Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that during the recess the clerk of the house has received from the chief electoral officer a certificate of the election and return of the following member, viz:
Of Wilfred Garfield Case, Esquire, for the electoral district of Grey North.



NEW MEMBER INTRODUCED

[Stage Direction]
Wilfred Garfield Case, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Grey North, introduced by Mr. Gordon Graydon and Hon. R. B. Hanson.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved for leave to introduce bill No. 1. respecting the administration of oaths of office.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Thomas Vien: I have the honour to inform the house that when the house did attend His Excellency the Governor General this day in the Senate chamber, His Excellency was pleased to make a speech to both houses of parliament. To prevent mistakes, I have obtained a copy, which is as follows:
Honourable Members of the Senate:
Members of the House of Commons:
You have been called into session for the dispatch of business which it is in the national interest to conclude before the expiration of the present parliament.
Since I last addressed you, the war in Europe and in Asia has continued with relentless fury. In Europe, the Allied forces are rapidly advancing to what there is every reason to believe will be decisive victory. Canada is prouder than ever of the splendid achievements of her fighting forces, at sea, on land, and in the air.
The government has accepted the invitation to Canada to send representatives to a conference of the united nations to be held on April 25, at San Francisco, to prepare a charter for a general international organization for the maintenance of international peace and security. My ministers are of the opinion that the Canadian delegation at the San Francisco conference should be assured of the widest possible measure of support from parliament. A joint resolution of both houses will accordingly be submitted for your approval.
Members of the House of Commons:
The term of the present parliament will have expired on April 17. A general election will be held shortly thereafter. You will be asked to make the necessary financial provisions for the effective conduct of the war, and to meet the ordinary expenses of government, for the period between the end of the present fiscal year and the opening of a new parliament.
Honourable Members of the Senate:
Members of the House of Commons:
May Divine Providence guide your deliberations in this solemn moment in the history of the world.

The late John Monat Turner



THE LATE JOHN MOUAT TURNER

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, before we enter upon the business of this session I should like to make a reference to the passing of one who to-day is very much missed in this House of Commons. I refer to our friend the late hon. member for Springfield, John Mouat Turner. As hon. members will recall, Mr. Turner was in this house for some ten years, having been first elected in the general election of 1935 and again in 1940. He had just been renominated in the constituency of Springfield as Liberal candidate to contest the riding at the next general election.
The constituency of Springfield because of its great extent, the variety of its industries and the mixed character of its population, is not an easy constituency either to contest or hold. Agriculture is the principal industry, but there is also much in the way of manufacturing and various business concerns. In the constituency there is also a large number of railway workers. The constituency might be regarded as a cross-section of the province of Manitoba. Mr. Turner followed different occupations in his early years. He was one who always kept closely in touch with his fellow men, enjoyed the sharing of their interests, and sought so far as opportunity afforded to do what he could to further their well-being. The fact that he was able to cany the constituency as he did on two occasions, and to merit the recognition accorded him of being asked again to contest it, proves that he possessed in rare measure personal characteristics of the kind that gained for him not only many friends in his constituency but also friends on all sides in this House of Commons. It might be added that in his election contests he had been opposed by formidable opponents.
Mr. Turner did not take much part in the debates of the house. He was however faithful in his attendance and when he spoke never failed to make clear the breadth of his human sympathies. He was always ready to do what he could to further measures for the well-being of his fellow men, showing particular interest in improving the lot of the less privileged members of society.
I shall always personally be deeply grateful to the late member for his personal loyalty, and for his loyalty to the principles and policies of his party. While some of the government's policies may not wholly have met his views, nevertheless he stood firm in his sup-

port in the belief that the larger and general interest was more important than that of any one particular interest.
Mr. Turner's father, who was of Irish descent, was one of the pioneers of Manitoba. His mother was Scottish. When one recalls the personal characteristics of the late member one realizes that he possessed in full measure the quality of humour and cheerfulness so characteristic of most of the Irish race, and also that of loyalty, which is the very essence of the best Scottish character. This house and particularly the party of which throughout his life he. was so staunch a member, is the poorer today for his passing, all the poorer in that he had not yet completed his forty-fifth year.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, it will be the wish of all hon. members that you convey to Mrs. Turner, and also to the late Mr. Turner's mother and to his brothers an expression in the loss its membership has sustained in his passing and an expression of sincere sympathy to them in their bereavement.


Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make only one addition to what has been said by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), and that is that in the passing of John M. Turner, the late member for Springfield, the house loses a member who upon his return to the house in 1936 was numbered among the seven or eight younger members. While I have not checked the record, certainly this is the first time since I came to the house in 1936 that we have lost a member who was born in this century. I mention this only to indicate the uncertainty of life and to emphasize the sorrow felt by members of this party and members generally at the passing of one so young.
The Prime Minister has referred to Mr. Turner's friendliness. I should like to emphasize what he has said in that regard. After all, in political life, and particularly in parliament, there are certain fundamentals which go much deeper than may appear on the superficial political surface. John Turner passed from this earthly life with perhaps as many personal friends as any other member of parliament. I think no better tribute can be paid a man than that upon leaving his fellow men in parliament or elsewhere, he leaves with the friendship of all and the enemy of none. It is with deep sorrow that we mourn his passing. John Turner was not a man who took a very prominent part in the debates of the house, but when he did speak, to use street parlance, he spoke straight from the shoulder, and did not hide his words under piles of oratorical straw. Not only does

The late John Mouat Turner
he leave behind friends from his own political group, but also friends from this group. Although I did not support his party, and was opposed to him in most political divisions, I considered him a close personal friend. I shall miss him because in the halls and corridors of the house, and in the chamber, I learned to regard him with deep affection, and as one who through the years I was honoured to call a friend.
The sympathy of this party goes out to his wife and the other members of his family. We extend our sympathy to the Prime Minister, to the government and the party to which he belonged in the loss they have sustained. I should like to join in what has been expressed so eloquently by the Prime Minister, and in thus paying tribute to the memory of a fellow member I shall have discharged a duty which would have given me pleasure were he here, but which is a sad one because of this occasion.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, we wish to associate ourselves with the expressions of sympathy to the widow, the mother and brothers of the late Mr. Turner, and we would also express sympathy to the Prime Minister in the loss of a faithful follower.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, it seems particularly regrettable that a young man who apparently had such promise should have been called away at such an early age. We deeply sympathize with those who are bereaved, and also with the Prime Minister and the members of his party in the loss of this man.
I had some connection with Mr. Turner, and was led to believe that he represented his constituency sincerely, and worked for what he deemed to be the welfare of Canada as a whole. I am sorry I did not learn to know more about him, but so far as I did learn, I considered him worthy of respect.


