $443,000,000, or a total of $1,233,000,000, almost as great a sum as was raised by all the principal methods of direct taxation. There, it seems to me, we have an asset capable of producing these sums of money in this very distressing financial year. Therefore, before we do anything with the banks I should like to have explained to me, and I think the majority of simple-minded persons like myself would be glad of that explanation, what we are to put in their place that can lend this money or can fulfil the functions that the banks have fulfilled during this year. We should know these things before we start nationalizing or socializing the chartered banks. I do not know where we should have been without the chartered banks this last year.
As to the war loans, in the fiscal year 1942 there were two war loans totalling nearly $2 billion. I should like to know what happened to those bonds. It was currently said in Toronto and other financial centres that people bought the bonds, kept them for a short time and then sold them back on the market. In fact it is commonly said that the big corporations bought millions of dollars worth of bonds, held them for a few weeks and then turned them back on the market, which presumably had to be supported by the government. Who bough*

The Budget-Mr. Adamson

those bonds from the big interests, and where are they now? Were they taken by the chartered banks; were they taken by the finance department, or what happened to them? I know many instances of people buying bonds, holding them a short time and then turning them back on the market. Who supported that market? The government has supported the market. But was it not helped by the chartered banks, and were not individual subscribers helped by the chartered banks? If we start to destroy these institutions, who is going to fulfil that function?


An hon. MEMBER:: The national bank.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I do not think so. The national bank is the government.
I notice that private bond issues are beginning to come out again. I see that the Imperial Tobacco companj' has put out a bond issue of $10 million ten-year bonds, and the credit of the company is so good that they pay only one-quarter of one per cent more than the government pays. They issued these ten-year bonds at three and a quarter per cent, and bonds for a somewhat longer term bear three and three-eighths per cent. But it seems to me that in war time every dollar raised from the people should go to support the war. I know that in England private financing was virtually prohibited, except for very special purposes, for the entire duration of the war.
These Imperial Tobacco company bonds have already been sold. What did the company Want that money for? Surely tobacco is not a war necessity. But they got the money, got it very easily; the bonds were sold before the advertisement appeared, showing the excellent credit of the company and showing how much money there must be in the country.
The Minister of Finance did not like having to borrow the amount of money that he borrowed from the banks on short-term notes at one half and three-quarters of one per cent; I think three-quarters of one per cent was the most he paid. I notice that some treasury notes were sold to-day at one-half of one per cent. It seems to me that without those financial institutions that are capable of lending the government this money, the government would find itself in greater difficulty than it does now. I do not profess to be a financier or to know a great deal about banking, but to my mind that is a problem which has to be explained before we can entertain any idea of nationalization of those institutions.

There is one small matter I wish to take up with the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gibson). It concerns propaganda. As a member of this house I receive a great deal of propaganda; we all do. We receive propaganda from many countries. I even received some from Germany-not recently. I received it from the Free French, from Chile, and from many other countries. The other day I asked the British minister of information in New York to send me some pamphlets to distribute. The invoice came to me marked "No commercial value, property of the British government, not salable." But when I tried to clear it through the customs the customs put an arbitrary value of $15 on it and charged me 30 per cent duty. The impression that gave me was that it is an effort on the part of the government to stop British propaganda. Every other type of propaganda comes in free, but British propaganda is charged 30 per cent. I think we should have some explanation of that.
We had a debate in this house concerning the aluminum corporation, taking a great part of one afternoon. I should like to mention the production of the four other main nonferrous metals, and to show what has been done in their production in Canada by private enterprise. These four main non-ferrous metals are lead, zinc, copper and nickel. In 1942 our production of non-ferrous metals was 1,100,000 tons, which proportionately was four times as great as the production of the United States. The additional aluminum production probably represents a great increase even over that. This was all done by four or five of the largest mining corporations in the world; I need not name them. It may be said that no doubt these corporations made colossal profits on the sale of these non-ferrous metals. Well, at the beginning of the war an agreement was made with the British government under which the prices of copper, zinc and lead were stabilized at a level a great deal lower than the then market price. Let us look at the prices these great corporations are now getting for their metals. To-day copper is being sold to Great Britain at 25 per cent less than the domestic United States price, zinc at one-third of the United States price and lead at one-half that price. In my opinion it was a very patriotic and thoroughly fine gesture on the part of these great corporations to obligate themselves to sell these metals at these prices from the beginning of the war.
Let us look now at what happened in the United States and elsewhere in regard to other necessary metals such as chromite, manganese, tungsten and mercury, all essential metals practically not produced at all in Canada.