Mr. DANIEL McIVOR (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, from this corner of the house I should like to pay my humble tribute to an old friend, Johnny Turner. As a baseball player he could throw straight and strike hard -characteristics which he carried with him into his life. He called almost daily in my room, and while he and I did not agree on certain things, there was one thing on which we did agree. I can still see the twinkle in his eye when he told me that his father and mother were Christian Presbyterians. When he told me that his health was not good, I could then say to him, as one man to another, "Just one thing counts. It is not your position 32283-1J
in life or the amount of money you can pile up: it is your faith in God that counts." Johnny Turner told me that a man is a big fool if he does not make sure that his faith is fixed in God. That is my tribute to the hon. member who sat in this royal comer of the house.


Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, as a colleague from Manitoba of the late Mr. Turner who sat in the house for over nine years with him, I wish to pay a tribute of respect to his memory and to join with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon), the leaders of the other parties and the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) in extending to his family our very deep sympathy.
The constituency that Mr. Turner represented was a difficult one to represent. I doubt if any riding in the whole dominion was more cosmopolitan in character than the riding of Springfield. But in that constituency Mr. Turner had friends among all classes and all racial origins whatever they were. It is a tribute to the character of the man that in his work as representative of the constituency he drew these people together and made them feel that they were Canadians, made them feel that they had their place in the life of this country.
He made no pretence of having all the human virtues. He had his failings like the rest of us poor human mortals. But Mr. Turner was a man of sincere convictions. He was a man of no pretence of any kind. He believed in right as he saw it and he was prepared to fight for it. The great mass of people are just ordinary folk and to lose Mr. Turner is a loss, not only to this parliament but to the great body of people in the country and especially those in the constituency he represented here for so many years.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, it was my great privilege to consider the late Mr. Turner, the
former member for Springfield, a personal friend. His loss will be felt by all of us, and especially by his constituents who were his friends. There were large numbers of Frenchspeaking Canadians in his constituency and they liked Jack Turner very much. They thought highly of him. While he was in the house he was true to them, and he expressed their views with remarkable courage.
Jack Turner was four-square; he was strongly built, and he was not afraid to say what he thought. In his first year here he made practical and useful and progressive suggestions, some of which have been accepted. In later-

Business of the House-Precedence
years he protested vigorously against certain policies and he met with success. He spoke frankly to the government and urged them to take into consideration what he said, and Jack Turner won his case.
The subject matter of his protests seemed of no importance to some of the members of parliament, but it was of great interest to the army. Jack Turner deserves the tribute of being considered an outspoken member of parliament who did a good and useful job while he was sitting here as the representative of the constituency of Springfield in Manitoba.
May I express to Mrs. Turner, who often came to Ottawa with Mr. Turner, my deepest sympathy in her great loss.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


William Lyon Mackenzie King: After Your Honour has
reported the speech of His Excellency the Governor General to the houses of parliament it has been customary for whoever was leading the house to make a motion to the effect that the speech delivered by His Excellency should be taken into consideration at a subsequent sitting of the house, mentioning the time.
The intention of the government, in order to enable business to be proceeded with as .rapidly as possibly, is to have the debate on the address in reply proceeded with this afternoon, but only to a limited extent. The address will be moved and seconded by two hon. members of the house and the debate will then be adjourned to a subsequent time. Except in that particular there will be no difference in the order of procedure from what has been customary. I might say that what I have just indicated is not a departure, because on several occasions this house as well as the parliament at Westminster has taken time for the consideration of the address immediately following its delivery. What is being done to-day is simply for the purpose of expediting the work of this session. I would move:
That on Tuesday, the 20th March, 1945, to the end of the present session, government notices of motion and government orders shall have precedence at every sitting over all other business except questions by members and notices of motions for the production of papers.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, before this motion carries I should like to comment for a moment upon the suggestion of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) with respect to the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I take it that the Prime Minister has in mind

intervening with some other type of public business and postponing the debate on the address to some subsequent period.
I think I should not let this matter go by without registering objection with respect to the debate on the address being dealt with in this way. So far as the debate on the address is concerned it has been the established parliamentary practice that before supply is granted a motion of confidence in the government is placed before the house so that the house may decide upon it. I do not desire to debate the matter at any length beyond raising this objection on behalf of the opposition, and asking the Prime Minister if this procedure which he is now bringing forward has been adopted in previous parliaments. Since I came into the house some nine years ago I cannot recall any time when the government asked that the debate on the address should be postponed to some subsequent time. I should like to ask the Prime Minister what is the underlying reason for the government's proposal.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say in reply to my hon. friend that this resolution is being moved to give precedence to the business of the house rather than to a discussion on the address. As my hon. friend well knows, the debate on the address might run on conceivably for weeks. This session cannot continue beyond the sixteenth of next month because the term of parliament expires at that time. I believe it will be the wish of all, certainly of the people of the country, that the house should devote its time to the most important business that will be before it. There are, as my hon. friend is aware, two particular items mentioned in the speech from the throne that are most important; one the resolution with respect to the conference at San Francisco, and the other the financial measures that will have to be considered. It is important that no time should be lost in taking up both these measures.
As to my hon. friend's remark as to precedence, I may say that I anticipated he might raise that question and I asked the Clerk to give me a memorandum. I have the following record of what has taken place-part of it, I might say, during the time my hon. friend has been in the house but which he has possibly forgotten:
After the general elections of 1930, the house met in special session on the 9th of September, 1930. The address in reply to the speech from the throne was moved by Mr. Turnbull and seconded by Mr. Gagnon immediately after the house returned from the senate. No motion

Business of the House-Precedence
was made giving precedence to the debate on the address. The debate continued on the next day when the address was passed.
There was no motion formally to continue the debate.
The motion giving precedence to the debate on the address was passed on the 12th of March, 1931, but on April 1, before the debate on the address was concluded, the house voted interim supply for the past fiscal year and went to the senate for royal assent. An amendment to the address was moved by Mr. Gardiner on April 20. It was negatived on the next day when the address was carried.
That was from March 12 to April 20.
In the session of 1932, Mr. Bennett moved, as shown by the journals under date of the 4th of February, that the speech be taken into consideration on the following Monday. On that Monday, before the debate on the address was resumed, Mr. Guthrie, Minister of Justice, moved that a select committee be apopinted to inquire into certain charges made by the Hon. G. N. Gordon against Mr. Bennett. A debate took place and the motion was agred to on that day. Debate on the address was then resumed and concluded on the next day, February 9, when the address was passed.
In the session of 1932-33. Mr. Bennett moved, on October 6, that the address be taken into consideration on the following Monday. Similar motions were made in the sessions of 1934, January 25, and of 1935, January 17.
It will be seen by these precedents that it is not necessary to move that the address be given precedence, but a day may be fixed for it to be considered later in the session. There is no standing order regulating the procedure to be followed with respect to the days on which the address is to be debated.
I might also quote Anson's Law and Custom of the Constitution, part I, Parliament, which at page 74 says:
The speech from the throne setting forth the causes of summons may be necessary to put in motion the business of both houses, but the addresses in answer are non-essential forms: for parliament is not limited in legislation or discussion by the topics set forth from the throne.
I believe that is sufficient to show that there is no departure being made at the present time but that we are simply giving precedence to the business for which this particular parliament has been called.


Hon. R. B. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has stated that this house has been called to give particular attention to two pieces of business, and with that statement as a general thing we are all in agreement. But I would point out to him that except in one of the cases to which he has referred, namely, a motion for interim supply in the session of 1931, which was made immediately after the ending of the fiscal1 year, no supply has ever been granted
until this house has first voted confidence in the government by way of passing the address. In that I think the Prime Minister will agree with me. On the occasion to which he referred I recall that the fiscal year had expired and unless interim supply was voted immediately there was great danger to the public service.
I presume, though I have not looked up the record, that that was done by consent. I do suggest to the Prime Minister that before this house votes any money to be spent by this government there must be an expression of confidence in the government itself, especially having regard to the history of recent events. This government has not won a by-election-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hesitate to interrupt my hon. friend, but may I say to him as an old parliamentarian that he knows that this motion is not debatable. I would ask Your Honour to see that the rules of this house are strictly observed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If we are to be chloroformed, let us understand that, and I will bow to the rules of the house. But I do protest that the Prime Minister should not be allowed to speak twice on his motions and the rest of us not at all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I submit that my hon. friend is not in order, and no one knows it better than himself.


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: You have done things that were not in order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by Mr. Crerar:
That on Wednesday the 21st of March, 1945, and all subsequent Wednesdays until the end of the present session, the sittings shall in every respect be under the same rules as provided for other days.


Thomas Vien: There is already a motion before the house that government notices of motion and government orders shall have precedence.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a question, through you, with the indulgence of the house. Does the carrying of that motion preclude the doing of any other business or the asking of questions on the orders of the day? That is a very special resolution. Is it the intention to shut off any discussion and that sort of thing on the orders of the day? If it is, we protest.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend seems more anxious to protest than to get information. He knows very well that the government will not refuse to answer questions on the orders of the day.
e

Business of the House-Precedence


Mr. ROY:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on the Prime Minister's motion that government business shall have priority over all private bills or resolutions. A similar motion has been made at every session since the opening of this parliament in 1940. As this session will be the last one before we go to the people, I would like to know from the Prime Minister if there is going to be an opportunity for the private members to move resolutions and introduce bills and have them adopted before this parliament is ended.


Thomas Vien: Order. There is some confusion in the minds of hon. members. We are dealing with a motion which asks:
That on Tuesday, the 20th of March, 1945, to the end of the present session, government notices of motion and government orders shall have precedence at,every sitting over all other business except questions by members and notices of motions for the production of papers.
The hon. member for York-Sunbury made a suggestion that this might include questions asked of the ministers on the orders of the day. The motion does not so read. The question before me is whether this is debatable or not. Standing order 38 deals with debatable motions, and it provides in paragraph 1 (m):
. . . and such other motion, made upon routine proceedings, as may be required for the observance of the proprieties of the house, the maintenance of its authority, the appointment or conduct of its officers, the management of its business, the arrangements of its proceedings, the correctness of its records, the fixing of its sitting days or the times of its meetings or adjournment.
In view of that, it is debatable, as far as the terms of the motion are concerned.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why,
certainly. We are just having an application of the gag; that is all.


Thomas Vien: It is not as in the case where another matter had been introduced; and the discussion should be confined simply to the terms of the motion before the house-that is, that government notices of motion and government orders shall have precedence at every sitting. Whatever argument or debate takes place must be on the terms of the motion.


Gordon Graydon: I think that the misunderstanding which has occurred arose largely because the Prime Minister, when he was introducing the motion, dealt with another matter which I wanted to speak upon and which I subsequently did speak upon. I believe that Mr. Speaker's ruling is one which was adopted in practically all 
previous sessions: that is, there was almost always a lengthy debate on this particular matter as it affects private members' resolutions and so on. I have no desire to prolong the discussion, but I think the Prime Minister was quite wrong when he suggested that this particular motion was not debatable. If he will apply his memory to previous sessions he will find that quite lengthy discussions are recorded in Hansard with respect to the abolition, even in wartime, of private members' rights in respect of moving motions and resolutions before government business.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I take it, then, that I am in order?


Thomas Vien: The Prime Minister, I assume, had in mind that there was injected into the motion before the house another motion altogether; but so far as that is concerned, debate can only be based upon the actual terms of the motion.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Am I to understand then, Mr. Speaker, that I am in order?


Thomas Vien: To speak to the motion?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes.