The Budget-Mr. Adamson
They are selling at two and a half times the pre-war price. Consequently I think these large mining corporations in Canada, in selling non-ferrous metals at from one-half to one-third the former price, have demonstrated a commendable and praiseworthy attitude.
In connection with these metals, for yearn we have been greatly worried in regard to the wastage or what one might call the high-grading of our major metal deposits, because there has been no major discovery of base metals in the last ten or fifteen years. Perhaps the last major deposit of base metal in Canada was made at Noranda some fifteen or seventeen years ago. Well, Mr. Speaker, you cannot expect a mining industry to continue unless new discoveries are made. The point I wish to make to-night is that we have seen how vital these metals are both in peace and in war, and yet no major discoveries have been made, certainly for the last ten years. Why is that? I think the reason is that the taxation policy of the government has not encouraged prospecting parties to go out looking for discoveries in order to develop the country. The policy has been to penalize in every way anyone who showed the pioneer spirit. Mind you, _ to-day it takes millions to bring in a mine; it is not small business any more. If an individual goes out and discovers a property, at every step from the raw prospect right up to the producing mine the government tax-gatherer sits in and taxes every move. You cannot treat mines like that; you cannot tax a mine until it is making a profit, that is if you wish to have a healthy mining industry. The first sign we have had in this country that this principle has been realized is in the present budget, but it should have been put into effect years ago.
The mines belong to the people who discover and develop them, but people who discover and develop mines have a great responsibility to the state, quite apart from seeing that the mine is properly run, that labour is properly looked after, that the mine is kept safe, and so on. They have a responsibility to develop the country, and I believe our taxation should be so arranged that mines now in production may be encouraged to continue in order that the country may be developed. Otherwise we will find ourselves with a steadily diminishing production of metals, and there is nothing so vital to us in Canada as a large production of metals. In this connection we are probably changing over from the production of lead, zinc and copper metallurgy to the production of lighter metals such as aluminum and magnesium ; and if there are deposits of magnesium the government should give every encouragement to their development.
The other evening I was interested to hear the principal of Queen's university say that he hoped we would return to a gold standard. I thought perhaps the roof would fall off; it did not, but sometime it may. But I thoroughly agree with that gentleman. There must be a metallic coverage; our paper currency has never been satisfactory for long terms and for international trade without a metallic coverage or conversion for our famous dollar bills that go into and out of the banker's window. What will be the price of gold or how it will be arranged no one can tell at this moment, but I think it goes without saying that we shall have to get back to some form of gold as a monetary standard. I hear criticism of this suggestion. Well, we shall be able to do witlr-out the gold standard the day my hon. friends and I are in a poker game, my hon. friend holding a full house of aces up on kings, and I with a busted straight. I lay my cards face down, and say I have four aces, and the pot is mine. The day he pushes the money over to me, without expecting me to turn my cards face up, that day we shall not need the gold standard. But until we get international goodwill and international trust to such a high degree, we must have some means of international currency. Human nature is like that.
With reference to the pioneer spirit I should like to refer briefly to the Steep Rock situation. Here we have a development which has been known about for a number of years, one of the greatest iron ore deposits ever discovered on this continent in the last fifty years. Certainly it is the greatest discovery since that of the Mesaba iron range. It is extremely rich, and an extremely valuable deposit of ore. But on account of lack of the pioneer spirit, where did we have to go to have the development financed? We had to go to Washington. Not only did we have to go to Washington, but we had to go to the reconstruction finance corporation, an organization of the United States government. That organization lent $5,000,000 at four per cent, and another $2,025,000 was lent by Otis and Company of Cleveland at 5i per cent. So long as the development is financed, and it goes into production, it makes no difference to me. But why could we not have done the financing in Canada? Are we-so pigeon-hearted about this magnificent deposit that there was nobody in Canada who would risk a sum as small as $5,000,000 to develop that iron ore deposit? I am sure $10,000,000 could easily be raised by a tobacco company. But when it comes to the development of one of our greatest resources, we cannot raise the money, and we have to go. to the United States government.
The Budget-Mr. Adamson

The facts about Steep Rock are well known. They were in, the press and in the trade papers. I mention them here for only one purpose and with one idea, namely, to show the opportunities we as Canadians are passing up every day in the week, simply because we are not awake to the possibilities in our own country. We are not alive to developments. We have lost the pioneering spirit. The men who pioneered in the oldi days did not permit their work to be lessened by the whims of government, or by budgets. They took chances on their country, and developed it. Those men are not in the field to-day, and the country is suffering. They are not there because this and previous governments have not encouraged the pioneer spirit. Men have been almost forced to put their money in the safety of savings accounts and life insurance policies, so that it could be safe from taxation. What we must do, add do almost immediately, is to see to it that this country is developed by the courageous foresight of individuals. When they do have success let us show that we are * proud of them, instead of treating them almost as criminals.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Horne Blackmore: An hon. member
should be able to enjoy his rights in the house without a demonstration of that sort.
Before the vote is taken on the two amendments I believe I should say a word or two, inasmuch as the question at issue is largely between the two so-called progressive, smaller groups in the house, namely, the Social Credit and Cooperative Commonwealth Federation groups. On March 9, I moved this amendment to the budget, as it appears at page 1092 of Hansard:
This house regrets that the government still disregards the possible uses of government-created national money to the end that in so far as taxation and the borrowing of the people's savings fail to meet government expenditures the government might employ national money:
(a)	To relieve the debt situation which threatens the ownership and control of a great many private businesses, factories, farms and other means of production.
(b)	To pay farmers and other primary producers fair prices thereby stimulating the production of food.
(c)	To provide workers with adequate purchasing power.
(d)	To alleviate the distress of the aged and others in needy circumstances.

(e)	To prevent inflation by the subsidizing of industry where costs are uncontrollable, adopting where necessary a more aggressive and consistent rationing policy.
On the same day the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) moved a subamendemnt in which he proposed to strike out completely the amendment of the Social Credit group. I wish to spend a few minutes on the significance of the fact that the Social Credit amendment was to be struck out completely. It will be noticed that there was to be no addition to it, but that it was to be struck out, the implication apparently being that the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation are opposed not only to all the objects the Social Credit group proposed to attain, but also to the method by which this group proposed to attain them.


Major James William Coldwell: There is no suggested method in the amendment.


John Horne Blackmore: If that be the case, then quite clearly these two groups are diametrically opposed. There may, however, be some means of arriving at cooperation by the two groups. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) reads as follows:
That all the words after "that" in the amendment be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"this house regrets the failure of the government to provide for the nationalization of the banking system so as to make possible the full utilization of the Bank of Canada for the financing of the war;
and further this house regrets the failure of the government to provide for increases in the amounts paid to old age and blind pensioners, or to make adequate provisions for veterans of the last or the present war, or their widows and dependents;
and further this house regrets the extent to which the government has vested the control of the Canadian economy in monopolistic industry and finance."
In the first place, I desire to point out that all the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation need to do is to add about five or six more paragraphs to this amendment and they will have covered the whole gospel from Genesis to Revelations. Then, if anyone voted against their amendment he could be accused of voting against some good thing, no matter what good thing was being considered. I maintain that an amendment of that sort, whether or not it is designed to accomplish the end, results in confusing the issue. What I believe is essential at the present time is to keep the issue clear. All we need to do is to listen to the remarks of the hon. member (Mr. Adamson) who has just resumed his seat and those of