Thomas Vien: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Very
good; thank you. In other days I have protested against the government usurping the rights of private members. I am bound to say to the house and to the Prime Minister that on this occasion, having regard to the situation and the conditions under which we meet and the very few days left for the transaction of business, I think the government is justified in making this request as early in the session as it is doing to-day. I wish to make it perfectly clear that as far as His Majesty's Loyal Opposition is concerned we desire to vote the necessary moneys to carry on the great conflict in which this country is engaged, and we do not want this war run on governor general's warrants. This may be out of order-I hear the Clerk saying it is out of order; but I want to make our position clear, and as far as I am concerned I want to cooperate with the government to that end. I wish to see money voted to carry on the war; but I suggest that before the government brings in other business, even a lengthy debate on the San Francisco proposals, this house should vote confidence in the government-confidence which is now lacking in this country.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Ways and Means

William Lyon Mackenzie King: (Prime Minister) moved:
That on Wednesday, the 21st day of March, 1945, and all subsequent Wednesdays until the end of the present session, the sittings shall in every respect be under the same rules as provided for other days.


Gordon Graydon: May I seek clarification on one point? I take it that this means Friday nights as well as Wednesday nights?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It means exactly what it says-unless the house should decide it prefers not to sit Friday evenings.


Gordon Graydon: The reason I asked the question was that during the last session the Prime Minister on two or three occasions seemed to assume that some motion had to be made as regards Friday night in order that we would sit; and I wanted to clarify the position.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.	.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) presented the following message from His Excellency the Governor General:
The Governor General transmits to the House of Commons a certified copy of an approved minute of council appointing the Honourable T. A. Crerar, Minister of Mines and Resources, the Honourable J. L. Ilsley, Minister of Finance, the Honourable J. E. Michaud, Minister of Transport and the Honourable J. A. MacKinnon, Minister of Trade and Commerce, to act with the Speaker of the House of Commons as commissioners for the purpose and under the provisions of chapter 145 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, intituled: An Act Respecting the House of Commons.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: That this house will, at the next sitting, resolve itself into a committe to consider of a supply to be granted to His Majesty.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

['It is not\nproper either.']
William Lyon Mackenzie King: That this house will, at the next sitting, resolve itself into a committee to consider of the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to His Majesty.


Gordon Graydon: This gives me an opportunity to inquire of the government at what time during
this session the budget will be introduced. Also may I ask whether the passing of the motion for the constitution of these committees in any way deprives hon. members of the right to make the usual amendments as provided by the rules, upon the house going into supply.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My bon. friend has brought up a matter which it is fortunate, perhaps, that he mentioned at this stage. He has referred to the time at which the budget will 'be brought in at this session. May I say to my hon. friend and hon. members that it is customary for parliament to have five sessions, when it extends over five years. The statute fixes five years at the period over which parliament can sit without a general election. This parliament has already had five full sessions. The present session is not to be construed and should not be construed as the session of parliament for the year 1945-46. That session will come later in the present year. It will come after the general elections, just as was the case, as I recollect, with the first session of this parliament; it came after the general elections, after the people had pronounced upon what particular party they wished to have control the affairs of the country during the coming years.
The purpose of this session is to enable the general election to be held as soon as it can reasonably be held; to make provision for the carrying on of the necessary civil government during the period of the election, and to obtain the appropriations which are necessary for the prosecution of the war. It would be a mistake to assume that the government is seeking to have six sessions in a parliament that has already had five long sessions. It is simply seeking to comply with the spirit of the constitution and obtain from the people's representatives in the house what will be necessary in the way of interim supply for the period which will elapse between the beginning of the present fiscal year and the time at which a new parliament comes into being. When the members of the new parliament shall have been elected by the people, it will be for whatever government may be here to introduce its own budget and its own legislation on other matters.
This particular session would have been concerned solely with the question of necessary supply had it not been that recently there has been sent to our government an invitation by the government of the United States for Canada to be represented at the conference at San Francisco on world security. We have felt that the people of Canada would wish that
Ways and Means

Canada should be represented at that conference, and it is desirable that if Canada is represented it should have as strong an expression of approval as possible from both houses of parliament of the purposes for which the conference is being called and of the position to be taken by Canada at the conference.
I do not know whether my hon. friend asked another question which I have not answered, but I hope I have made it clear that while it is perfectly true that this is a session, it is not the 1945-46 session of parliament. It is a part of the year during which we have already been sitting; its purpose is to make the provision that should be made to enable a general election to be held at an early date.


Gordon Graydon: There was one other question I raised with respect to the motion that is now before the house. So far as the budget is concerned, I think the same set of arguments apply with respect to it as apply to the address, because actually I do not think the government would expect, and certainly the country would not expect, that the government should escape censure at this stage of parliament for having failed to take full advantage of the first three months of this year. It could have called a session early in January and could then have given parliament an opportunity to debate, in connection with the address, those things which were essential to determining confidence in the administration. It could also have brought down a proper budget for the ensuing year.
I do not wish to extend my remarks at all, but I would say that business and the taxpayers can hardly be expected to plan very far ahead, and I think it will cause considerable inconvenience if the budget is to be left over as the government now suggests.
I did want to ask the Prime Minister whether, in passing this motion, the house would be deprived of the opportunity of making any amendment that might conceivably be moved on the motion to go into supply or ways and means.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This motion in no way affects the rights of the house with respect to what it may wish to do on going into supply.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The motion is intended to set up a committee of ways and means, but if there is to be no budget-and the Prime Minister made it abundantly clear that there is to be none-why the committee? I can scarcely understand a government asking the house to go into committee of ways and means unless it has proposals by way of a budget to submit to parliament.

I concur entirely in the statement made by my leader, that this house should have been summoned early in January, notwithstanding what the Prime Minister has said about six sessions in a parliament. That does not mean a thing. There can be ten sessions in a parliament; or, more properly, parliament ought to be called into session more frequently than it has been. We have been away from Ottawa for seven months, whereas the parliament at Westminster has been in almost continuous session.


Mr. HOWE:: You have, but the rest of us were here.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is intended to be facetious, I know. Well, I was away from August until now except for the short session. During the short session I was here. That short session was called, however, by reason of the ineptitude of the Prime Minister and of his policies, and for no other reason. I want to know as a matter of information now, before the motion passes, what necessity there is for setting up a committee of ways and means if, as has been announced, there is to be no budget.


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: The procedure which is necessary in granting interim supply, which will be asked* for, involves the submission of a resolution to the committee of ways and means. The ordinary form of the resolution is: "Resolved, that towards making good supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1946, the following sums be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, namely". . . And then follow the sums. It is the committee of ways and means that designates the source of the funds which are voted by the committee of supply. With regard to the other question, while it does not specifically answer the point raised by the hon. gentleman, I would1 point out that it is not uncommon for periods of fifteen or sixteen months to intervene between budgets.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is very unusual.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It has happened in the last two or three years.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is not
proper either.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

War Appropriation

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General, transmitting estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1946, was presented by Hon. J. L. Ilsley (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General, transmitting further supplementary estimates for the financial year ended March 31, 1945, was presented by Hon. J. L. Ilsley (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved that it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide, inter alia:
1.	That a sum not exceeding $2,000,000,000 be granted to His Majesty towards defraying any expenses or making any advances or loans that may be incurred or granted by or under the authority of the governor in council during the year ending March 31, 1946 for
(a)	the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada;
(b)	the conduct of naval, military and air operations in or beyond Canada;
(c)	promoting the continuance of trade, industry and business communications, whether by means of insurance or indemnity against war risk or in any other manner whatsoever;
(d) for the purposes of The War Appropriation (United Nations Mutual Aid) Act, 1943, as amended by The War Appropriation (United Nations Mutual Aid) Act, 1944; and
(e)	the carrying out of any measure deemed necessary or advisable by the governor in council in consequence of the existence of a state of war.
2.	That the governor in council be empowered to raise by way of loan under the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, 1931, such sum or sums of money, not exceeding in the whole the sum of $2,000,000,000 as may be required for the purpose of defraying such expenses or making such advances or loans, the principal and interest of any such loan to be a charge upon and payable out of the consolidated revenue fund.
3.	That the governor in council be empowered to reexpend, advance or loan moneys that may be received by way of refund or repayment of advances, loans or expenditures under the War Appropriation Acts of 1939 (second session), 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943 and 1944.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Is it not customary to put a resolution of this kind on the order paper? I realize that there is no order paper to-day, but the usual practice is to have some advance notice.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This resolution will be printed in the Votes and Proceedings of to-day.


Gordon Graydon: I do not wish to debate this resolution, but I should like to ask one question, if Your Honour will permit me. Upon what principle or basis was the
82.000.	000.000 arrived at? I take it that it is arrived at on the same basis as the civil estimates which will be tabled later. The
82.000.	000.000 is what percentage of the total amount?


James Lorimer Ilsley: If the leader of the opposition does not mind, I wish he would let me answer that question when I speak in introducing the resolution. It cannot be answered in a sentence; it will take some time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In the meantime this is merely a notice of motion?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Mr. DORION:: I object to this motion because according to standing order 45 a motion of this kind cannot be introduced without notice.


Thomas Vien: This being the first day of this session there is no order paper and no notice could be given before the first day. The notice is now being given.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Of course that is not quite in accordance with the rules.


Mr. POULIOT:: I rise to a question of privilege. I have not understood a word that was uttered by the minister except here and there. Hon. members on this side of the house do not at all understand what is going on. I would ask you to be good enough to tell us in a clear and distinct voice what it is all about. This is a huge amount of money,
82,000,000,000. We are here to see what is going on and to examine all expenditures. If members of parliament are to play their part in this session they must know what is going on. Nobody knows what this is all about. The expenditure of $2,000,000,000 is a serious thing. It took almost two months last session to vote $5,000,000,000. I make these remarks in the best possible spirit, but I want to know what is going on.

War Appropriation


James Lorimer Ilsley: Perhaps I may inform the hon. member in a few words. In effect what I did to-day, not sufficiently audibly, apparently, was to give notice that at the next sitting of the house I would move that the house go into committee of the whole to consider a resolution for the voting of $2,000,000,000 for the purposes set out in the resolution; and I made the usual statement that His Excellency the Governor General had been made acquainted with the subject matter of the resolution and recommended it to the consideration of the house. There will be abundant opportunity to debate the resolution itself at the time I actually move that we go into committee of the whole, and there will be the same opportunity to debate in committee of the whole.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think the notice is a little bit premature, but we should not be too technical.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Louder, please.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is just your bad luck. I think the motion appeared a bit too soon. Notwithstanding that, we should not be too technical, having regard to existing conditions. I for one am quite ready to agree to have the procedure followed that has been indicated to-day in order that we may gain a day's time.
With regard to the hon member for Temis-couata (Mr. Pouliot), if he cannot hear he should go back to his former seat.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I wish to thank the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) for his kindness in saying that we ought not to be too technical at this time, but take the course that will enable us to proceed most rapidly with the business of the house at this particular session.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I wish now to read to the house a motion which I am handing to the clerk and which will appear in the Votes and Proceedings of to-day. I am giving it to the house at this moment so that hon. members will be informed of the resolution at the earliest possible moment. It is a resolution that I intend proposing in the form of a joint resolution, the same resolution to be proposed in each house of parliament, respecting the 
proposals for the establishment of a general international organization for the maintenance of international peace and security.
As the house is aware, some few days ago, on March 5 to be exact, an invitation was extended to Canada by the government of the United States, on its own behalf and on behalf of the governments of the U.S.S.R., the United Kingdom and the Republic of China, to be present at a conference to be held at San Francisco on April 25, 1945, to prepare a charter for a general organization for the maintenance of international peace and security. I have in my hand a copy of the invitation that was extended, and also a copy of the reply made by our government.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will they appear in the Votes and Proceedings?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was just going to ask if the house would allow me to table them and have them appear to-morrow in the Votes and Proceedings of to-day.
The motion will be as follows:-
That it is expedient that the Houses of Parliament do approve the following resolution:
Whereas the government of Canada has been invited by the government of the United States of America, on behalf of itself and of the governments of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Republic of China, to send representatives to a conference of the United Nations to be held on April 25, 1945, at San Francisco in the United States of America to prepare a charter for a general international organization for the maintenance of international peace and security, and
Whereas the invitation suggests that the conference consider as affording a basis for such a charter the proposals for the establishment of a general international organization which have been made public by the four governments which participated in the discussions at Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, and
Whereas the government of Canada has accepted the invitation to send representatives to this conference,
Therefore be it resolved-
1.	that this house endorses the acceptance by the government of Canada of the invitation to send representatives to the conference;
2.	that this house recognize that the establishment of an effective international organization for the maintenance of international peace and security is of vital importance to Canada, and, indeed, to the future well-being of mankind; and that it is in the interests of Canada that Canada should become a member of such an organization;
3.	that this house approves the purposes and principles set forth in the proposals of the four governments, and considers that these proposals constitute a satisfactory general basis for a discussion of the charter of the proposed international organization;