The Budget-Mr. Blackmore
the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. McGeer) uttered in the chamber this very day to see how widely the opinions of people in this dominion can differ. Surely we ought to try to keep the issue clear.
As far as the Social Credit group is concerned, the issue is simply this: Is there any means whereby the state can obtain money other than by taxation or by incurring debt? If there is, then there is some hope for the nation; if there is not, then there is apparently no hope for Canada anywhere. The Social Credit movement has aimed constantly ever since coming to this house to keep before the house this one issue: Is there any source of money without taxation and without debt?
The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation has proposed the nationalization of the banking system. What do they believe they can achieve by nationalizing the banking system? Do they believe that money can be obtained from a nationalized banking system without capital debt and without interest? If they believe that, then the only difference between the Social Credit and the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation groups on that particular point is whether or not you can derive this debt-free money, this money freed from capital debt and interest more successfully from a national bank, or from an individually owned bank, or from no bank at all. Social Credit contends that the state does not necessarily have to have a bank in order to issue national money, any more than the Dominion of Canada had to have a bank in order to issue the S26,000,000 to which I have previously referred and which was issued during the last war. They used that money to help finance their war expenditures between 1914 and 1917, and no bank was used. The treasury board issued the money under the Finance Act of 1914, and that money was free of debt and free of interest. The question is whether the principle established by the issuing of that money is a sound principle which could be used to-day to greatly relieve the distress which we are now suffering in conducting the war and to minimize the dangers which we shall have to face at the conclusion of the war and which were forecast so well by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard.
If it is possible to create money without the use of a bank, then why bother about nationalizing the banks? That is the natural question the Social Credit group would ask. If you nationalize the banks, are you not in danger of complicating the situation for years? That is the consideration which should be in our minds. The passage from Major C. H. Douglas
which was read by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) earlier in the evening indicates quite clearly the attitude of that great leader upon that question. Major C. H. Douglas is the originator of the Social Credit movement; he is the teacher, and his opinion respecting the ownership of banks and what effect it would have upon financing the national concern is of importance.
What has been the effect of nationalizing the banks in days gone by? Let us refer to our own Bank of Canada. When it was proposed that we should have a Bank of Canada, government owned, I am sure the general opinion throughout the west was that Canada would be able to draw money from that bank to finance her going concern. I am sure it never dawned on the people of the west that after the government of Canada had a central bank we would have to borrow from that bank just as though it were the Bank of England or some other private owner of money and then pay back the money borrowed and with interest. That concept would be a most astounding one to any person in the west who looked upon the national ownership of banks as a desirable thing.
If the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation believe that by nationalizing the banks we shall be able to get money free from debt and free from interest; if they are completely convinced that it is necessary to nationalize the banks, then probably we should grant them a certain amount of consideration. Personally I do not believe that that is necessary. I feel we have gone as far in nationalizing the banks-as is necessary when we have nationalized the Bank of Canada. I am inclined to agree with the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard who said this afternoon that the chartered banks should remain in private hands and should be used as a part of the productive system of the country. It is a fundamental stand of the Social Credit movement that the productive system of the country in every respect should be in private hands, that by maintaining it in private hands the greatest degree of motivation will be obtained. We favour the individual ownership of the means of production. If the chartered banks, which loan money for commercial purposes, are to be looked upon as part of the productive system, then in order to be logical we must have the commercial banks in private hands.


Angus MacInnis: When the hon. member says that he believes in individual ownership,, does he exclude corporate ownership, or does he believe in corporations and trusts as well as in individual ownership?
The Budget-Mr. Blackmore


John Horne Blackmore: A corporation is just what the name implies. The word "corporation" comes from the Latin "corpus", which means body. The body acts as an individual; consequently a corporation is an individual in the eyes of the law. It is embodied in one body. The trust or the monopoly is an abuse of individual ownership. It is something that has gone too far, and the fact that it exists is evidence that there has been mismanagement or that there is weakness in the system under which it has developed. The Social Credit attitude is that you would not destroy the corporation; you would simply rearrange the set of rules under which it acts in order to prevent abuses from developing.
We feel that the question of motivation is all important. Let us remember that if we change the system under which we are working to-day, we change it perhaps for a hundred years; we change it for our children and our grandchildren to grow up under. Therefore we want to build a system which will motivate to the highest possible degree activities of the finest kind. We want the people to get out and work and develop themselves while they produce. While they produce we want them also to have a higher degree of the abundance of life. We as a Social Credit group believe that we can [DOT]obtain these objects through individual ownership better than by state or social ownership. We are granting at the same time, judging from anything which has been said by the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation since I have been in this house, that they do not indicate very clearly just what is meant by social ownership or social control. As I said the other day, the stand of the party seems to be a bit shifty on this matter, and it is very difficult to tell just what is meant by social ownership. For example, they do not favour, if I understand them aright, having farms all taken over and controlled socially. They favour individual ownership to that degree. I am wondering if they favour taking over the small town stores and managing them socially. I imagine not.


Major James William Coldwell: Certainly not.


John Horne Blackmore: Then what do they mean by social ownership? Where does it commence? Is it when there is one thousand dollars invested in an enterprise, or a hundred thousand dollars, or a million dollars invested? Or does it commence when the concern begins to go outside the community in which it was established or when it goes outside the province?
JMr. Maclnnis.]


Major James William Coldwell: You ask where we begin. We begin with the monopolies.


John Horne Blackmore: When you are advocating social ownership the meaning of your expressions is not very clear unless you define them.


Major James William Coldwell: They have been defined a number of times.


John Horne Blackmore: Then I am sorry I have not heard it.


Major James William Coldwell: None so blind as those who will not see.