San Francisco Conference
4.	that this house agrees that the representatives of Canada at the conference should use their best endeavours to further the preparation of an acceptable charter for an international organization for the maintenance of international peace and security;
5.	that the charter establishing the international organization should, before ratification, be submitted to parliament for approval.
The Department of External Affairs has had printed in pamphlet form, for the convenience of hon, members, a copy of the proposals for the establishment of a general international organization for the maintenance of international peace and security, and I have asked that copies of this publication be placed in the boxes of hon. members this afternoon so that they will be available immediately at the conclusion of to-day's sitting.


John Horne Blackmore: Does this document include the report of the Bretton Woods inference?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, it does not. As I recall it, the report of the Bretton Woods conference was tabled some time ago. This pamphlet contains the proposals that were considered at Dumbarton Oaks, and to which some further consideration was given during the Crimea conference at Yalta.
I should like, Mr. Speaker, to proceed with this motion to-morrow. I think it important that not only our country but all peace-loving countries should know at as early a day as possible that this house approves the establishment of an international organization for the maintenance of international peace and security, and that Canada intends to be represented at the conference. I think hon. members have had very full notice of the fact that this resolution, or something similar, would come up at this session, because I have referred to it publicly many times, and there have been other references to it. I hope, therefore, that no exception will be taken to the house proceeding with the resolution as the first order of business to-morrow. I would move that this resolution be considered to-morrow.


Gordon Graydon: It is not the desire of the opposition to do other than facilitate public business at this time. Of course we have our bounden duty to discharge in regard to the critical examination of everything brought in by the government, but subject to that there is no desire on our part, as the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) said a few moments ago, to do anything but cooperate in respect to providing money in order to carry on the war. Now, however, the Prime Minister brings up something else, the resolu-32283-2J
tion dealing with the San Francisco conference, with which he proposes to proceed as the first order of business to-morrow. I should like to point out that this creates a rather difficult situation for members, a situation I should like the government to consider. It is perhaps true that some general mention has been made of a resolution of this kind which might be introduced at some stage of the session, but, if I may say so, to ask the opposition and other groups in this house to go on with this resolution to-morrow is to place quite a load upon those whose duty it is to scrutinize carefully the position of the government with respect to this matter.
I would have no objection to the Prime Minister himself going on to-morrow if that would meet his wishes and those of the government. We do not want to be non-cooperative about it, but following the Prime Minister's presentation I feet quite sure a number of hon. members of the house will desire to seek the fullest possible information with respect to the government's position. For a long time the external affairs of our country have been pretty much in the vest pocket of the Prime Minister, and I do not say that offensively. Having that in mind I am sure the house will expect him in his presentation to elaborate on these matters, to give a historical outline of the position in which Canada finds itself and the various developments leading up to it. Then, no doubt, he will give the proposals of the government, as to what is intended to be done in connection with the San Francisco Conference. That being the case no doubt there will be a great deal of meat to digest in what the Prime Minister has to say tomorrow, and I suggest that it will take some time for the opposition and other groups in the house to analyse his statement. I should expect, and I am sure the house would expect, the Prime Minister's presentation to-morrow to be lengthy. We know there is a great deal to be said. Therefore, following his statement I would ask the Prime Minister to consider an adjournment of the debate to give an opportunity to digest what he has said. As I said before, I believe there is no subject to come before parliament to which more careful or more detailed consideration and attention must be given. In past sessions we have not had any lengthy opportunity to debate matters of this kind, nor have we had an opportunity to learn the government's position or the policy it intends to follow in this respect.
What provision is to be made so that questions may be asked the Prime Minister during the resolution stage? My understanding is that there will be no committee, and for
San Francisco Conference

that reason hon. members will wish to have the fullest opportunity of examining the Prime Minister and asking him questions at the proper stage.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What my hon. friend has just said seems wholly reasonable. I have no desire to hasten the house into a discussion of this resolution. It is an important one, but one which I believe is of a noncontentious character. I shall be greatly surprised if the entire house does not give to the resolution its hearty support. That however may be an additional reason for having members made fully conversant with the provisions of the resolution, and all that is implied therein. I shall undertake therefore to proceed to-morrow with my statement on the resolution. Then, at the termination of that discussion, another order of business might be taken up-although I should add this, that I think there are several members who would be ready to speak. This is a subject practically all hon. members have been considering for many weeks. However, if there is any objection to allowing others who are prepared to speak to proceed to-morrow, following my address, I should be prepared to have the debate adjourned until another day. As my .hon. friend has said, there is a good deal of meat in what will be presented to the house. For the most part however I believe it will be found that the material is familiar to hon. members.
My hon. friend asked me about questions. In speaking on the motion I should like to speak without interruption, and to be allowed to complete what I have to say. Then I would suggest that if there are any points I have not covered, points upon which hon. members might seek enlightenment or further information, and upon which they would wish me to elucidate they might mention them when they speak, giving me an opportunity to deal with such matters in my reply at the close of the debate. If my replies are not satisfactory I shall try to find some means of gaining assistance and making such further detailed replies as may be requested.
The subject is a very large one, and it is most difficult to carry in one's mind all the dates, relevant facts and associated matters about which hon. members may wish to learn; but I would seek to accommodate the house in the fashion I have indicated.


Gordon Graydon: I do not wish to ask too much of the government, and should like to have the debate proceed as regularly as possible. However, the difficulty I see in the Prime Minister's suggestion to the effect that he will answer questions in his reply is, as he very well knows, that a question of this 
kind is one upon which many people desiring to take part in the debate will want enlightenment from the Prime Minister in respect of certain points concerning which only he can enlighten them. He is the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I know that I should like to ask a number of questions by way of clarification of the government's position, in anticipation of the possibility that he may not deal with certain matters as I might deal with them, or might not view them as I view them. I would ask him therefore to extend the privilege I have indicated, rather than to leave a conglomeration of questions to be answered at the end of the debate. I would ask that he give hon. members an opportunity of knowing the government's policy before they proceed to speak.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am anxious to oblige the leader of the opposition and other hon. members so far as possible. But a great responsibility rests upon the government and upon myself in debating this subject. I must keep in mind the fact that any question asked me and to which I reply may be quoted in all parts of the world. That is saying a good deal, but it is nevertheless true. I do not wish to be placed in a position whereby, upon answering some question with such knowledge as I have, I might be giving information which one of the nations in the British commonwealth of nations, or one of the great powers, would not wish to have given at this time. I can always inquire as to whether or not I might be at liberty to answer certain questions. I must say frankly however that it will not be possible to answer all questions that may be asked, although it is obvious that one might answer some of them. There are some questions concerning which I might have to use my judgment before replying.
It is my view that on the whole it may be best to proceed in the regular fashion. Then, if at any stage it is obvious that the fact that some information has not been given which should have been given is causing embarrassment, I shall seek to relieve such embarrassment. I should prefer however that we follow the customary rule in debating a resolution.


Gordon Graydon: There is one point which is not yet clear in my mind. If the Prime Minister goes on to-morrow, is it understood that at the conclusion of his speech we shall have an adjournment for the purpose of considering the whole situation as he has outlined it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If there are hon. members who wish to speak and who

San Francisco Conference
are ready to speak, would there be any objection to allowing them to proceed? I should not expect my hon. friend to follow immediately. On the other hand there are hon. members who will wish to speak and who may be prepared to do so to-morrow. It might even assist other hon. members were we to have such further points of view presented, and were we to permit those to speak tomorrow who may be ready to proceed. I should think it would be preferable not to compel proceeding with the debate; but if any hon. members wish to speak following what I have to say could we not agree to allow them tha.t opportunity? When we have reached the point where there are no further speakers to-morrow, we could go on to some other business.


Gordon Graydon: That means that we are back to where we were before. I am not suggesting that the Prime Minister has intended it to be this way, but in my view the suggested arrangement definitely means that those of us who would normally follow in the usual sequence of debate would have to be prepared to follow the Prime Minister. That is what I was hoping to avoid.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No; I would
not ask my hon. friend to follow immediately after me. What I have said is this: it is hoped that this resolution might not be a matter of party controversy. I should think the whole discussion would be viewed as above party considerations; and for that reason, to save time and to expedite business, I have suggested that if there are others ready to speak after I have finished we might allow them to do so at once. Then my hon. friend might, come in at whatever stage of the debate he wishes. I would not expect him to speak to-morrow.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not think effect should be given to that suggestion. The Prime Minister will probably make tomorrow one of the most carefully considered statements he has ever made in this parliament on this very important question. I concur and I hope lion, members of this house will concur in his request that this will not become a matter of party politics, that it will be treated as a great international question above any party conflicts that may have developed between us in this country.
I would like to point out to the Prime Minister that we do not know yet what position his government is going to take. We do not know what principles he will enunciate from his place to-morrow. There certainly will not be time enough to permit hon. members to
study the government's position. Everything will depend upon the position which the Prime Minister and the administration take. For instance, I may believe in a policy of collective security while some other people may object to that. Before we can express an opinion on the basis of a bare, skeleton resolution we have to know what is the actual attitude of the government. It is not fair to ask private members or others to go on and deal immediately with the subject matter of a resolution of this magnitude and international character without time for study. I have not been able to assemble in my library all the material that has been put out since Dumbarton Oaks. These are serious matters which we should study and delve into and analyse in order to reach conclusions. I may have one view about one single circumstance and agree with the minister about all others, but I certainly am not prepared to go on to-morrow after he has made a statement which probably has taken days, if not weeks, to prepare with the whole secretariat which he has behind him studying this matter. It is not fair to a private member to compel him to do this. I think the proper, course is for the Prime Minister to make his prepared statement and let us read it over.
May I close by expressing the hope that a matter fraught with such grave importance to the future of mankind will not become a political football.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, in listening to this discussion I am wondering just exactly what it is we are going to discuss after the Prime Minister's statement. It seems to me that the purpose of the debate which will be initiated by the Prime Minister is to obtain the feeling of this house regarding Canada's position on the very important matter which will be before us because of the invitation received.
Whether we agree or disagree with the Prime Minister we should be prepared to express our points of view as members of parliament in order that any delegation which goes from this house may understand what is the consensus here. To my mind it will not be a debate on what the Prime Minister may say to-morrow; we shall not necessarily be expressing agreement or disagreement with his remarks; it is rather an opportunity to express the opinion of this House of Commons on a very important matter, that of the basis proposed for the maintenance of peace. Personally I can see no reason why the Prime Minister should not make his statement tomorrow and then such members of the house as have been giving some study to these matters over a period of months or even years-