John Horne Blackmore: I have had my eyes open and I shall show that they have been opened much wider than the hon. member's have been, judging by some of the things he has said on the floor of this house very recently.
Between these two amendments, Mr. Speaker, it is the desire of the Social Credit movement to keep the issue clear. I do not believe that my hon. friend and his party favour allowing great concerns with power to dictate to the government with respect to the economic affairs of this country. We Social Crediters would not agree to allowing great concerns to run at large with unrestricted competition any mure than would the members of the Liberal party or of the Progressive Conservative party. I do not suppose you could find one-tenth of the members of this house who would be in favour of unrestricted competition, unrestricted development of monopolies and trusts. Every one would favour some regulation of them, just as the hon. Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) indicated the other day. I am not sure that I would go as far as he was prepared to go, but perhaps that was because I was not absolutely clear as to what he meant by the words he used. So much depends upon the words you use and what you mean by them. There are words of large connotation and words of very indefinite connotation, the use of which tends to confuse an issue.
As I said a moment ago, we want to keep the issue clear. In this vote which we are going to take on the two amendments we Social Crediters shall endeavour to keep the issue clear. We do not propose to be mixed up with any question of old age pensions or anything of that sort. We realize fully that if we vote against the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation amendment, immediately their propaganda machine will spread all over the dominion that this group voted against old age pensions.

The Budget-Mr. Blackmore


Major James William Coldwell: No, no.


John Horne Blackmore: We are glad to have that assurance, but our past experience makes us suspicious.
1 wish to refer now to some false conceptions of the Social Credit stand which have been manifest in the addresses of some hon. members in this debate, false conceptions which it is impossible for me to comprehend.
I turn first of all to the words of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), who according to his own words has been very, very careful to observe just what has been said and draw his own conclusions. At page 1106 of Hansard he said :
We cannot regard money as anything but a rough and ready measure and medium of circulation for goods. It seems to me that my hon. friends to my left mistake money for wealth. In other words, they mistake the < shadow for the substance. In my view sound money is money that is related to goods and services.
May I just make a comment here, Mr. Speaker. I have not the time to review all the speeches which I have delivered in this house, but in the first speech I delivered in 1936, to which any hon. member may refer if he desires to check up what I say, I specifically pointed out that in a certain year in United States economic history the people of the United States produced $60,000,000,000 worth of goods, yet all the money which was distributed in the United States with which those goods might have been bought amounted to only $45 billion, and of that $45 billion $5 billion were put away in life insurance and in other kinds of savings, leaving a net of only $40 billion with which to buy $60 billion worth of goods. That indicated that there was a scarcity of purchasing power in the hands of the people of the United States in that particular year, and the shortage of purchasing power had to be made up. I argued that the way in which that could be made up was by monetizing the $20 billion worth of goods and distributing that money in the hands of the people, thereby enabling them to buy the $20 billion worth of goods, or the goods from abroad for which they might exchange those goods. If that was not clear and unmistakable I do not know how illustrations and words could make a matter clear. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar was here when I made that speech and he has been here when I have made every other speech since, or at all events Hansard has been available if he really wanted to know what Social Credit's attitude was on money as related to goods. So that it has been certainly easy for him to find out.
May I refer to one further speech I made. On March 8, 1938, I moved a vote of want of confidence in the government and delivered a speech which lasted something like two hours. My object was to make unequivocally clear just this very point which the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar professes to be in doubt about. I laid down there this fundamental principle, that the amount of money which a country can have depends upon the goods-and-services-producing-and-consuming power of the country.
Let me say one more thing. I have never yet referred to a booklet which I took the trouble to write just for the sake of men like the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar who could not gather the meaning of what I had to say from my speeches in the house. It is called "Money the Master Key."


Major James William Coldwell: I have read it.


John Horne Blackmore: If my hon. friend
has read it, he will find that time and time again reference is made in it to that very point, the statement being repeated that the amount of money which a community can have depends upon the goods-and-services-producing-power of the community. So there should be no doubt at all regarding that matter.
Now I quote a passage from Major Douglas to indicate his stand. These are his words:
It must be obvious that the real limit of the rate at which something representing purchasing power could be issued to the public is equal to the maximum rate at which goods can be produced.
I hope that disposes of that matter.
Now I turn to the words of the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross). The hon. member in his speech, as recorded at page 1329 of Hansard of March 17, made this remark: My hon. friends of the Social Credit group would wreck the whole thing by issuing worthless paper money.
The hon. member for Macleod very properly called out, "It is a tie." The hon. member for Moose Jaw had no vestige of excuse for making any such absurd remark as that after having sat here in the presence of social creddters and having conversed in private with social crediters so that he could obtain a correct conception of their views. As long as members persist in misconceptions of this kind deliberately held, apparently, I fail utterly to see how we are going to get anywhere at all in this country.
May I refer now to what the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) said the other evening. He made this remark:
I will not attempt to speak on monetary reform, for the good and simple reason that I do not understand it.
The Budget-Mr. Blackmore

He made it quite clear that he did not understand it. He didl not need to tell us that, because he illustrated it clearly. He proceeded to say:
I think, however, I understand enough to know that the monetary reform offered by our friends from Alberta is neither sound nor sensible, that is as they expound it here and as they are supposed to expound it in the press, although frankly I do not hold them responsible for all that is said about them in the press.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley is ordinarily a careful man, and I have gathered from what he has said in the past that he is endeavouring to get things straight. The amazing thing is why, if he was not able to gather from what social crediters said in the House of Commons the truth about their theory, he did not come and ask one of us to explain it to him or study a book from which he could learn this important theory.
He indicated that it is very hard to tell what social crediters believe from what is said in the House of Commons.' I ask the hon. member what chance he would have of learning what Liberals believe from what they state in the House of Commons, or how he would get an accurate conception of what Conservatives believe by hearing what they say in the house. What chance has any hon. member of expounding here in any kind of satisfying detail the whole philosophy and technique of the beliefs that he maintains?
I contend that the solution of our troubles lies in money, in the ability of the state to obtain money which can be spent into circulation rather than lent into circulation, and can be acquired by the state without increasing debt and without increasing interest charges.
Just before I leave this question of the two amendments, may I point out that the Social Credit group, in order to clarify the issue, and to prevent any possibility of misrepresentation in this country concerning their stand, intend to refrain from holding sternly to their attitude on the banking system, and will vote for the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation amendment. We shall have an interesting time seeing what the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation will do with respect to the Social Credit amendment.
I should like to refer to just one or two other things which are involved in the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation amendment. I think we can accept all they say about old age pensions, and all they say regarding giving veterans more pay. Surely everyone in the house agrees with these things; certainly we do. As to what they say about too great 
monopolistic industrial and financial control, we all agree with that. So that we can accept quite easily those parts of their amendment.
I should like to show some hon. members, who have had so much to say in derision of monetary proposals for the solution of our difficulty, just how foolish they are, or at least how much out of step they are with some of the very best thinking in the world to-day. In order to do so, I will refer again to little pamphlets which have been mentioned several times in this house, in particular the report of the London chamber of commerce issued on May 12, 1942. I read from the first page the following statement:
The chamber submits that constantly raised tariffs, the imposition of quotas and prohibitions, and other signs of growing economic belligerency between the nations in the inter-war * period, were not the result of stupidity nor ill-will but were, on the contrary, imposed for most compelling reasons. They represented attempts by the nations to defend themselves against very real and pressing dangers. The chamber is convinced that until those dangers are recognized and removed, a direct attack upon trade barriers can serve no useful purpose but will, on the contrary, merely increase fear. In short, trade barriers are not themselves the disease but merely the symptoms of the disease.
The important question is, what is the disease? What is the cause of it? May I read another excerpt?
It was palpably absurd that nations should be desperately anxious to export more of their real wealth to other nations than they received in return. It was equally absurd that men in want of the necessaries of life should be denied the money with which to buy them because there was a superabundance of those necessaries and therefore their services were not required to make more.
With that, I believe,, all hon. members will agree. I read from page 4:
The limiting factor in the production of real wealth has, however, been the failure to distribute to would-be consumers enough money to buy the potential output, and goods are not for long produced if there are no buyers.
That is an extremely important point. May I read another:
The system of distributing purchasing power was evolved during an age of scarcity, i.e., an age in which there were not enough goods to go round. This system aimed, therefore, at ensuring maximum production with minimum consumption.
A few moments ago hon. members heard the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) raise the question, why do we not examine the present financial system with the object of discovering wherein lies the flaw; and then, why do we not concentrate our attention on the removal of that flaw? May I

The Budget-Mr. Blcickmore
read from page 5, because the people who drafted this report have done the veiy thing which the hon. member for Macleod suggested:
... it was clearly necessary to increase the purchasing power of the masses in order to provide buyers, without which the goods would not, for long, be produced.
From page 7, I select the following:
The chamber cannot therefore support any scheme which, in the economic sphere, relies upon some supranational authority (which in practice must mean the most powerful nation ir nations) to dictate to the weaker nations yhat their internal economic policy shall be.
On page 8:
It believes, on the contrary, that the largest measure of cooperation between nations will be realized when fear of financial and economic domination from outside is removed, and each nation is entirely free to cooperate or not as it wishes; the extent of that cooperation also being within its own control.
May I stop here to observe that to social erediters that is an extremely important point. As hon. members will have noticed, during this year we have continually urged that every care be adopted in Canada to prevent this country from being entangled in some international organization which will limit her power to manage her own affairs.
Under the system which we propose, the dominion can keep control of her affairs independent of every nation on the face of the earth, except in so far as she must exchange some of her goods for goods which she cannot produce; and the number of goods which she must bring in from outside is surprisingly small. The result is that Canada is admirably endowed for becoming an economically self-sufficient unit, and what we maintain is that Canada should become a self-sufficient unit economically. She will never do that by entangling herself in any supranational organization: she will do that by distributing purchasing power within her own bounds.
May I now read further from page 9 of this report:
What is necessary is to improve the technique for the internal provision of money, so as to convert this human demand into effective demand.
If the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation knows how to do that better than the Social Credit people do, the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation proposals are undoubtedly the best proposals for the Dominion of Canada at the present time. Otherwise Social Credit is the best. I read again on:
These surplus exports might confer a benefit on some countries if they were sent as a gift; and the recipient country had an internal
financial mechanism capable of distributing enough purchasing power to its people to enable them to buy excess imports of consumers' goods in addition to, instead of in competition with, the goods already there.
Again:
The chamber submits that international trade must now be raised to its true function, that is, nothing more nor less than an exchange of goods and services of a mutually advantageous character.
A quotation from page 10:
Instead of trying to equate supply with effective demand, the chamber advocates that, in future, effective demand should be equated with supply.
Hon. members will recognize that this amounts simply to the creation of purchasing power within the country and the distribution of that purchasing power to enable the people to buy the goods which they are able to produce, or to buy the goods which they are able to trade their surplus for, which is exactly the contention that the social erediters have made before this house ever since 1936. The report states, as one of the problems which a satisfactory system must be designed to solve:
The distribution internally of the purchasing power necessary to enable the nations to consume the whole of their own production: if this were done they could equally consume the goods of other nations which they might exchange for their own production.
And again on page 11:
The chamber, having considered whether there is any system which would achieve, wholly or partially, the solution of all the above problems, generally accepts the principles laid down in "A Twentieth Century Economic System" especially in respect of blocked credits for the payment of international obligations.
May I now read four short excerpts from this same "A Twentieth Century Economic System". This is from page 15:
How to distribute purchasing power to the mass of the people is therefore the most pressing and urgent internal problem of every advanced nation.
On page 17:
No excuse is made for having considered at some length under-consumption, which is synonomous with unemployment, since it is submitted that this is a root problem which must be solved, unless all hope of the survival of our civilization is to be abandoned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will the hon. member permit me to interrupt for a moment? I think it is the desire of the house to have the division this evening on the subamendment, and to conclude the debate on the budget this evening if possible-not on the
Eleven o'Clock Rule



'OMMONS

[Stage Direction]
resolutions of course. I was going to move, if the house would be agreeable, that we. do not adjourn at eleven o'clock to-night. I understand from the whips-I may be wrongly informed-that there are not more than one or two who wish to speak on the amendment. Unless there is an intention on the part of some hon. members to continue the discussion on the motion longer than another hour or so we might conclude this evening.
Major James William Coldwell: If the present speech is the last I think we should try to take the vote to-night, but if there are to be other speeches I do not think we should go on. I do not think we should sit all night.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If there are
other speakers they might prefer to make short speeches on some of the resolutions which would cover the same ground. I move that the house do not adjourn at eleven o'clock to-day.


Gordon Graydon: My feelings are very
similar to those of the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. If such a motion is to be passed I think it must be definitely with the understanding that it is only for the purpose of finishing the present speaker's speech and taking the vote. If there are more speeches to come after that of the hon. member for Lethbridge I do not think our party is prepared to give its consent.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Of course I
am not in a position to say whether anyone is going to rise at the end of the present speech. But I think we might hope that when it is concluded no one else is to follow.


Mr. ROY:: As long as I am permitted to
speak for about ten or fifteen minutes after the subamendment has been disposed of, I am ready to agree to the proposal of the Prime Minister.
increase in the total amount of purchasing media corresponding to the total annual increase in the amount of real wealth to be distributed. This issue of brand new purchasing media should, it is submitted, be spent into existence by the state, involving therefore no capital debt and no interest charge, instead of being lent into existence at interest, by the private banking system, the state often being the borrower.
That statement is the key to the whole problem. I read one more, this time from page 37:
This proposal would not, therefore, interfere with the normal lending functions of the joint stock banks. It merely ensures that when the national economy demands an expansion in the total amount of purchasing media, whether cheque money or paper notes, it shall come into existence, in the first place, by being spent into existence by the state without capital debt or interest charge, instead of being lent into existence by the banks, at interest.
Finally on page 45:
In a progressive society there is an annual increase in the total output of goods and services, which necessitates a corresponding increase in the total issue of purchasing media unless prices are to fall. It is this annual increase in the total of purchasing media which, it is submitted, should be spent into existence by the state without any capital debt or interest charge, instead of being lent into existence by the private banking system.
I think I have made our position aa clear as it can be made in the time at my disposal.
As I said before, my group propose to vote for the amendment to our own amendment, with the reservation that we intend to vote for our own amendment, confident that our own amendment contains the germ of the solution of the difficulty that now confronts this nation not only in prosecuting the war but in the winning of the peace thereafter.



THE BUDGET

[Stage Direction]
DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE The house resumed consideration of the motion of Hon. J. L. Ilsley (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Blackmore, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldweil.
John Horne Blackmore: Another quotation
from "A Twentieth Century Economic System," found on page 35, is as follows:
If, therefore, it is desired to maintain a stable price level, there should be an annual 
YEAS Messrs:
Blackmore	LaCroix (Quebec-
Castleden	Montmorency)
Coldweil	Maclnnis
d'Anjou	Nicholson
Dorion	Nielsen, Mrs.
Douglas (Weyburn)	Quelch
Gillis	Roy
Hansell	Wright

16.
Kuhl	
	NAYS
	Messrs:
Abbott	Bertrand (Prescott)
Adamson	Black (Chateauguay-
Anderson	Huntingdon)
Autliier	Black (Cumberland)
Aylesworth	Black (Yukon)
Bence	Blair
Bertrand (Laurier)	Blanchette

The Budget-Division
Bonnier
Boucher
Bradette
Brunelle
Cardiff
Casselman, Mrs.
(Edmonton East) Casselman
(Grenville-Dundas)
Chevrier
Clark
Claxton
Cleaver
Cloutier
Corman
Cote
Cruickshank
Dechene
Denis
Diefenbaker
Donnelly
Durocher
Edwards
Emmerson
Eudes
Evans
Farquhar
Fauteux
Ferland
Ferron
Fontaine
Fournier (Hull)
Fraser (Northumberland, Ont.)
Fraser
(Peterborough West) Fulford Furniss Gauthier Gershaw Gibson Gingues Gladstone Golding Goulet Graham Grant Graydon
Hanson (Skeena) Hanson
(York-Sunbury)
Hatfield
Hazen
Healy
Henderson
Hill
Homuth
Howden
Howe
Hurtubise
Ilsley
Isnor
Jackman
Jean
King, Mackenzie
Kinley
Kirk
Lacroix (Beauce)
Laflamme
La Flfeche
Lafontaine
Lalonde
Leader
Leduc
Leger
Little
Lizotte
Lockhart
McCann
McCubbin
McCulloch
MaeDiarmid
Macdonald
(Brantford City) Macdonald (Halifax) Macdonald
(Kingston City) McDonald (Pontiac) McGarry McGeer McGibbon Mclvor
MacKenzie (Neepawa) Mackenzie
(Vancouver Centre) MacKinnon
(Edmonton West) McKinnon (Kenora-Rainy River) MacKinnon
(Kootenay East) McLarty
MacLean (Cape Breton North-Victoria) McLean (Simcoe East) Macmillan McNiven
(Regina City) MacNicol Marier Martin Matthews Maybank Mayhew Michaud Mitchell Mullins Mulock Neill Nixon O'Brien O'Neill Perley Picard Pinard Poirier Pottier Purdy Ralston Reid Rennie Rheaume Rickard
Ross (Calgary East) Ross (St. Paul's)
Ross (Souris)
Ryan
St. Laurent
Sanderson
Senn
Sissons
Soper
Stirling
Taylor
Telford
Thauvette
Tripp
Turgeon
Tustin
Ward
Warren
Weir
Whitman
Winkler
Wood-155.


Mr. MARSHALL:: I was paired with the hon. member for Victoria, Out. (Mr. McNevin). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment to the amendment.


Mr. FAIR:: I was paired with the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Gardiner). Had I voted I would have voted for the amende ment to the amendment.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: I was paired1 with the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment to the amendment.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Why?


Thomas Vien: The question is on the amendment. Those in favour will please rise.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: That is not enough for a vote.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I rise to a point of order. There are only four votes. That is not enough for a vote.


Thomas Vien: The vote is being taken; there can be no point of order.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: There are only four votes.


James Alexander Marshall: MacKinnon
(Kootenay East) McLarty
MacLean (Cape Breton North-Victoria) McLean (Simcoe East) Macmillan McNiven
(Regina City) MacNicol Marier Martin Matthews Maybank Mayhew Michaud Mitchell Mullins Mulock Neill Nicholson Nixon O'Brien O'Neill Perley Picard Pinard Poirier Pottier Purdy Ralston Reid Rennie Rheaume Rickard
Ross (Calgary East) Ross (St. Paul's)
Ross (Souris)
Roy
Ryan
St. Laurent
Sanderson
Senn
Sissons
Soper
Stirling
Taylor
Telford
Thauvette
Tripp
Turgeon
Tustin
Ward
Warren
Weir
Whitman
Winkler
Wood

160.
I was paired with the hon. member for Victoria, Ont. (Mr. McNevin). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Robert Fair: I was paired with the hon.
member for Melville (Mr. Gardiner). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


John Gordon Ross: I was paired with the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Thomas Vien: The question is on the main motion.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: Mr. Speaker, the statement I wish to make is rather short and it could be made as a question of privilege. Yesterday I sent you a copy of this, but in view of the strong desire of all hon. members to conclude this debate immediately, if the house will allow me to make that statement to-morrow as a question of privilege I shall be glad to postpone it until that time.


Thomas Vien: I cannot give any ruling on a question of privilege unless I know what it is. If the hon. member wishes to raise this question of privilege to-morrow, he will have to put that question according to the rules of the house. I cannot make any promise as to how I shall view a question of privilege made by the hon. member.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: I wished also to make a few remarks on the budget in connection with the rationing of sugar and butter which I contend is causing some injustice to certain classes of people, but in view of the fact that everyone seems to be in a hurry I will postpone these observations until later. Following my declaration in the house that since the beginning of the war the protection accorded the St. Lawrence has not been adequate, the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald) made a statement on March 17, as reported at page 1345 of Hansard. He said:
I say my friend would have pursued a more loyal course to his own constituents and to this country if he had investigated these rumours and endeavoured to allay the fears of his people.
The minister's allegations found an echo in some of the newspapers, especially in the Ottawa Journal of March 19 which published an editorial which was altogether wrong. The minister's statement which I have just quoted was at the conclusion of a narration of facts which he made as an answer to a speech I delivered in the house on March 15. I consider it a duty toward myself as well as toward my constituents to show that if one takes into consideration the minister's allegations in regard to those I made myself, he must come to the conclusion that before making such an accusation the minister should have ascertained that he had succeeded in denying all my contentions or at least the most important ones. One of the important charges I made is contained in a statement to be found at page 1269 of Hansard. This statement is:
The people down there know that our planes have never participated in any battle in the course of which ships have been sunk by enemy submarines.

The Budget-Mr. Roy
I cannot find any answer to that statement in the minister's speech. The only reference is to be found at page 1342 of Hansard, where he is reported as saying:
But I have it from the air staff that their aircraft have carried out eight attacks on submarines in the St. Lawrence area, during each of which depth charges were dropped.
As everyone can see, that is neither an answ'er nor a denial.
Another important declaration which I made is found at page 1269 of Hansard. I quote:
On September 15 one submarine was seen only one mile from the lighthouse at Cap des Rosiers, at exactly eleven o'clock in the morning. The keeper of the lighthouse, Mr. Joseph Ferguson, telephoned right away to Captain Cote, who is in charge of what we call the A.D.C., and also in charge of the telephone exchange at Cap des Rosiers. He is also manager of the telephone exchange at that point. The same Mr. Ferguson telephoned to Fox River, to another man of the A.D.C., Mr. Walter Lequesne. He said he had seen a submarine exactly one mile northeast of the lighthouse, and had placed a board to indicate the right spot where he had noticed the submarine. That was exactly eleven o'clock in the morning. A few minutes later from the lighthouse a convoy could be seen coming up from the southeast, toward that very spot. It was evident that something was going to happen to the convoy when it would reach there. There is about ten miles as the bird would fly from Fox River to the place where the submarine had been seen and where two boats were sunk a few minutes later.
The young ladies of Mr. Walter Lequesne, through the call from Mr. Walter Ferguson of Cap des Rosiers, had been informed of the fact that the convoy was coming up, and that the submarine was there. These young ladies, and the young ladies of Mr. Albert Morris of Fox River, climbed up inside the church steeple to watch what was going to happen down there. A few minutes later the convoy was coming up, right on top of the submarine. The torpedoes started to run on the waves, and two ships went down. The first one was struck at 12.21 p.m. and the second one at 12.22 p.m. The first one went down at 12.28 p.m. and the second at 12.32 p.m. No aeroplane showed around there to help the corvettes.
I went on to explain that the people of Fox River were watching to see what would happen. Again I quote from Hansard, at page 1269:
There were some corvettes and destroyers in the convoy. But why is it that the naval officers of the Gaspe base and all the men who could have taken care of the situation, and who are supposed to have the necessary powers to act by themselves, without being obliged to call for orders from Halifax or Quebec, did not give the proper orders to change the course of that convoy? They had plenty of time to do it. The civilian population knew what was about to happen. They were watching the events. It was only the navy and the air force which did not seem to be aware of those facts. There surely was a lack of organization.
Surely there was a lack of organization, and the minister, in dealing with this statement of
mine, could not deny it. In fact he tried to give some sort of explanation which is rather a confirmation. We find the minister's explanation at page 1343 of Hansard, where he said:
In this case on September 15 the naval officer at Quebec did not receive any word about the submarine until after the submarine had launched its torpedoes. I do not know whose fault that was, if it was anybody's fault. I can understand that on a long stretch of coast where people may have to go some little distance to a telephone and make a call to someone else, who in turn perhaps has to relay the communication to some other person, some time might be lost. But I do know the time at which the naval officer at Quebec received the information, and unfortunately it was then too late to do anything about the matter. Submarines strike very quickly and they can submerge very quickly.
I do not know definitely. I assume there would be a telephone in the lighthouse, but I do not know how far the man who saw the submarine had to go to reach the lighthouse; I do not know how long it took him to get there, nor do I know how long it took to get the call through to Quebec. All I am telling this house is that the naval officer at Quebec did not get the information until it was too late to do anything about it.
I shall now mention another statement which I made on that occasion, a statement which has been improperly represented by the minister of naval affairs, and which has brought forth an editorial in the Ottawa Journal which I shall presently quote. The statement I made appears in Hansard at page 1269, as follows:
After the house was adjourned early in August I went back to my constituency and kept silent, but I did witness what was going on. For example, in the latter part of July, shortly before I reached home, on a sunny day exactly at noon, at Griffon cove which is right opposite my home, a battle was engaged between a submarine and two corvettes. As the battle was starting Mr. Laurent Giroux, a building contractor, rushed to a telephone and called the Gaspe operator, telling her to pass the word to Gaspe military base, where we were supposed to have some bombers.
Here is what I find in the minister's answer as reported at page 1342 of Hansard, in the last paragraph of the first column:
He referred to an important battle which had taken place near his home, off Griffon cove.
He was referring to me. He continued:
I must tell him that he has not had the privilege of witnessing a battle at all, and that all he heard was gun practice between two corvettes which were going up the river.
The minister misinterpreted my statement, because I had not said I had heard or seen anything myself on that occasion. It is likely on account of that statement of the minister that the Ottawa Journal of March 19 published an ediorial entitled "Mr. Roy didn't see a Battle." The editorial states:
The Budget-Mr. Roy

Standing on his Gaspe cliffs one day last summer, Mr. J. S. Roy, who is Gaspe's M.P., saw two corvettes two miles out at sea racing about like mad and firing their guns, decided he was having a grandstand view of a naval battle. Mr. Roy was disturbed, he could not see any enemy craft, but this surely was a struggle between two of Canada's corvettes and one or more of Mr. Hitler's U-boats, so why on earth were there no aircraft about to help the corvettes.
The article goes on at more length. I wish to say that it is unfair to me because I had never said that I had witnessed that battle myself.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit that I have the right to protest against this accusation. I am not afraid to state that my loyalty to my country cannot be questioned when I honestly endeavoured to bring about a better protection of the St. Lawrence water route.
If I took this stand before the house, it was after having tried to get the ministers to understand the perilous situation in which our ships were when travelling on the St. Lawrence. In fact, after the two first sinkings I wrote a private letter to the three ministers of national defence. Two of them answered me that everything was O.K., and the third one that the area of the St. Lawrence could be given maximum protection at minimum effort on account of the closeness of the shore bases. Then, as more sinkings happened, I realized that the state of mind which was existing at our national defence headquarters was one of false security of the most dangerous type.
That is the reason why when a short while later, three more ships were sunk opposite Cap Chat, I made the announcement to the house with the purpose of arousing public opinion in order to bring about a change of mind in government officials. Yet I was bitterly rebuked by the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services, from whose speech I quote this one sentence as reported at page 2126 of Hansard of the 1942 session:
I am not ready to change the disposition of one ship of the Canadian navy for him or for all the questions he may ask from now till doomsday.
Doomsday should be translated in French by "judgement dernier" or "fin des temps." Thus doors of collaboration were closed to me. But in view of the importance of these events which occurred in the St. Lawrence, and considering further my attitude in this matter, I do not hesitate to leave it to public opinion whether I was disloyal in taking this matter up before the house as I did.

The house divided on the main motion (Mr. Ilsley) which was agreed to on the following division:
++YEAS
Messrs:
Abbott
Anderson
Authier
Bence
Bertrand (Laurier) Bertrand (Prescott) Black (Chateauguay-Huntingdon)
Black (Cumberland) Black (Yukon)
Blair
Blanchette Bonnier Bradette Brunelle Casselman, Mrs.
(Edmonton East) Casselman
(Grenville-Dundas)
Chevrier
Clark
Claxton
Cleaver
Cloutier
Corman
Cote
Cruickshank
Dechene
Denis
Donnelly
Durocher
Edwards
Emmerson
Eudes
Evans
Farquhar
Fauteux
Ferland
Ferron
Fontaine
Fournier (Hull)
Fraser (Northumberland, Ont.)
Fraser
(Peterborough West) Fulford Furniss Gershaw Gibson Gingues Gladstone Golding Goulet Graham Grant Graydon
Hanson (Skeena)
Hazen
Healy
Henderson
Hill
Homuth
Howden
Howe
Hurtubise
Ilsley
Isnor
J aekman
Jean
King, Mackenzie
Kinley
Kirk
Laflamme
LaFleche
Lafontaine
Lalonde
Leduc
Leger
Little
Lizotte
McCann
McCubbin
McCulloch
MacDiarmid
Macdonald (Halifax)
Macdonald
(Kingston City) McDonald (Pontiac) McGarry McGeer McGibbon Mclvor
MacKenzie (Neepawa) Mackenzie
(Vancouver Centre) MacKinnon
(Edmonton West) McKinnon (Kenora-Rainy River) MacKinnon
(Kootenay East) McLarty
MacLean (Cape Breton North-Victoria) McLean (SimeoeEast) Macmillan McNiven
(Regina City) MacNicol Marier Martin Matthews Maybank Mayhew Michaud Mitchell Mullins Mulock Neill Nixon O'Brien O'Neill Perley Picard Pinard Poirier Pottier Purdy Ralston Reid Rennie Rheaume Rickard
Ross (Calgary East) Ross (St. Paul's)
Ross (Souris)
Ryan
St. Laurent
Sanderson
Senn

Fuel Shortage
Sissons
Soper
Stirling
Taylor
Telford
Thauvette
Tripp
Turgeon
Ward
Warren
Weir
Whitman
Winkler
Wood-142.
Friday, March 26, 1943