The Address-Mr. Johnston (London)
should be prepared to express their opinions regarding the acceptance of the invitation and the proposals.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, one matter that we must all bear in mind is this: do we as ordinary members of the house know just what is the meaning or the implications of the proposals which were issued by the conference at Bretton Woods or at the conference at Dumbarton Oaks?
As I understand it, we are going to consider ways and means of avoiding war in the future. Is any effort being made to find out what caused this war and the war that went before?
The next thing is to find out whether or not we can remove those causes. Then we must find out whether or not there are ways of preventing war after we shall have removed the causes so far as that may be possible. In the light of that information we ought to consider (with the greatest care) all the proposals which are being made.
It is a remarkable thing to me that we never hear, either from the government, from the newspapers or over the radio, any discussion of any features in these proposals which might be adverse to our welfare. This leads me to suppose that all is not well, that there is a good deal which requires the most careful searching on the part of members of this .house. It is perfectly sound to allow people to speak with the greatest freedom, but one thing I fear is that we shall go too hastily, that members of this house will undertake to judge too confidently what was done during *days and days of the most careful work by people, none of whom we may know. We do not have anything like the information they possessed, or the information we need.
I desire above all things to find out what were the reasons for the proposals issued at Bretton Woods and Dumbarton Oaks. I want to find out just what problems were faced there. When we know that, we shall be able to judge the proposals of Bretton Woods and Dumbarton Oaks in the light of more thorough understanding.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The house proceeded to the consideration of the speech delivered by His Excellency the Governor General at the opening of the session.
Mr. J. A. JOHNSTON (London):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the Prime Min-IMr. Coldwell.l
ister (Mr. Mackenzie King) for giving to me the honour of moving the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I know that the citizens of the constituency of London will greatly appreciate this honour. Londoners are proudly carrying their share of the heavy load which is placed on everyone when a country is engaged in the grim business of war.
This will be an historic session, the sixth session of the nineteenth parliament, and as a member of the Canadian active service force I am proud to move this motion and to have associated with me as seconder the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Lapointe). As a young man the hon. member served in the first great war, and he has served with the Canadian active service force in this war.
Parliament has been called together to expedite Canada's outstanding war effort. With this thought before us we heard in the speech from the throne just delivered that the two main objectives are, first, to provide the necessary financial support for Canada's war effort during the period from March 31, 1945, until the first session of the twentieth parliament, and, second, to ensure the widest possible support from Canada, through this parliament, to the Canadian delegation attending the San Francisco conference of the united nations.
May I now refer to the first objective, namely, that of financing the war effort through the election period. It is of paramount importance that Canada's war effort, which has been carried on so splendidly under the leadership of the Prime Minister and his cabinet, be given the necessary financial support for the period between the close of the present fiscal year and the return of the coming election writs.
To all Canadian personnel on active service, to all Canadian workers, in the production line and lines of communication, comes a thrill of satisfaction with the success of allied armies throughout the world. All look forward to the close of hostilities in Europe, to the erasing from the earth of nazism and its cruel tyrannies, to the defeat of Japan in the far east, so that the charter which will be drawn up at San Francisco may be put at once in force throughout the world. Canada must continue to play her part by supplying men, equipment and material and finance.
The second objective, as we were told in the speech from the throne, is to prepare a charter for a general international organization for the maintenance of world peace and security. All countries will have their eyes focused on this conference; so too the men in the Canadian armed forces, in every branch of

The Ministry
the services in the four corners of the world, are directing their attention to this conference and are looking to it to produce a charter which will be their guarantee of security for all time to come. And they are hoping by the application of the charter that the word "war" will be removed from all languages and that the charter will assist in obtaining social security for all.
I am sure that the people of Canada generally will commend this parliament for cutting short the preliminaries and getting down immediately to the important business of the session. With this thought in mind, I have decided to make my remarks in presenting this motion very brief. I therefore move:
That the following address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General of Canada:
To His Excellency Major-General the Right Honourable the Earl of Athlone, Knight of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, a member of His Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, Knight Grand Cross of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Grand Master of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order, Companion of the Distinguished Service Order, one of His Majesty's Personal Aides-de-Camp, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of the Dominion of Canada.
May it Please Your Excellency:
We, His Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the House of Commons of Canada, in parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Excellency for the gracious speech which Your Excellency has addressed to both houses of parliament.


Mr. J. A. LAPOINTE (Matapedia-Matane):: Mr. Speaker, in order to expedite this debate, and in accordance with the government's desire to carry on with the work ahead, I shall not make a speech at the moment. I must, however, express my happiness at having been chosen to second this motion, and I want to thank the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) for the honour which he has extended to me. I also consider it a great privilege and honour to my constituency, which is the finest in Canada, if I can believe what was told me by the acting leader of the opposition in this house in a very nice way.
In selecting the hon. member for London (Mr. Johnston) and myself to move and second the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the government no doubt had in mind the paying of a tribute not only to our armed forces, some of whom now are fighting so gallantly on German soil, but to the veterans of the last war; and therefore, Mr. Speaker it gives me great pleasure to second the motion.
On .motion of Mr. Lapointe (Matapedia-Matane) the debate was adjourned.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
perhaps the house will allow me, as an old offender, to congratulate the mover and the seconder on the brevity of their speeches.



THE MINISTRY


William Lyon Mackenzie King: While I am on my feet
perhaps I may refer to one other matter of routine It is simply to make mention of a change in the ministry which has taken place since we last assembled here, under which the Hon. Colin Gibson, former Minister of National Revenue, has been appointed Minister of National Defence for Air to fill the position vacated by Hon. C. G. Power.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask the Prime Minister
to complete his explanation with respect to the change in ministers, including parliamentary assistants? I ask him to do so because I should like to know who is looking after the Department of National Revenue, and also whether there has been any permanent change as regards the parliamentary assistant moving from the Department of Finance to the Department of National Defence. Is he assuming the new position on an acting basis?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As regards the Department of National Revenue, the Hon. Mr. MacKinnon is acting minister at the present time. It is the customary procedure, when there is not a minister, to have some other member of the government act until such time as an appointment is made. The appointment will be made before very long.
In regard to the parliamentary assistants, the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macmillan), wTho is not in the house to-day, wrote to me a day or two ago to the effect that, being at the present time acting principal of McGill university, he had very heavy responsibilities and felt that perhaps he should not try to continue as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence for Air. He also thought that he should tender his resignation so as to leave the minister free to make whatever choice he might wish. I replied1 to the hon. member that I hoped he would not think of tendering his resignation at the moment. I said that if he could be here part of the time it would be of assistance, and I also informed him that, having spoken to my colleague the Minister of National Defence for Air about a
Air Marshal Breadner

parliamentary assistant, he had expressed the wish that the hon. member for Queens would continue in that capacity.
As to the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount (Mr. Abbott), as the house is aware, he has been parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance has expressed his readiness to free the hon. member from that position in order to allow him to act as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence. The hon. member has cordially agreed to assist the government by making the transfer in the manner described.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 5.45 p.m.
Tuesday, March 20, 1945

Mr. Speaker read a communication from the Governor General's secretary, announcing that His Excellency the Governor General would proceed to the Senate chamber at three p.m. on this day, for the purpose of formally opening the session of the dominion parliament.
A message was delivered by Major A. R. Thompson, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And the house having returned to the Commons chamber: