TERMINATION OF ACTIVITIES IN OBTAINING FUNDS FOR PROSECUTION OF THE WAR

Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: I wish to announce to the house that the national war finance committee has recommended the termination of its active life. I have accepted this recommendation. It is not possible at this time to decide the nature of further campaigns for the sale of government securities which may be required in the future. It is therefore appropriate that the great organization set up to obtain funds for the successful prosecution of the war should end its career on the conclusion of its greatest achievement, the ninth victory loan. The final figures for this loan will be in excess of two billion dollars, of which amount approximately $1,200 million represents investments by individuals.
It is not my intention to outline the accomplishments of the national war finance committee in detail, but I think it is fitting that the house should take note of the end of this organization and that the record should show the names of the major organizations which contributed to its work.
As members are doubtless aware, much of the executive personnel of the national war finance committee was drawn from the ranks of the investment dealers of Canada. They

have supplied in large measure the working machinery for the operation. Other groups in the Canadian financial world have made substantial contributions. Among them, the chartered banks of Canada assumed a large burden in connection with the sale and delivery of bonds. The Life Officers Association and the Life Underwriters of Canada have also facilitated the building of a sales organization. Leaders in agricultural and labour organizations have provided advice and assistance. Among these groups appear the names of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Canadian Congress of Labour, Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, the Canadian and Catholic Federation of Labour and the General Conference Committee of the Standard Railway Labour Organizations.
In the sales structure evolved by the national war finance committee certain special war organizations were required to meet special circumstances. The victory loan committees of the armed forces are a case in point. The results achieved by this group were a substantial element of the total' sales reported from individuals. Further, the armed forces provided important aid to public events to stimulate general public interest. Mention should also be made of the accomplishments of the civil service in organizing and promoting their internal canvasses.
Finally, the sales organization of the national war finance committee was greatly benefited by the leadership of business executives in facilitating the canvass of their employees, and in stimulating public response. The executive personnel of the Canadian Pacific Railways and the Canadian National Railways provide examples of this typ^ of leadership, which was repeated thousands of times across the country.
Although I have mentioned some of the organizations assisting in the sales operations, the accomplishments of the national war finance committee would not have been possible without the help of the Canadian publishers war finance publicity committee, a joint organization representing all publishers of Canada which has given invaluable advice and recommendations with reference to publicity. Associated with this committee, the advertising agencies of Canada have rendered expert service. The national radio committee, representing the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the advertising agencies of Canada, has performed a similar function in the field of broadcasting. The war services committee of the Canadian motion picture industry and its affiliated organizations in the United States

War Finance Committee
provided essential assistance in their field, both in the production and distribution of special films, and in the placing of their establishments at the disposal of the national war finance committee for public gatherings. The national film board was of major assistance in the production of special films and in respect to distribution of films, particularly in the 16-millimetre circuits. We are also indebted to the Outdoor Advertising Association and to the Canadian Street-car Advertising Company which gave their support in generous measure.
These and many other institutions and individuals gave powerful impetus to the work of the national war finance committee. I shall not attempt to name them all at this time because of the urgent affairs which claim the attention of the house. I believe, however, that the members will agree that the main credit for its success should go to the thousands of loyal workers throughout the country who have constituted plant victory loan committees or who served as chairmen of units and subunits, and in countless other assignments necessary to the success of our war financing programme. They have rendered a great service to their country. And finally I should say that the work of all these people would have been of little avail if the Canadian public had not been willing and anxious to assume their full financial responsibility for the winning of the war.
Suggestions have come to me from many quarters that suitable facilities be provided by the government for a continuing savings programme to commence next autumn when final instalments in the ninth victory loan have been paid. I should like to advise the house that t-his matter is being given careful study. In the meantime, war savings stamps and war savings certificates will continue to be available through normal channels, probably until the fall of 1946.
I do not wish to conclude without reference to the effective efforts of hundreds of voluntary workers, many of them women, on behalf of the sale of war savings stamps and certificates. The gross sales of war savings certificates before redemption since May 1940, and the unredeemed stamps still in the hands of the public, amount to the combined total of approximately $365,000,000, a substantial sum indeed to obtain from small savings over this period. School teachers have inspired thousands of school children to invest savings ! which are included in this total. War savings stamps are still being purchased steadily
through the operation of the current school savings plan. It is my intention to ask each province for their views on a continuance of this plan as a means of teaching regular savings habits to students. If they so desire, it will be continued in a form suited to the new circumstances.
But my main purpose to-day is served by announcing the cessation of the national war finance committee. I know all members of this house will join me in expressing deep appreciation of its work. It has been an important faptor in the winning of the war and in anchoring the economy against the shock of war. The results may well be an even more important influence for the future well-being of the Canadian people.


Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad
to add my word of commendation to that already extended by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) to the national war finance committee which the minister has announced is being discontinued. I am sure we all feel that that organization has performed an outstanding service to Canada during the last half dozen years. We are all agreed that all those associated with it, from the Minister of Finance and the chairman of the committee down, including the officials and the workers in whatever capacity, deserve the unstinted praise and thanks of this house and of the Canadian people.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: I think we can all agree with what the leader of the opposition has said. Our' thanks go out not only to those who organized the campaign, but also to the hundreds and thousands. ves, millions of Canadians who supported the campaign so overwhelmingly. I am particularly glad to note that the minister referred to the teachers in the schools. He suggests that inquiry is to be made of the departments of education with regard to the continuation of something of this kind. While the teachers willingly gave support to the war-time loans, I doubt whether it is proper and fair to ask them to continue this activity into the peace years, having regard to the burdens that they are carrying in the schools at the present time.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in the statement which the Minister of Finance has just made to the house he was too modest to say anything about himself. I am sure that mem-
Trade Loans

bers of the house, irrespective of party, would wish to have him know how deeply we all appreciate the services which he has rendered to the country in the whole-hearted manner in which he has assumed responsibility for the conduct of the work of the war finance committee, and the supervision he has given its [DOT] efforts. I of course agree with all that the Minister of Finance has said with regard to the work of the war finance committee. I have already expressed in writing to the committee the government's appreciation. It is a pleasure indeed to realize that all members of the House of Commons are only too ready and happy to acknowledge the great services that all connected with that body have rendered.
.TRADE AND FINANCE



UNITED STATES-UNITED KINGDOM LOANS AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Bracken: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance arising out of a statement he made when the house rose at six o'clock last night in connection with the loan agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom announced yesterday. Will the minister lay on the table as soon as possible-he may or may not have it now-a copy of the official statement issued by the pfficials of the two governments?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Speaker, I will lay it on the table at the first opportunity.


John Bracken: I have one other related question. It was reported this morning that a white paper has been issued by the United States and sent to all governments with the exception of Argentina and Spain. It has to do with proposals relating to reductions of trade' barriers, building up of trade and employment, an international trade conference next year, and the establishment of an international trade organization. Will the minister lay a copy of that document on the table at the earliest opportunity?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not think we have the white paper; we have long teletype messages which I undertook last night to lay on the table just as soon as I could get them copied.
I said early next week, and perhaps sooner; 
but I shall certainly give that to the house as well as the white paper just as soon as it comes into our possession.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OP AGRICULTURE Production Service:
15. Production service administration, $35,445.


Mr. WRIGHT:: These estimates were last before the committee prior to the conference held in Ottawa with regard to agricultural production for the coming year. That conference is over now and I believe certain decisions were reached with respect to production. Can the minister tell us what those decisions were? I should like particularly to have something said in regard to the production of wheat, as to whether under present world conditions we are to continue our production at the same rate or whether that production is to be increased. It was reported also to have been suggested to the various organizations represented at that conference that we should have an increase in the production of pork during the coming year, and I should like to ask the minister what steps the department is taking to bring about that increased production. It does not seem to me they are likely to get it unless some definite steps are taken toward that end. During the war years we demonstrated just what could be done with respect to increasing agricultural production in any particular branch if the government were prepared to make price concessions, and I have doubt whether we shall get any increase in the production of pork unless some change is made in government policy. I think the minister should give us a statement as to the conclusions reached at this conference.


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: Last evening the hon. member
for Haldimand asked if I could have a statement prepared with regard to the findings of that conference. I have three copies of that statement, and will send one to the hon. member for Haldimand and the other to the hon. memebr for Melfort; and if I have the consent of the committee this statement might be placed upon Hansard so that every hon. member may be able to see it; it covers about two pages of foolscap.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


James Garfield Gardiner: The table is as follows:

Supply-Agriculture
Canadian Agricultural Programme for 1946
Unit	1945 Production	1946 Recommendation	1946 of 1945Grain and Forage Crops Wheat 	ac.	23,414,100	23,414,100	% 100Oats 	ac.	14,393.200	14,310,200	99Barley 	ac.	7,350,000	8,000.000	109Mixed Grain 	ac.	1,453,400	1,453,400	100Husking Corn	ac.	237,000	350,000	148Rye 	'	ac.	487,100	487,100	100Summerfallow (Prairie Prov.)	ac.	19,397,000	19,397.000	100Hay and Clover	ac.	9,975.000	9,975,000	100Alfalfa Hay 	ac.	1,600,600	1,600,600	100Meat Animals (Marketings)	Hogs 	no.	5,900.000	6,148.000	104Cattle 	no.	1,720,000	1,720,000	100Calves 	no.	800,000	900.000	112Sheep and lambs	no.	1,200,000	1,100,000	92Dairy Products	Milk (total) 	lb.	17,600.000,000	17,900,000,000	102Creamery Butter 	lb.	294,493.000	310.000.000	105Cheddar Cheese 	lb.	183,290,000	180,000,000	98Evaporated Whole Milk	lb.	200,000.000	200,000,000	100Condensed Whole Milk	lb.	30,000,000	30.000,000	100Whole Milk Powder	lb.	15,500,000	15,500,000	100Skim Milk Powder	lb.	35.000,000	35,000,004)	100Eggs and Poultry	Eggs (total) 	doz.	395,019,000	, 378,605,000	96Poultry Meat 	lb.	288,179,000	288,179,000	100Fruits and Vegetables	Apples 	bus.	7.416.000	12,500,000	169Pears, Cherries, Plums, Prunes	
Peaches, Apricots, Grapes	(Varying (Varying	increases for 1946) increases for 1946)	Strawberries, Raspberries, Loganberries Potatoes 	ac.	(Slight increases for 1946) 507.600 523.600	103Canning peas and corn	(Slight increases for 1946)	Canning .tomatoes and beans	
Fresh vegetables 	
Oilseed Crops Soybeans 	ac.	(Slight decreases for 1946) (Slight reduction for 1946) 43,650 49,080	112Rapeseed 	ac.	20,400	20.400	100Sunflower Seed 	ac.	14,216	28.000	197Flaxseed 	ac.	1,059,200	1,250,000	118Other Crops	Dried Beans 	ac.	96,400	96,400	100Dried Peas 	ac.	82.000	83,233	102Sugar Beets 	ac.	60,000	90,000	150Tobacco-	Flue Cured 	ac.	76.880	85,000	mBurley 	ac.	10.185	12.500	123Cigar Leaf 	ac.	2.800	5,000	178Dark 	ac.	1.308	1.550	118Pipe	ac.	2,775	2,750	99Seed Crops	Alfalfa Seed 	lb.	6.450,000	15,000,000	233Alsike Clover Seed	, lb.	2.795,000	7,000,000	250Red Clover Seed 	lb.	4.442.000	10.000,000	225Sweet Clover Seed	. lb.	10.300.000	8.000.000	78Timothy Seed	, lb.	16,040.000	15.000,000	93Brome Grass Seed	. lb.	10,000,000	8.000,000	80Crested Wheat Grass Seed	, lb.	1,325.000	2,000,000	151Other Grass Seeds	, lb.	1.791.000	1.850,000	103Vegetable and Field Root Seeds	. lb.	(Decreases for 1946)	Garden Pea Seed	, lb.	11.170,000	18,000,000	161Miscellaneous	Maple Products 	* gal.	1,530,000	2,730,000	178Honey 	. lb.	26,035,000	43,036,000	165Wool 	. lb.	14,600.000	13,200,000-	90Fibre Flax 	ac.	21.271	25,000	118
30S4
Supply-Agriculture


Mr. NICHOLSON:: What percentage of
that would go in powdered form?


James Garfield Gardiner: Probably I should put this whole statement on the record. It is a statement which was put before the conference the other day.
Egg production in Canada for 1945 is now estimated at 395 million dozen, the highest figure in the country's history, and exceeding the previous year by 34 million dozen. Quantities purchased by the special products board in fulfilment of the British contract totalled 90 million dozen, exceeding 1944 by 10 million dozen. Domestic use, estimated at 291 million dozen, was heavier than the 1940-44 average by 37 million dozen.
Production estimates for 1946 are based on chick hatches and sales in the 1945 season. There is now a carry-over of matured stock and anticipated early hatchings in 1946 from which fall eggs in 1946 will be produced. It is estimated that 1946 production will be 17 million dozen less than in 1945 and 18 million dozen more than in 1944. Hatches in 1945 based on approved hatchery figures were fourteen per cent under 1944. All provinces showed a decrease with the exception of Prince Edward Island, which recorded an eight per cent increase. An increase is anticipated for 1946, particularly in early hatches.
Eggs available for export in 1946, after allowing for a continued heavy domestic use, due to meat rationing, are estimated at 88 million dozen. The quantity will be approximately sufficient to fill the 1946 contract with the British ministry of food. Under this contract it is provided that the special products board will use its endeavours to provide up to 1,750,000 cases, that is 52,500,000 dozen shelled eggs, and 5,000 long tons, that is
11.200.000	pounds of dried eggs. Reduced to terms of shelled eggs the latter figure is equivalent to 1,087,000 cases; that is 1,087,000 cases of dried eggs as against 1,750,000 cases of shelled eggs, a difference of about 40 per cent. The total contract, therefore, requires 2,837,000 cases-85,110,000 dozen-shell eggs.
Shipments of shell eggs are to be made as closely as possible in accordance with the following schedule: Fresh eggs, winter and spring
900.000	cases; fresh eggs, autumn shipment
250.000	cases; storage eggs, autumn shipment
600.000	cases.
In operations under the British contract grades A large and medium offered to the special products board from September 15 to May 30 are shipped fresh in the shell or stored
for autumn shipment. Other grades through. out the entire year, and all eggs during the summer months are used for drying.
Since the inception of the British ministry contracts in 1940, up to and including 1945, a total of 267 million dozen Canadian eggs have been shipped to Britain in shell or in dried form. That is the information with regard to eggs.
To give the figure for the past year, the year we are just in, the offerings of eggs in car lots, special products board, from November 24 to October 31, almost a complete year, for the 1945 season, for exports to Britain in shell, 1,431 car lots; for conversion to powder, 2,507 car lots; for fall storage, 948 car lots; for the same date in 1944 for conversion to powder, 4,259 car lots.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Is there any floor under egg prices?


James Garfield Gardiner: This agreement which we have with Britain does set a floor.


Mr. FAIR:: I am glad that the minister is getting closer and closer to those of us who sit in this corner, and I hope he continues this policy. The dominion and provincial governments are to be commended for the discussions which have been carried on recently. I hope they will realize their ambition. but mother nature may have something to say about all their plans. It does not make any difference how ambitious your plans are on paper, one night of frost or fifteen minutes of hail will destroy all your good intentions.
In order to aid nature in carrying out this programme something should be done in the way of increasing prices of the different farm commodities. The minister has told us on many occasions that at the present time we are receiving above parity prices for many of our farm products, but I should like to remind him that the period taken as a base for parity is 1926-29 when the farmers were receiving only 16-6 per cent of the national income. That is not a good enough percentage of the national income upon which to figure parity prices. If we took the prices that existed in 1915-19 as a parity base the farmers of Canada would get to work and do something worthwhile in the production of live stock, grain and other farm products. Until that is done I do not think the government can expect the farmers to get right down to business and produce as they should produce during the coming j^ear.
Take wheat for example. When the export price reached $1.55 a bushel, a ceiling rvas placed on the price, temporarily at least. By that method the farmers were expected to make enormous gifts to other countries which
Supply-A griculture

are using our wheat. Those gifts should be made by the people of Canada as a whole. The farmers of Canada should be paid the full present price. I realize that we have a floor under the price which will prevent it from dropping below $1 per bushel basis Fort William until after the end of August, 1950. But that is not good enough, because deliveries will be restricted and many of us will not be able to take advantage of the $1 per bushel basis Fort William. The government will have to revise radically its programme and do something to put the price up to where it properly belongs. We have been fooled in the past, at least some of us have, by being told that we were getting parity prices or above parity prices; I do not think that policy is going to carry out any longer. The production records show that the farmers are not doing their utmost and will not do their utmost until prices are radically raised.


Mr. HERRIDGE:: To the best of my knowledge, the Minister of Agriculture has never made an official visit to my constituency of Kootenay West, and on behalf of the agricultural organizations of that riding I want to extend a hearty invitation to the minister to visit us. In the interior of British Columbia there has been in recent years a great expansion of poultry production and in the organization of poultry producers. Throughout the war there developed an unsatisfactory situation with regard to the egg inspection service. Far too many ungraded eggs are being sold in the interior of British Columbia, and the organized poultry producers consider this to be a most unfair
situation. They have not pressed the matter previously because they realized there was a shortage of staff due to the war, but I should like to ask the minister what he intends to do to correct this situation.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I suggest to the hon. member that he leave this until we reach the item having to do with marketing. All the inspection services having to do with quality come under marketing.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: In recent years the Department of Agriculture have subsidized the shipment of coarse grains and other grains to eastern Canada. This has been continued to the extent that it is no longer profitable for farmers in the west to raise hogs, and production has gone down at a terrific rate. What does it cost the Canadian government to ship this feed eastward? Does the Canadian government intend to continue the policy of having the Canadian taxpayer pay the cost of shipping this feed to eastern farmers when there are many farmers in the west who would like to use their feed in the raising of hogs?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are one or two things I should like to correct in the statements that have just been made by the hon. members for Yorkton and Battle River. However, before I do so I should like to carry out a promise which I made the last time my estimates were before the committee. I promised the leader of the opposition that I would place on Hansard details of the subsidies that have been paid, and they would include the feed freight assistance subsidies just spoken of. The statement is as follows:
Subsidies administered by the Department of Agriculture up to and including November 30, 1945
Premiums of one cent per lb. on cheese scoring 93 points and 2 cents per lb. on
cheese scoring 94 points	$ 9,388,735 61
Subsidies to cheese factories under the Cheese and Cheese	Factory Improvement Act.	614,613	95Cold Storage Warehouse Subsidies under the Cold Storage	Act	and Grants	
549,886	89Apples	
11,319,408	18Subsidy on export bacon	
2,281,264	99Freight subsidy on hogs shipped from Western to Eastern	Canada	
124,389	12Premiums on hogs	
23,920,284	46Bonus on Grade A Large Eggs for export to the United	Kingdom	
916,938	00Milk for fluid consumption	
22,296.916	00Milk used for concentration purposes	'	
3,874,681 00Milk used for cheddar cheese	
8.970,683	00Butterfat used for creamery butter	
67,965.275	00Vegetables used in canning	
4,090,162	00Berries used for jam	
1,125,230	00Freight assistance on Western Feed Grain	
57,962,855	05Feed Wheat Subsidy	
17,469.678	95Subsidy to processors of Alfalfa Meal	
97.496	46Subsidy to Manitoba Sugar Co. on dried beet pulp	
25,828	50Reserve stocks of Western Feed Grain, Plan-A	
1,335,445	60Reserve stocks of Western Feed Grain, Plan-B	
1,331,730	65Fertilizer Subventions and Freight Allowance	
2,661,735	82Lime for Soil Amendment Purposes	
524,740	63Transportation on Western Alfalfa Seed	
18,873	90Bonus on Wool Clips	
306,249	34Assistance in purchase of rams and Freight assistance	on	ewes	
53,433	97Prairie Farm Income	
18,982,498	39Total	$258,209,033 46*
S apply-A gricul ture
. Mr. BRACKEN: Has the minister extra copies of that?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have just the one now, but there may be more available later. The total amount paid for feed grain assistance from January 1 to December 31, 1944, the last complete year, was $14,565,607. The total amount paid in the first six months of this year, from January 1 to June 30, was $7,376,324. It is approximately $14,500,000 per year.


Percy Ellis Wright: Does that include the ten and fifteen cents rebate?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, that is just the
freight. It is not a ten and fifteen cents rebate, although that is stated over and over again; it is a ten and fifteen cents subsidy on grain to the producer on oats and barley.
It is not a rebate to anybody. It is ten and fifteen cents paid to the grain producer on oats and barley.


George Hugh Castleden: Does that include the amount paid to eastern Canada millers?


James Garfield Gardiner: That amount is purely freight, but it includes freight on bran, of course, and on mill feeds.


George Hugh Castleden: If the miller has brought wheat eastward and ground it into feed, he is allowed the freight on the amount of bran he sells?


James Garfield Gardiner: It includes all the freight that is allowed on feed coming east.
The correction I want to make is this. There is no authority anywhere, east or west, who would say that it does not pay the farmer who produces the grain in western Canada to feed grain to hogs. Anybody feeding grain to hogs can make more money that way, and some claim to be able to make fifty per cent more, depending on the kind of hogs they have and on their facilities for feeding them. Most hog producers say that they can feed at a considerable profit. There is no authority anywhere, so far as departmental officials are concerned, and they are the real authorities, who would say that it does not pay to feed grain to hogs. We are feeding hogs at our experimental farms under test. The one place where we are feeding them consistently is on the farm in Alberta, and all the reports from there indicate that hogs can be produced to advantage even at the present prices of grain. I feed hogs myself; I would not do so if I did not think I could make more money feeding hogs than by selling the grain.


George Hugh Castleden: There is a fifty per cent reduction.


James Garfield Gardiner: Because there is a fifty per cent reduction in feed grain. I cannot understand why those who discuss this question will not get down to the practical side.


George Hugh Castleden: Are you not shipping grain eastward?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, and hogs are being fed in the east to as great an extent as in the years before the war.


Percy Ellis Wright: In the section of the
country in which I live there has been no shortage of feed grain in the last four years; our production of grain has been just about the same. Nevertheless the farmers have reduced their hog production by thirty-five per cent. That is the real test, whether the farmer considers the price advantageous. If he does, he will continue to produce, but hog production has dropped in the area I represent. It is not a shortage of grain which has stopped hog production, because the grain is there to feed. The reason is that the farmers do not consider that there is a reasonable margin.


James Garfield Gardiner: If my hon. friend and I at our age were asked to feed hogs we probably would not think solely of the profit we were going to make out of it, particularly if we had been making a little profit in the last five or six years and had got ourselves into fairly good circumstances as compared with other times. We would probably say: We are not going to feed hogs this winter but will take a little rest. A lot of farmers are saying that. It is not because they cannot get more for their hogs; they know they can. My hon. friend knows he can get more for the grain fed to hogs, if he feeds them properly, than he can get by selling the grain. Every practical farmer knows that. But many farmers are getting older and they feel they do not wrant to feed hogs. There are also those who are coming back to farming who were accustomed to producing grain before the war, and they want to continue to produce grain rather than feed live stock. Some of those are not going into the feeding of live stock.
We rather feel this way about it, that we can produce in this country only the number of hogs and cattle that we can feed with our own grain. Some countries import grain and feed live stock on imported grain, but our markets are too far away for that. We do not import grain for the purpose of feeding live stock. We know that we cannot feed the live stock that we have on our farms at, the present time on the average production of grain; everyone knows that, and you have to consider that, when you are considering the amount of live stock you are going to feed in
Supply-Agriculture

Canada. We feel that in the years ahead of us we are not going to market outside of Canada more hogs than we are marketing outside Canada now. We probably could for another year, maybe two years, market more outside Canada, but we certainly are not figuring that we shall be able to market more hogs outside Canada in the future than we are marketing now. In addition, we do feel that we shall market many more hogs in Canada than we are marketing at present, because we have been restricting the marketing of hogs in Canada all though the war in order to send the hogs to Britain to help them, and we have cut down the consumption of hogs in our own country. So it probably would not be right to say that we cannot market more hogs than we are producing at the present time. When you take the two markets together, the home and the foreign market, we may be able to market more hogs than we are now producing.
We feel that there are many farmers in Canada who want to produce hogs. There are many others who do not want to produce hogs. There is a greater percentage in eastern Canada than in Western Canada of farmers who either want to produce hogs or feel that they must produce hogs if they are to exist on their farms. - There are in western Canada areas like the Melfort district, of which the hon. member spoke, of which that is not true, but the Melfort district is the best hog-producing area in Saskatchewan, and one of the best in western Canada. So we are hopeful, and I think we have reason for expecting our hopes to be fulfilled, that the farmers in that area will still continue to produce hogs. When we pome to the drought area, where the drough is extreme, we can expect many of those who have been producing hogs under pressure in war time not to continue to produce hogs to as great an extent in the future.	i
So, as we go across Canada, we feel that we shall have to encourage some people to produce grain which they themselves are not going to feed, and to ship it to some other part of Canada where fanners either want to feed hogs or feel they must feed hogs because it pays them better. It is only by a proper distribution of the grain that we can produce the type of hog we want. We do not say to every farmer: We want you to feed all your grain. We say that on the whole we want a production of grain that will make possible the peak of hog production, and we want the grain distributed in such a way as to keep the man producing hogs who feels that he can produce at a profit and is producing the type of hog we want for the markets we have to

supply, more particularly the British market, where we are in competition with Danish producers.
The other statement I wanted to correct was the one made a few moments ago with regard to wheat.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Just before the minister leaves the question of hog production may I ask a question? Have not the income tax exemptions been one reason for the decreased hog production on the prairies? The Minister of Agriculture may not want to answer that question directly, but he knows that under the income tax law, married couples where the wife is working in a factory are allowed an exemption of $1,800. It is admitted that this is WTong in principle, but it was simply to increase war production. The people on the farms have been allowed only SI,200. I repeat what I said the other day, that the income tax collectors have done a real job of collecting in my province of Manitoba in the last three years. They have gone to the municipal offices and I have been there when farmers were there and I have heard farmers say. "When I go home I am not going to raise any hogs." Farmer after farmer has taken that attitude. Owing to the fact that he can make a fair living in the production of grain, he and his family are not likely to work long hours before daylight and hours after dark in an effort to produce hogs when they are exempt on $1,200, while their city friends have been exempted to the extent of $1,800. That has had more to do with the decline in hog production on the prairies than anything else, and I am sure the minister will agree with me in that regard.


James Garfield Gardiner: That, I believe, is really part of the answer to the question raised by the member for Melfort. He asked me why it was that men in that district were going down in hog production, notwithstanding that they had grain with which to feed hogs in that area. I am not going to presume to suggest what the farmer's reason is. I can only give the reason which he gives me and which no doubt he has given the member for Souris. I believe I have more letters in which it, is contended that the income tax is responsible than I have letters assigning the cause to any other factor. I think that is part and parcel of the situation. Anyone who has made out an income tax return knows that all the profit is not taken away from him. When a man says it is because he has to pay income tax on the hogs produced or on the butter he produces, that is not quite correct. You cannot say that you will put it all on wheat, because it. is easier to produce wheat than the

Supply-Agriculture
other commodities. After all, when you make up your income tax, you take your wheat, butter and everything else, put them in together and get the total income, so that only part of the profit and not all is taken.


James Arthur Ross: I did not say it was all taken.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not saying that the hon. gentleman did. I am answering the suggestion made that the reason is the income tax. It is income tax to this extent. A man says to himself: I have been working hard at this and I have done fairly well. At the beginning of the war I was not in the income tax brackets at all and now I am and I have to pay income tax. There is no doubt that he gets probably only sixty per cent of the profit he would otherwise get, and that has something to do with his quitting the production of hogs. But the real reason is that he feels he is getting along fairly well without producing hogs; that much greater labour is involved in hog production than in producing grain; that he is now in the income tax brackets paying income tax; that he is living better than he did at one time; and in short that it is not worth the labour at his age to go in for hog production. In most cases that is why he says: "I am not going to work just to pay income tax." He puts it that way, but we all realize that the income tax does not take all his profits from him, because he still makes a profit on top of what he would otherwise make if he did not feed hogs.
I wish to call the attention of those who are speaking about reductions and increases in different places to the figures, which they will find at page 32 of the annual marketing review for 1944. That was the year of top production, so that it gives the widest margins. Take Ontario. In 1940-I will give round figures so that there will not be too much confusion-the inspected slaughterings of hogs, the numbers coming to market to inspection plants, was 1,800,000. The highest figure was in 1941, 1,900,000, and the lowest was in 1942, when it was 1,700,000. In 1944 it was 1.800,000, just where it was in 1940.


Mr. BENTLEY:: According to the figures I have from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, as at June 1, 1945, there was a peak of 1,970,000 odd.


James Garfield Gardiner: These are marketings at inspection plants, and that does not necessarily mean that these hogs were produced in the provinces. Ontario produced in 1940, 2,191,000, or approximately 2,200,000, and the figure for 1944 was 2,100,000, so that it is about the same proportionately as the other figure. As
regards hogs marketed at inspected plants in Quebec and the maritimes, the figure in 1940 was 953,000, and that went down to 689,000 in 1942 and went up to 1,222,000 in 1944.


George Hugh Castleden: Have you the figures for this year?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, I have not that figure. This is the annual report. As regards Manitoba, it will be admitted that many hogs are marketed in that province out of Saskatchewan, but there would be just as large a proportion in 1940 as in 1944. In 1940 the number was 992,000, in 1942 it was 1,200,000, and in the year 1944, 1,900,000. In other words, they are double. In Ontario they are approximately the same. The maritimes and Quebec are up about fifty per cent. In Saskatchewan the figure in 1940 wras 344,000 and in 1944 it was 1,181,000. They are about three times as high in Saskatchewan. In Alberta the figures are respectively 1.200,000 and 2.300,000. In British Columbia the figures are
128.000	and 211.000. Taking Canada as a whole the figures in 1940 were 5.400,000 and in 1944, 8,766,000. They are up by about sixty per cent in the whole of Canada.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: I agree with a number of things the minister has said in regard to hog production, but I think he has overlooked one fact, and that is that in some of the northern areas of Saskatchewan and Alberta quite a large number of farmers decided that they_ wanted to go into hog production and they built what you might call brooder houses, going to a bit of expense to produce' hogs. I am questioning whether the production of hogs next year will not drop below the figure that we shall need. We shall need a good many hogs next year and, in my opinion, some of the things the government has done have discouraged hog production to a considerable extent in some of those areas. Most of the men who went to the expense of putting up those buildings have their own grain. If they feed their own grain they lose the bonus. They feel that they are discriminated against in that respect; they believe that they are discriminated against so far as marketing is concerned. They think that the packing houses'have too much control. The packing houses practically control what is to be paid for those hogs.
Around the middle of October I received a number of complaints. I hold in my hand a telegram which I received from a municipality -not a farmer. When a municipality goes to the trouble to send a resolution to their
Supply-Agriculture

member of parliament they must feel that something is wrong. This telegram reads as follows:
The council of this municipality wishes to register its protest against the price reduction on hogs on Winnipeg market for the week ending October 13. amounting to $2 per hog. It appears that with the export price set this reduction in the price to the producers should not be necessary.
On receipt of that telegram I got in touch with the marketing services and asked why it was that the price of hogs had dropped on the Winnipeg and western markets and had not dropped on the other .markets in Canada. They informed me that the government had requisitioned a certain number of hogs from those markets and possibly that was the reason why the price had dropped. I then put these questions on the order'paper:
How many hogs were requisitioned for the export market from each of the prairie provinces during the week ending October 11, 1945 and what price was paid? Would this price involve any loss to the prairie farmers had they received the domestic price? How many hogs were requisitioned for export from each of the other provinces during the same period, and at what price? How would the export price compare with the price for domestic use? Has the government considered making good any losses sustained by prairie farmers whose hogs may have ben requisitioned?
I received an answer to these questions which indicated that practically as many hogs were requisitioned on the other markets as on the western markets, but the fact remains that the price dropped in the prairie markets and did not drop very much in the other markets.
I shall give the committee the exact drop. In Toronto the drop was practically nothing. In Montreal the grade A hogs dropped from twenty-five to thirty-five cents a hundred, and in gtade B from thirty-five to twenty-five cents a hundred. In Winnipeg they dropped $1.25 a hundred; in Calgary they dropped $1.40 a hundred; in Edmonton they dropped $1.30 a hundred. In Prince Albert they dropped $1.25; in Moose Jaw $1.25; in Saskatoon $1.15 to $1.25; in Regina $1.20 to $1.25; in Vancouver from nothing to forty cents, and in Moncton ten cents.
Through these questions I tried to find out why that drop had taken place. The answer told me that they had no record of domestic prices and that they could not give me an answer. The farmers in those prairie provinces are making a gift of around $2 a hog. That is one of the things that, is discouraging farmers from producing hogs. I know of a lot of farmers who are not going to breed a sow at all for next year. I am afraid if the government do not do away with some of these discriminations, if they do not allow us to have

a board of live stock commissioners where we can sell our hogs, if they do not allow the farmers who grow their own feed to get the same benefits as the farmers who buy, their feed, we are going to go short of hog production next year.	[DOT]


Robert Fair: Were packers paid the same price by the meat board for the hogs that they bought at the reduced price which has been quoted by the hon. member for The Battlefords as they were when there was a fairly level market?


James Garfield Gardiner: Perhaps I had better take a few minutes to discuss this question briefly. The answer to the last question is that the packers are paid the same prices for all the bacon that goes to Britain, and that is all the bacon with which the government has anything to do. The packer sells bacon and all other kinds of pork products on the home market. When the packer buys a hog it does not all go into bacon, and not all hogs go into bacon. The prices at the present time are about the same as prevailed when there was the same floor on bacon all through 1944. The average price at Toronto in 1944 was $17.25. That is the yearly average. The yearly average for Montreal was the same, $17.25. The yearly average at Winnipeg was $16.40. Everyone who markets hogs knows that there is always a difference between eastern and western markets because of freight and things of that kind. The market at Calgary was $15.98; Edmonton, $15.92; Prince Albert, S16.03; Moose Jaw, $16.05; Saskatoon, $15.99; Regina, $16.03; Vancouver, $16.69 and Moncton down on the eastern coast, $17.22. These are the markets across Canada for which we have records. These are the average prices. If I were to*go all through the months I would find some variations. In Toronto, for example, it varies from a high of $17.63 in December to a low of $17.11 in January of that year. The variation there is about fifty-two cents a hundred.
As I understand the question, it is why we have these variations at all. The question asked by the hon. member for The Battle-fords is as to why we had a drop in the fall of this year. I think the question he ought to ask me is, why did we have a rise in price? There has been no change whatsoever in the floor price created by the contract which we have had with Britain since the beginning of 1944. The average price in Toronto in 1944 was $17.25; in Winnipeg, $16.40, and that price or a little better price than that prevails at this moment. That is the price which is made possible by the sale of a certain proportion of the hogs under the

Supply-Agriculture
British contract, which is the floor price, and a certain proportion of the hogs on the Canadian market at the ceiling price. We have been discussing whether we should not have ceilings and floors. We do not want the floor too far removed from the ceiling. TJie spread on hogs between May and August of this year, upwards, not downwards, is a spread that is not provided for at all in the difference between the floor and the ceiling. The average price paid for hogs from May to August was a price that no one could figure as having been paid by anybody under the ceiling price for pork products in this country. In other words, it means one of two things; either the pork products were marketed above the ceiling, or someone was taking a loss during a certain period of that time or taking less profit than he might otherwise have had during a certain period of that time.
I see one hon. member smiling; because he is Irish he can smile at anything and change his mind. I imagine he thinks that is a ridiculous thing for a packer to do. I say this to him: in my experience with packers and every other person in business I find that the best of them take losses occasionally. They have to do that in order to keep their customers satisfied and in order that they may perhaps make a little more profit at some other time than they otherwise would get. During that particular period of time they did take losses occasionally. I have talked to most of them, and my information, for what it is worth, is that they all had losses during that period. A man who will not believe that of course will not accept what is the ordinary practice in connection with business of all kinds. People occasionally do take losses rather than be unable to supply their customers at all. As a matter of fact if there was somebody on the black market who had a sale for the product and was out bidding for it, so that another man was not going to be able to stock his shops with that product ' at a time when we were letting people in Canada eat all they liked of it, he would probably say, "Well, I have "to pay more and take a, loss in order to get hogs," and some of them may have done that. I am not going to question wether they did or not. If a man takes a pencil and sits down to figure it out he may not be able to account for the price being as high as it was in some of those weeks. There is no difficulty in figuring what the floor should be and what the ceiling should be, but nobody can figure such a wide margin between the floor and the ceiling. When we resumed rationing of meat in Canada the situation immediately began to adjust itself. We said we were going
to take most of this product off the Canadian market; the price of hogs went back to about the level of 1944, and that level is somewhere between the floor and the ceiling. The floor may be pretty well represented by the figure of $17.11 at Toronto in a certain month, and the ceiling is pretty well represented by the $17.63. In other words the real margin that should exist is probably somewhere around 50 cents rather than the $1.50 it reached during a certain period at certain points this year.
That is the explanation. It is a matter of our taking ninety per cent of all the A's and B's off this market in the fall and sending them overseas and allowing only ten per cent to go on the Canadian market, as against an earlier period when we were letting thirty-five, forty or fifty per cent go on the Canadian market and sending the remainder overseas. By making the adjustment between the ceiling price a man could get and the floor price he could get, and averaging the price somewhere in between, the price goes back to the old level provided for 1944, and it is still maintained.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: The minister asked me why the price of hogs went up. I think that is quite clear. It went up because there was a tremendous demand and people were willing to pay higher prices.


James Garfield Gardiner: On the Canadian market.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: Then the price went down because we sent the hogs to Britain instead.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: The question I want answered is this. When the price of hogs rose to the ceiling the government stepped in and took ninety per cent of them by means of an arbitrary seizure, you might say, at the floor price, which to me means that the farmers who produced those hogs lost about $2 per hog, or gave that amount to Britain themselves. I do not object to Canada giving goods to Britain at lower prices, but I say if there is going to be a loss somewhere that loss should be distributed. There is another question I should like to ask-


James Garfield Gardiner: May I just answer that part first? I realize that I did not answer the main question my hon. friend asked, which was why there was a greater variation in the west than in the east. As I remember it, the hon. member's statement was that the price went down on the western markets but did not go down in Toronto. I do not think that is a complete statement of the case, because I have had many complaints from Ontario and else-
Supply-Agriculture

where in the east about price variations during the same period. I have not followed that situation closely enough, nor have I the , figures, to state definitely what the difference was, but there would be some difference. The reason is that under normal conditions the market for all the hogs produced in Ontario may be in Ontario, but all the hogs produced in, western Canada cannot be marketed there; they have to be shipped somewhere else. In other words if you just leave the market alone and do nothing at all about it the eastern farmer is bound to get the advantage of the fact that he has a home market right at his door, and I do not know that we can deny him this advantage. If the Ontario farmer just produced enough hogs to supply the Ontario market, and all his hogs were marketed in Ontario, then we in the west would have to take a price lower by at least the difference in freight. And if it is a fact that the Ontario market does absorb all the Ontario hogs, then we must, ship our hogs to British Columbia or the maritime provinces, wherever there is a shortage in Canada, or to Britain; and our cost becomes that much higher. I know there are people who think somebody should do something about that and level it all up, but I am afraid if we started doing that around the world we would have a problem on our hands.


Mr. KNIGHT:: I am interested in this question to some extent from the point of view of the Canadian consumer of Canadian bacon, and I want to address a question to the minister. To what extent are we sacrificing the quality of our bacon for home consumption in order that we may send the best of it to Britain?


James Garfield Gardiner: Before we go further with this may I point out that this discussion is all about marketing. We have not reached the marketing estimates yet. When you start talking about prices and grades and the numbers marketed, that has to do with marketing, and we can discuss all those matters when we get to the marketing items. Then I will have the officials here who have all the information, and I can better answer my hon. friends. If we could pass the production items we could get on to marketing.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: I am interested in the
question of production, but the minister did not answer one question. Why could not the man who feeds his own grain get the benefit
of the subsidy?


James Garfield Gardiner: That comes under marketing: Let us get to marketing and we will discuss all these matters.

Mr. TOWNLEY-SMITH:	In the final
analysis the price factor will determine just how much production there is going to be.


James Garfield Gardiner: Then discuss production as related to price when we get to marketing, because I have not before me the officials who have that information.


Mr. HATFIELD:: Did the minister say the maritime provinces did not produce enough hogs to supply their own market?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is right.


Mr. PEARICES:: I think this question has
to do with production. Does the list of subsidies which has been tabled include the subsidies on feed grains to British Columbia? On November 27 the minister promised to make a statement on that.


James Garfield Gardiner: I can give the statement on British Columbia, though it is all included in the other statement.


George Randolph Pearkes: Then I will see it there.


James Garfield Gardiner: The total amount paid from October, 1941, to the present time is S5.437.508.


George Randolph Pearkes: And those subsidies will
continue?


James Garfield Gardiner: I cannot say definitely
that they will. That is a matter of government policy. The present order in council leaves it indefinite; if nothing is done about it the subsidy goes on.


Mr. HODGSON:: I should like to know
why the minister has not brought in both ceiling and floor prices on all farm commodities. If he has not had time to do so, or there is any other reason, will he bring in something of that kind at the next session of parliament?	[DOT]


James Garfield Gardiner: A ceiling price on all
farm commodities?


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Ceiling and floor prices?


James Garfield Gardiner: The ceiling price is on
the meat product, for example, in connection with hogs. There is neithel* a ceiling nor a floor on hogs, but there is a ceiling on the different cuts of pork.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I was more particularly
interested in floor prices.


James Garfield Gardiner: And there is a floor
price which is put on through the contract we have with Britain. Our inspectors keep checking on the relationship of pork prices to the price of hogs.
I think we can say that since we started these contracts the price has never been for any period of time beyond, perhaps, a day or so, below the floor price.

Sup-ply-Agriculture


Heber Harold Hatfield: I should like to ask when the floor prices board is going to function.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, the legislation we were discussing yesterday has some bearing on that. If we in this house had decided that the War Measures Act was not going to be continued, or the principles of the act were not to be continued, we should have had to bring the floor prices measure into effect immediately. But as it is now, it will depend somewhat upon when controls are taken off the marketing of farm products.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I do not think the minister answered my question. I should like to know more about floor prices. Will the government bring in some form of floor price measure at the next session of parliament?


James Garfield Gardiner: We did that a year ago. We brought in a bill which provides for floor prices. I think I have stated twice before to the committee how these floor prices will be arranged, and I answered the question just now to the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton. I cannot give an exact date as to when the board will start to operate under this act. So long as we can maintain the present position under the legislation we now have, I assume we shall go on under that legislation.


Thomas John Bentley: We are dealing with subsidies on freight. I wonder whether what I am going to ask is related to a subsidy or a freight differential. I believe that in Lethbridge there is a firm which makes a product known as Alfa-Lasses. I have a letter from someone in my constituency to the effect that this product is delivered to a farm at Steves-ton, near Vancouver, at $20 per ton. Van. couver is much further from Lethbridge than is Swift Current, but this same farmer, getting the stuff at Swift Current, has to pay $32.50 per ton for it. Is there a subsidy paid to the feeder at Vancouver which is not paid to the producer in the prairie provinces, in the matter of concentrates and feeds?


James Garfield Gardiner: There was a subsidy paid some years ago, but it was for making the product, not for delivery. But that subsidy has been discontinued.
Mr. BENTLEY': This difference must be a matter of freight differentials, and would come under transport.


James Garfield Gardiner: I should think so.


George Hugh Castleden: Earlier this morning the minister indicated that there was something wrong in a statement I made. I do not think he will find anything in my statement which indicated that the farmer was being compelled.


James Garfield Gardiner: No. The part of the statement I referred to, and which the hon. member may have made inadvertently, was that it did not pay farmers to produce hogs with grain at present prices. I think it does.


George Hugh Castleden: The fact that farmers are going out of hogs is probably an indication that it does not pay to raise them, otherwise they would be produced. I know of farms where hogs were being produced up in the hundreds, but they have gone completely out of them. The point is that it is costing Canada more to grow hogs by shipping the feed from western Canada to eastern Canada than it would cost to raise these hogs in western Canada, without the government paying a freight subsidy.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not think it is costing Canada as a whole any more to do it one way or the' other. I think it is probably about the same.


George Hugh Castleden: If you are increasing the cost by shipping the feed from one place to the other, the cost of raising hogs must be greater.	,


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not like to use my own case, but I have a farm in the east and another in the west, and I want to say in the first place that I make more money feeding hogs on my Saskatchewan farm than I do on the eastern farm. In the second place, under the provision which has been made for moving grain east the grain costs exactly the same on the eastern farm-to my surprise. When I moved a carload from my farm in western Canada to my farm down here, it cost just the same to feed the grain on the eastern farm as it did on the western farm. That is, the grain stood me the same price when I got it down here as it did out there.


George Hugh Castleden: With the government paying the freight?


James Garfield Gardiner: With the government paying the freight in the east, and the fifteen and the ten cents in the west. -


George Hugh Castleden: I think that proves the point I wanted to make.


John Bracken: Will the minister have a statement prepared with respect to the total subsidies paid out, so that when the committee meets again we may have it. I am sure it would help us in the discussion.


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, yes; I asked a minute ago to have it put on Hansard.
Supply-Agriculture


John Bracken: Well, we won't 'see Hansard until to-morrow, and probably the minister will be going on with his estimates this afternoon.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not think I shall be going on this afternoon, but probably this evening, and it will be in Hansard if I do not go on to-day. If I do I will get some copies made.


John Bracken: We shall not see to-day's Hansard until to-morrow.


James Garfield Gardiner: Then, if we are coming back to-night, I will have some copies made.


John Bracken: I understood the minister ' to say that the present production of hogs in Ontario is about equal to what would be consumed in Ontario. Am I correct in that?


James Garfield Gardiner: If we took off all the regulations and let people eat whatever they liked, they would probably consume most of it.


John Bracken: Would that apply to Quebec?


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, to practically all.
I might say this, that-probably Ontario and Quebec and the maritimes, all put together, if everything was left alone, would pretty well balance out.


John Bracken: I gather that the point the minister was making there was that normally the amount produced in eastern Canada would be consumed in eastern Canada and that there would not be much export from this portion of Canada. Was that his point?


James Garfield Gardiner: That was the point, yes.


George Hugh Castleden: One other question, on the minister's earlier statement this morning. Would he say that the Canadian people consume more or less meat when there is rationing on?


James Garfield Gardiner: All I can say is that when we had rationing before, we probably consumed more, but that was* because-in 1943, I believe it was-we were rationing to take care of distribution. That is, it was found that if you did not ration, cities like Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and Winnipeg would be short of meat. Of course the fact that there is a shortage of meat made the consumption lower, because that is where the big consumption is-in those cities. When . you ration it and let them get equal amounts, the fact that you put meat back on these big markets results in more meat being consumed in Canada. But at the present time they are not rationing for that purpose; they are 	*
actually putting the ration down below what people do consume, and it is expected that that will reduce the consumption this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Health of Animals:
16. Administration of Animal Contagious Diseases Act and Meat and Canned Foods Act, $1,924,443.
Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am sure the minister and the committee will be interested in knowing that I had a forty-minute speech on this item, which I am not going to deliver. I understand that the minister is going to the old country very shortly, and I think all hon. members agree that his business is so important that his estimates should not be held up indefinitely. I just want to say that I attach a great deal of importance to his visit. The fact that we have gone through the war actually consuming more food than we ever did in our history places, I believe, a special responsibility upon us to reduce our consumption if possible and make more food available to Great Britain and to Europe during these critical months ahead. I hope that when the minister returns he will be able to help us to supply more food than we are supplying at the present time to people who have been feeling the impact of war so much more than we have.


Mr. JUTRAS:: For a moment or two I should like to refer to a cattle disease known as mastitis which is markedly cutting down milk production in Manitoba as well as affecting the quality of the milk. The department has tried to help relieve this situation by making serum available to the farmers, but the main difficulty is that the causes and cures are still unknown to our department and apparently to the departments in other countries. Extensive research work is being done in the United States and I understand the Department of Agriculture here are doing what they can to relieve the situation. I would ask the minister to have the appropriate officials in his department make aggressive efforts to find the causes of this disease and the possible cure. It is causing grave losses to many farmers, especially those in southern Manitoba


Mr. BROOKS:: I understand that the department of health has passed certain regulations regarding cheese production in Canada. I understand that these were made necessary by the disease just referred to by the previous speaker. The cheese producers in New Brunswick have been under a great handicap because of the regulations passed by the department of health and agreed to by the Department of Agriculture. Is there any

Supply-Agriculture
possibility of relaxing the restrictions which have been placed on the production of cheese? I understand that the regulation is that cheese must be kept for sixty or ninety days at a certain temperature and the cheese boards are not allowed to sell their product until after that period. As I say, this is working a great hardship on the small cheese producers in New Brunswick because their storage facilities are limited. It also means that the farmers must wait a considerable time before receiving pay for their milk. I have a letter here from the New Brunswick cheese board which states, among other things: .
Our regular monthly meeting was held here on May 22. at which order in council No. 2131 requiring cheese to be held for ninety days was discussed and fully considered. All cheese board members viewed the enforcement of the above regulation with some misgiving and firmly believe it will .result in the ruination of the New Brunswick cheese industry.
They finally drew up a resolution with instructions to present it to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. If diseases of cattle prevalent in certain parts of the dominion which require the department of health to take a certain stand, I should think that the veterinary should be able to treat the disease in the animal itself, so that stringent regulations to apply in all parts of Canada would not be necessary. I should like to know just what is being done in this connection.


James Garfield Gardiner: This matter really should come up under item 24, dairy products, but as the explanation is short I will give it alongside the question. The reason for the regulation which was put on recently was an epidemic of typhoid; it had nothing to do with diseases of animals. This occurred in Alberta and was traced back to cheese as the carrier, to a person who was supplying milk to make cheese. It has always been claimed that cheese is a safe food because the process of curing kills germs, but that, requires at least ninety days. The regulation really means that cheese must be cured for ninety days from the time it is produced. Naturally the cheese can move along while it is being cured; it does not necessarily mean that it must be held at the one point. I do not think there is as much hardship as there might appear to be, but on the other hand it is a question whether you can afford to have cheese become a carrier of a disease like typhoid. If it did, I am afraid it would affect not only the production of our cheese but its marketing in many places. That is the explanation for this regulation. If there is any further discussion on the matter, perhaps we can leave it until we reach the proper item.


Mr. BLAIR:: I am interested in this item because unfortunately in the constituency which I represent we have had altogether too much Bang's disease. This is a cheese producing county, in fact it was due to the advertising received from a mammoth cheese constructed in Lanark county that we owe our present export trade in cheese to the British isles. It was back in 1893 that this large cheese was manufactured for publicity purposes. It wpighed eleven tons and was exhibited at the world's fair in Chicago. It crashed through the floor there and created more attention than ever. Later on it was exhibited in London, England, and it was through the publicity and advertising that it obtained that our export trade with that country was started.
The cheese producers and live stock breeders have had a lot of trouble because of Bang's disease. The exact time and manner in which cattle contract and spread Bang's disease or infect each other is not always an easy matter to establish. The disease is generally first introduced into a clean herd through unknowingly obtaining infected cattle from another herd. Once this happens the disease will go through a herd like a storm, and it may spread through a whole township or district. During the storm stage of the disease the highest losses are experienced. The usual experience is that during the first two or three years of the appearance of the disease many victims are claimed, but the casualties become reduced each year unless new stock is introduced or young stock are growing up, which in turn would become infected.
The cattle seem to develop a natural immunity, and the active losses are not so noticeable. When the disease does become acute the owner of the herd suffers severe losses in young stock, a drop in value occurs and he has difficulty in disposing of his herd. In order to determine whether animals are infected with this disease it is necessary to have them blood-tested and the specimen examined at a laboratory. If a large number of reactors are found it may be desirable to keep the herd intact, consider it an infected unit and deal with it under combined methods of sanitation, segregation and the inoculation of calves in an endeavour to build up a clean herd from the offspring.
The cost of this examination is paid for by the herd owner, that is, he must have the veterinary withdraw the blood and make the examination, although the laboratory people will do the work. In Ontario there are no provincial regulations regarding the sale of animals afflicted with Bang's disease, but it has been a common custom among pure-bred herd owners not to buy animals unless they

Supply-A griculture

are negative as to blood test. The best breeders strive to have negative herds, but in spite of all precautions the disease will find its way into the herd, with consequent financial loss to the owner.
The reason I am interested in this matter is that unfortunately the disease does not stop with the herd. Human beings may acquire the disease through handling infected cattle or using raw milk. In the human being it is called undulant fever. It is a rural disease, eighty per cent of the cases reported having occurred among farmers and their families. Butchers, truckers, veterinary surgeons and travellers account for the remainder of the cases through handling infected cattle or using raw milk. In Ontario, and I have studied this disease particularly in this province, the disease is highest in the counties of Middlesex, Waterloo, York, Oxford, Perth, Elgin, Simcoe, Essex, and is prevalent throughout eastern Ontario. During the past four years 321 cases of undulant fever have been reported in Ontario, with ten deaths. This is a reduction as compared with the years prior to the advent of pasteurization when 515 cases and twenty deaths were reported from 1934 to 1938. In connection with these statistics, which I obtained from the Ontario Department of Health, I would say of my own knowledge that for every case reported there probably would be five or six not reported. Sometimes the people affected with this disease are sick for months, and it may go on for years. They do not know what is the matter with them and many do not consult a doctor.
I have here some statistics showing the incidence of undulant fever in Ontario in the years 1934 to 1938, which I should like to place before the committee:	In 1934 the
Ontario Department of Health lists 97 cases of undulant fever, with three deaths, and a morbidity rate per 100,000 of 2-7 per cent; 1935, 86 cases, five deaths, morbidity rate 2-4 per cent; 1936, 127 cases, two deaths, morbidity rate 3-1 per cent; 1937, KM cases, seven deaths, morbidity rate 2-7 per cent; 1938, 101 cases, three deaths, 2 per cent.
Since pasteurization-and all the milk in Ontario is not pasteurized-there has been a marked drop since October 1, 1938, in the incidence of undulant fever, as is shown by the figures I have before me. With the consent of the committee, Mr. Chairman, I should like to have the whole table printed in Hansard.


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Golding):: The hon. member for Lanark has read some figures and requests the leave of the committee to place the whole statement on Hansard. If he read the entire statement,

then of course no permission is needed, but if what he has read does not cover the entire statement he must have unanimous consent.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: Agreed.


William Gourlay Blair: The table follows:
UNDULANT FEVER IN ONTARIO Incidence of Undulant Fever-1934-1938
Morbidity Rate per
Year	Cases Deaths 100,000
1934	
97	3	2-71935	
86	5	2-41936	
127	2	3-11937	
104	7	2-71938	
101	3	2-Total	
515	20
PASTEURIZATION, OCTOBER 1, 1938 Incidence of Undulant Fever

Morbidity Rate per
Year	Cases	Deaths	100,0001940	
64	3	1-71941	
68	0	1-71942	
69	3	1-71943	
65	2	1-71944	
55	2	1-6Total	
321	10
This disease of undulant fever causes marked weakness and may run a course of two of three years. People afflicted with it suffer a most serious illness and during the more acute stages are confined to bed. They run a temperature for weeks and months, and the course of the disease is most debilitating. It is doubtful whether those who get it. ever regain normal health; the effects may show themselves in later years. There ia no doubt that a disease with such debilitating effects and lasting for such a long period takes a severe toll from the human body. There is no specific treatment for undulant fever; even penicillin has been tried with very little result. A medical man called in to treat a disease of that type can give only symptomatic treatment. He is helpless because we have nothing to stop the incidence of the disease. The table of statistics from the Ontario Department of Health shows that we are dealing with a disease that cannot be taken lightly. From 1940 to 1944 there were 321 cases reported, with ten deaths. If an accident occurred in any Canadian city, injuring 321 people and causing ten deaths, it would be headlined in the press throughout America as a tragedy.
In order to cure or get rid of undulant fever we have to go back and tackle Bang's disease. The control of this disease, with its tremendous loss to stock owners and the infection of

Supply-Agriculture
human beings with a morbidity rate of 1-6 per 100,000, I maintain is a problem for the federal Department of Health. It is clearly shown in the Animal Contagious Diseases Act that this is a responsibility of the federal Department of Agriculture. If this disease, which causes tremendous loss to stock owners and the infection of human beings to the extent I have mentioned continues to be dealt with in the manner in which it has been dealt with by the federal Department of Health, we shall have the disease rampant throughout the province.
I suggest that more money should be spent in the research branch of the Department of Agriculture to study the disease and to find methods of combating it. Dairy herd owners should receive assistance by free blood-testing of their herds under the supervision of the federal Department of Agriculture, and there should be more rigid control in segregating animals in infected districts. Other, measures such as the inoculation of young stock should also be free and carried out by the Department of Agriculture. Some financial compensation should be given to owners of the infected herds for losses sustained. This disease has been talked about for years and nothing done, so that we must approach it progressively. Clean herds should be kept clean; under the present situation they are not.
We believe the time has come when we ought to build up some protection against this disease by the vaccination of calves. We think the methods used in dealing with T.B. in cattle, whereby when seventy-five per cent of owners in a good area sign a petition asking the government to establish an area of segregation it becomes operative, should be followed in connection with this disease, and that all heifer calves in the area should be inoculated for immunization.
The objection to signing the form that is now required by the department, where all animals found to be, infectecT must be slaughtered, is that in many instances the owner of a herd would lose the work of a lifetime in building up blood, lines >in pure-bred herds. Such owners-the Pure Bred Breeders'- association-would approve calf vaccination, realizing that it is the only insurance against the disease. We admit that this is being done by some herd owners at their own expense, but where they are surrounded by careless farmers, their effort is nullified. The scheme I propose would be of value to the whole country in eliminating the disease.
I should like to quote from the Ayrshire Digest of October 15, 1942, which describes a 47696-195J
new law in force in the state of Connecticut, where compulsory vaccination of calves has been adopted. The article reads:
With the passage of a law that virtually requires compulsory vaccination of all calves except members of herds that are enrolled in the so-called test and slaughter plan, the state of Connecticut has undoubtedly put into effect the most revolutionary of all Bang's legislation. The new 'Connecticut bill was "born with teeth," for it specifies that any person refusing to have his calves vaccinated shall not be permitted to move any of his cattle from his premises except for slaughter-purposes, unless such cattle react negatively to a state approved blood test for Bang's disease. The foregoing statement practically places an embargo on movement of cattle from farms that are not enrolled in either calfhood vaccination or the test and slaughter plan. In fact in order to move cattle that -are not under one or the other of Connecticut's two plans, it is necessary to send them to slaughter or to spend time and money in testing, and with no prospects of indemnity in the event that they react.
Apparently 'Connecticut authorities are ambitious to establish Bang's control measures that may be given state-wide adoption.
Theirs is a programme for the masses and should prove to be in direct contrast to the results attained in many states where millions of dollars have been spent by owners and governments without appreciably reducing the hazards of this costly disease.
The first step toward popularizing calfhood vaccination was made when astute legislators of the "Nutmeg" state wrote into their bill the statement, "calves shall be vaccinated at state expense by an -approved licensed veterinarian who shall he assigned by the commissioner." The foregoing sentence is preceded by the following, "the commissioner of domestic animals shall cause all calves to be vaccinated against Bang's disease when they are between the -ages of four sand eight months, except calves in those herds under the state and federal cooperative herd test plan also known as test and slaughter method, which calves need not. be vaccinated -unless the owner desires." The foregoing includes these boiled-down directives that should go a long way toward developing a state-wide programme; first, the "commissioner shall cause all calves to be vaccinated," 'and second, "calves shall be vaccinated -at state expense."
The majority of the herds in Connecticut have not been tested, so to continue the plan Connecticut's new legislation will discourage private vaccination of calves for the simple reason that privately vaccinated animals will have no official status. The reason for this is their feeling that the injection of vaccine was rendered impotent because of exposure or careless handling. It was not properly, done. From fifty to sixty of Connecticut's practising local veterinarians will be employed in the work, for which an appropriation of $125,000 has been made.
I suggest that we bring this matter under discussion, and from my own knowledge of it I think that something will have to be done. about it in this country. The disease is.
Veterans Land Act

spreading, and it is very hard for any live stock breeder to attempt to do anything with it with a careless farmer on either side of him, because the disease spreads rapidly.


James Garfield Gardiner: I thank the hon. member for Lanark for having given as complete a review of this disease and its effects as he has. He knows the problem better than those of us who are not so closely associated with it, but I may say that a great deal is being done. Let me mention one fact to substantiate that statement. In Ontario there is a total of 2,150 herds, and the listed herds in regard to which something is being done number 1,531. The latter arc declared clean. I would say at the same time that a great deal must be done along the line suggested by the member for Lanark, and we have been waiting for the end of the war to bring down for the estimates before deciding upon a larger programme, more closely related to what we are doing with tuberculosis. Some thought will be given between now and next session to the points raised by the hon. member, and when our estimates come down we shall try to do something.
Progress reported.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at three o'clock. VETERANS' LAND ACT



INCORPORATION OF PROVISIONS OF CERTAIN ORDERS IN COUNCIL.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a measure to amend the Veterans' Land Act, 1942, to make it conform in several respects with the act to amend the War Service Grants Act, 1944, passed at the present session of parliament, by incorporating in the measure the provisions of certain orders in council passed under the W^ar Measures Act and by extending .and clarifying in several other respects the application and operation oi the act, as recommended and reported by the special committee on veterans affairs.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, with the consent of the committee I should like the same procedure adopted in connection with this resolution as we adopted with regard to the War Service Grants Act, namely, to allow the resolution to be carried in, committee, and then I shall give a detailed explanation of the bill itself on the first or

second reading, as the house desires. I want to say once again that this is a unanimous report of a committee consisting of sixty ex-servicemen of this house, who have done a splendid job and worked harder than I have ever seen a committee work in the fifteen years I have been in parliament.
I thoroughly understand that some members of the committee have certain reservations.
I want to give the assurance that as soon as the house meets again the same terms of reference will be used and this act can then be reconsidered with reference to certain features that were advocated and which are not included in this measure. With the understanding I think the committee could very well advance the resolution, and upon second reading I shall be glad to explain briefly the amendments which were suggested by the special committee on veterans affairs.


Mr. CHURCH:: Is it considered ample to maintain the families?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This is an amendment to the Veterans' Land Act, which embodies the orders in council already passed by the government over a certain number of years and two or three other changes recommended unanimously by all parties in the house.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I want to understand this thoroughly. The minister said that there would be an opportunity given to discuss this on the first or second reading.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, that is right. On the second reading of the bill I intend to make a short statement, and hon. gentlemen will have ample opportunity to discuss any suggestions for future alterations, or any , references to the bill which will be placed before the house.


Percy Ellis Wright: I thought the minister gave the impression that we were unanimously in favour of the bill as it stands. I want to state definitely that so far as we are concerned we are not unanimously in favour of the bill as it stands. There are certain definite recommendations with respect to it which we intend to put forward at the proper time. We have, the minister's assurance that we shall be given that opportunity to discuss it when he makes his statement, and that at the next session we shall be given an opportunity to make certain recommendations with respect to changes which we believe should be made in the act. With this assurance, we of this group are prepared to expedite the business of the house.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I thoroughly understand the position of my hon. friends, and I definitely give the assurance that at the next

National Emergency
session the reference will be as wide as possible, and he can then advance the suggestions which he has advanced at this session.


James Arthur Ross: With that understanding we are quite prepared to facilitate the passing of this resolution, but we have certain reservations. We want to facilitate the passage of this measure as quickly as possible, for the benefit of the soldiers.


Mr. MUTCH:: I have no desire to say anything other than that all the reservations are not on the opposition side of the house.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Mackenzie thereupon moved for leave to introduce bill No. 233, to amend the Veterans' Land Act, 1942.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NATIONAL EMERGENCY


[Stage Direction]
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice) moved the third reading of 'bill No. 15, to confer certain powers upon the governor in council during the national emergency following the war.
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion? Carried.


John Bracken: You have not called for a vote, i Mr. Speaker.


William Ross Macdonald: I asked if it was the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion, and I understood the motion was adopted.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: On division.
The house divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division.
++YEAS
Messrs:
Abbott
Archibald
Argue
Baker
Belzile
Benidiekson
Bentley
Bertrand (Laurier)
Bertrand (Prescott)
Bertrand (Terrebonne)
Blackmore
Blanchette
Boivin
Bonnier
Bowerman
Bradette
Bridges
Brown
Burton
Campbell
Castleden
Chevrier
Claxton
Cloutier
Coldwell
Cote (St. Johns-
Iberville-Napierville) Cote (Verdun)
Croll
Cruickshank
Dechene
Dion (Lake St. John-Roberval)
Douglas
Emmerson
Fair
Farquhar F ontaine Fournier (Hull) Fournier (Maison-neuve-Rosemqnt) Gariepy
Gauthier (Portneuf) Gibson
(Comox-Alberni) Gillis Gingues Gladstone Glen Golding Gour (Russell)
Gourd (Chapleau)
Grant
Hansell
Harris (Grey-Bruce)
Herridge
Hlynka
Howe
Ilsley
Irvine
Isnor
J aenicke
Jean'
Johnston
Jutras
King, Mackenzie
Kirk
Knight
Kuhl
Lafontaine
Lalonde
Langlois
Lapointe
Leger
Lesage
Little
Low
McCann
McCuaig
McCulloch (Pictou)
Ashby
Barrett
Black (Cumberland) Black (Yukon)
Blair
Bracken
Bradshaw
Brooks
Bruce
Case
Casselman
Church
Daniel
Diefenbaker
Dorion'
Ferguson
Fulton
Green
Hackett
Hamel
Harkness
Hatfield
Dozen
Henderson
Macdonald
(Brantford City) Macdonald (Halifax) McDonald
(Parry Sound) McGarry Mellraith Maclnnis Mclvor McKay Mackenzie MacLean Maloney Marier Marquis Martin
Matthews (Brandon) Matthews
(Kootenay East) May bank Mayhew Michaud Mitchell Moore Mutch Nicholson Queleh Reid
Richard (Ottawa East) St. Laurent Shaw
Sinclair (Ontario) Sinclair
(Vancouver North) Sinnott
Smith (York North) Stuart (Charlotte) Strum, Mrs.
Thatcher Townley-Smith Tremblay Tucker Viau Warren Weir Whitman Winters Wright Wylie-121.
NAYS Messrs:
Hdon
Hodgson
Homuth
Jackman
Jaques
Lennard
Macdonnell
(Muskoka-Ontario)
McGregor
McLure
McMaster
Manross
Menary
Merritt
Pearkes
Robinson (Bruce)
Ross (St. Paul's)
Senn
Stanfield
Stephenson
Stirling
Tustin
Webb-46.
National Emergency


Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West):: I -was
paired with the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Skey). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. McCUBBIN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. White). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.	,


Mr. LAURENDEAU:: I was paired with the hon. member for Boauharnois-LaPrairie (Mr. Raymond). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. MacNICQL:: I was paired with the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Gauthier). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: I was paired with the hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Breithaupt). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. CARDIFF:: I was paired with the hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon (Mr. Black). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


James Arthur Ross: I was paired with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. FRASER:: I was paired with the hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Rinfret). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. GAGNON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Bona venture (Mr. Arsenault). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. BOUCHER:: I was paired with the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Robinson). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. DESMOND:: I was paired with the hon. member for Essex South (Mr. Clark). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. CHARLTON:: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Anne (Mr. Healy). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. COCKERAM:: I was paired with the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Ross). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.
Bill read the third time and passed.

,	WAR CHARITIES ACT



INCLUSION OP WAR MEMORLALS AS PROJECTS ACCEPTABLE FOR REGISTRATION- CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. J. McCANN (Minister of National War Services) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the senate to bill No. 13, to amend the War Charities Act, 1939.
Mr. McMASTER:: I notice that the senate have deleted certain words from the bill, and I should like to ask the minister what effect that will have on the bill. There was a great deal said in this house about whether or not this bill would affect municipal institutions, and I notice that the same question arose in the other house. I am referring to buildings or memorials erected by municipal institutions which are authorized under provincial legislation. No public appeals are made for these buildings.


Mr. McCANN:: My understanding is that the amendments affect more the generality of the class of war memorial rather than those which might be regarded as individual undertakings. Certain memorials could have been designated by regulation as a class of war memorial, but now each application for permit will have to be dealt with individually rather than as a class. In answer to the hon. gentleman, may I say it is my opinion that the type of memorial he refers to will come within the meaning of the act.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.



BRETTON WOODS AGREEMENTS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, December 6, consideration of the motion of Mr. Usley that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a measure to grant authority to accept on behalf of Canada an dto carry out the obligations of Canada under the articles of agreement for an international monetary fund and an international bank for reconstruction and development prepared by the united nations monetary and financial conference held at Bretton Woods in July 1944' to authorize the payment of the subscriptions ' required from Canada out of unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund to an amount not exceeding seven hundred million dollars; and to authorize the borrowing under the provisions of the Consolidated Kev-enue and Audit Act, 1931, of suras not exceeding seven hundred million dollars.
aioi

Bretton Woods Agreements
Mr. W. GARFIELD CASE (Grey-North):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with some concern to the contributions made to this debate, particularly by members of the Social Credit group. Some harsh language has been used, and I doubt very much if that is the proper course to pursue. The hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) and the hon. member for Macleod, (Mr. Hansel!) appeared to be concerned about their monetary theories; in fact they were allowing their concern to overshadow, as it were, their better judgment.
The discussion which has taken place in this house has tended to emphasize the great patience which must have been exercised in seeking this Bretton Woods agreement. Forty-four nations were gathered together from all parts of the earth, and no doubt there was the language difficulty to contend with. Yet they could agree on a. method of procedure and finally come to an agreement. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to read one paragraph from Annex C, summary of agreements of Bretton Woods conference:
This conference at Bretton Woods, representing nearly all the peoples of the world, has considered matters of international money and finance which are important for peace and prosperity. The conference has agreed on the problems needing attention, the measures which should be taken, and the forms of international cooperation or organization which are required. The agreement reached on these large and complex matters is without precedent in the history of international economic relations.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to hon. members of this house that that message, subscribed to by forty-four nations gathered together in conference, is indeed most inspiring.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Would the hon.
member mention the pamphlet from which he quoted?


Wilfrid Garfield Case: It is entitled "Monetary Com-ference, Bretton Woods, 1944,'' and I quoted from page 68.


John Horne Blackmore: Would the hon.
member tell us the author of that pamphlet?


Wilfrid Garfield Case: I obtained it from the parliamentary library, and on the title page I find this: "United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference, Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, US.A., July 1 to July 22, 1944, Final Act." It is an official document, printed by the King's Printer and authorized, I presume, by parliament.


John Horne Blackmore: Would we be justified in assuming that the hon. member is reading from the Final Act, from the report of these men?


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Yes.


John Horne Blackmore: Of course they would support their own ideas.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Whoever is responsible for this document, at least they knew something about it, and I am inclined to accept it as authentic, and as coming from the conference itself. It does not indicate, the grave concern which was indicated by the members of the Social Credit group in this house.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: The hon. member does
not even know who wrote it.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Probably the hon. gentleman
can find out for himself, and if he wishes to challenge its authenticity or authority he will have an opportunity later.
I should like to predicate my remarks on the thought:	Without Bretton Woods, then
what? Should we by our action here cause the nations of the world to be called together again in order to devise a better plan than the one which has been subscribed to by the forty-four nations which participated in that conference? Are we to allow old suspicions and old doubts to creep into our minds at this time, when a new world is seeking to be born? We do know, if we look back to the days prior to the war, that the general economic condition of the world played havoc with our sense of security. That came about largely because of doubts and a lack of confidence in the world, particularly on the continent of Europe. With war overhanging the universe, business men could not make long-range plans. And so, Mr. Speaker, I am not particularly -concerned about the $700,000,000 which is called for by this resolution. I am rather inclined to adjust my thinking and to realize that a nation which could afford to spend billions of dollars for war can indeed afford to take this risk ta promote peace. Surely we must recognize that this is an approach to a solution of one of the greatest problems that the world has ever faced. Students of economics have long recognized that for the world again to get on to a trading basis, there must be some central bank or clearing house in order that monetaiy values and the media of exchange can be adjusted. After all, Canada is a trading nation, and a highly productive nation stands to gain a great deal by the machinery set up in a central clearing house. It will help us to dispose of our goods.
Bretton Woods Agreements

I do not think it is fair to say that the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Macdonnell) did not refer to imports because, if I remember rightly, he spoke of trade being a two-way street. Trade usually results in bringing about a better understanding between the nations of * the world and in promoting friendships. We are usually more friendly with those with whom we trade. The world has grown smaller because modern means of communication have made the world a more compact, closely-knit unit. We know that the fruits of the earth are sufficient to maintain the peoples of the world, and we must seek to distribute the products of our industry, of our fields, our forests and our farms.
Reference has been made to a return to the gold standard. I do not think there is anything wrong in a return to the gold standard. The one great fault of the gold standard, as we understood it in days gone by, was that it was too rigid, but if we do return to the gold standard I have every reason to believe that it will be made more flexible. Most students of world affairs and of economics agree !hat we must have some reasonable standard of values and that it must be reasonably durable. I do not see why we should hesitate to give consideration to a return to the gold standard. In other words, may I pose this question. Suppose we were not returning to the gold standard while the great powers of the world were seeking to do so. Do you suppose we could defeat their purpose? After all, we are a gold producing nation, and I should like to see that one precious metal, one of our greatest natural' resources, used to a large extent for the benefit of the people.
When I listen to speakers addressing themselves to this problem of Bretton Woods I cannot imagine anyone holding a gun at Britain's head or attempting to force Britain to become a party to a pact if she felt that it would result in a situation such as has been indicated by hon. members of the Social Credit group. It is true that the Bretton Woods conference was held while the war was still in progress, and some have suggested that it was because of Britain's dire need that she was willing to accept the results of that conference. But many hon. members will recall that the Right Hon. Mr. Churchill, when he was Prime Minister, said in one of his memorable talks that one of the great weaknesses of the Versailles treaty was that the war had been concluded, that the allied nations had not the same things in common, and that they would have done well if they had approached the problems of peace while the war was still going; and he expressed the hope that the united nations on this occasion

would approach the problems of peace while they were still comrades in arms. I think that is one of the strongest features of this conference.
As a matter of fact, I do not think that the question of survival was in doubt; we confidently believed that sooner or later victory would be ours, though we knew that the struggle would be a long and trying one. We knew the weaknesses of the old league of nations; wre knew that it provided nothing in the way of trade to hold the nations together; we knew that there must be some compensating value for that which was being contributed. I feel therefore that Bretton Woods is an attempt at least to provide the answer, and that never again shall we be required to drench the soil of Europe in the best blood of Canada, something that has happened twice in our generation.
I do not necessarily accept the advice of the experts. I do not pose as a statistician. I am more inclined to listen to the voice of reason and to seek if possible to bring about a greater understanding, friendliness and comradeship among all peoples of the world. I believe it was Darwin who expounded the theory that like begets like, and I feel that if in a moment of ill-considered judgment or haste or concern we use harsh words to describe the attitude of our great and friendly neighbour; if in a misguided moment we seek to destroy that feeling of good will and concern that should be mutual, and which I am sure now exists, we can do a great deal of harm. We should be guarded in our language. I hope that before this debate concludes we shall have composed our differences and that when the bill goes to the banking and commerce committee any technical aspects of it that need adjustment will be attended to.
For a moment I should like hon. members to look at Europe to-day. In my opinion this is indeed the gravest moment possible in the world's history. Those people in Europe are starving. How many of us realize that a hundred thousand people still lie buried beneath the rubble of Warsaw; that five millions are homeless in Poland, living in trenches and in caves with perhaps a mere shelter over them, some roof to protect them from the elements, from the rigours of winter; that these people are very poorly clad; that disease, indeed tuberculosis, is rampant and thousands are dying? Consider the caloric content of their diet. It has been raised to 1,520 calories a day, whereas UNRRA fixed as an objective 2,250; and we know on the authority of scientists that a diet of around 1,400 is considered a starvation diet. Yet these people are existing under such terrible conditions. What is

Bretton Woods Agreements
it that keeps them alive? Merely hope; and if we do anything to destroy that hope, chaos and despair will be the lot of Europe.
It is interesting to reflect for a moment upon what the terrible realities of war have meant to that great continent. In one centre were there is located one of the largest steel industries in the world, with two hundred odd blast furnaces, only two are in operation. Why? Because in France alone ten thousand bridges are down; their railroads have been destroyed, ' huge locomotives lying over embankments; and their transportation is difficult. Indeed, they can transport only sufficient coke and coal to this huge steel industry to keep two of these furnaces going, while steel is so badly needed.
A story was told the other night which gives us an inkling of the hope and the courage of these people. A seventeen year old Yugoslav girl was looking over the ruins of her small community where between 500 and 600 persons resided before that place was destroyed. She said, through an interpreter, to a member of IJNRRA, that her parents had been killed, her family completely destroyed, and she was the only one left. "But," she said, "I will rebuild my community." She will not however rebuild that community, no matter how courageous she may be, unless we keep her from becoming a victim of disease, unless we can provide food for the sustenance of her body and the preservation of that courage which is so necessary to-day. Let me say to you, Mr. Speaker, that if the great continent of Europe, with its hundreds of millions of people, slips into the abyss of despair, people on this continent and elsewhere throughout the universe will suffer; because we have surely arrived at the point where we recognize the fact that you cannot have prosperity in one part of the world while another part is in dire stress and starving.
We should recognize and pay attention to the words of the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson), who is a world traveller, and who brought a message to us last night which would indicate that the United States is approaching the period when she will be a large importer because she is gradually exhausting her natural resources.
What is needed more than anything else in this world to-day is a wave of Christianity and good sound Christian thinking, such as that which swept England during the days of John Wesley, when that country stood at the very door of paganism. From that great period came Lord Shaftesbury, the emancipator of labour, who sought to remove children from -the industrial slums and to have women return to their homes. I hope the time is not 47696-196
too far distant when in this country and in other lands women will recognize that woman's highest ideal indeed is that of motherhood. I also think of Dr. Barnardo, the father of fatherless children.
To-day we stand at the crossroads. We, and we alone, can determine our future course. We shall never build a world society if we allow our minds to inject into our thoughts suspicion, doubt and discord. Our hope for civilization is a world at peace for a long time, so that civilization will have an opportunity to rebuild those moral forces, to strengthen its courage. With that determination we can indeed approach the future with confidence.
We are citizens of the world, citizens of the world society. When Bretton Woods was presented to this house I had hope that at least Canada, one of the great trading nations of the world with much to gain-I do not want to use that language in a selfish sense, because I hope that we shall be big enough to share our prosperity with the world; we have too much at stake to do otherwise-would give unanimous endorsation to the pact and that at least we might try to bring abotu a semblance of orderly trade and exchange. I do not believe we can do that without having some central clearing house, and I have confidence enough in this pact to believe that Bretton Woods will provide just exactly that. Therefore I say to hon. members, let us not be hasty in our judgment.
I recently read a statement of Mr. Attlee, the present Prime Minister of Great Britain, in which he said that Great Britain desired to have friendly relations with all nations of the world and to know their neighbours better. I cannot feel that those who were inspired to bring about this approach to world problems were entirely guided by selfish motives and ideals, because I believe that the great war has taught us a tremendous lesson. Society on all levels have lived together in Great Britain in trying circumstances and have grown to appreciate each other more and more. It is for us in our generation to be big enough and broad enough in our vision that our children and our children's children will find that we indeed have kept alive that hope, that we have lit a new beacon which will shine and encourage future generations not to copy our example, our hatred and warfare, but to copy our example of bringing about as rapidly as possible the ideals of the brotherhood of man that we in this country. can particularly understand and appreciate.
I am satisfied that given the opportunity to survive, great good can come from Bretton

31M
Bretton Woods Agreements

Woods. There is no perfect formula. How can you expect forty-four nations to gather together and devise a perfect plan? But let us at least seize this opportunity to give effect to something which has a semblance of hope, a degree of understanding and an approach to the world's' problem of deciding our future course, in the hope that there will come peace and security to a tried war-torn and troubled world.


Mr. W. F. KUHL (Jasper-Edson):: Mr. Speaker, I do not lay any claim to being an expert, either amateur or professional, on international exchange, foreign trade or kindred matters. I do not believe that one needs to be an expert to pass judgment on the subject now before the house. If one has an understanding of the simple elementary principles which operate in the economics of the countries of the world, it is a sufficient guide to one to indicate whether the measure is sound or unsound. I agree that the Bretton Woods agreement involves all the iniquities referred to by my colleagues who have already spoken; but in addition to that, this whole scheme is nothing less than a red herring to distract the attention of the peoples of the various countries of the world from the real issue. It is a scapegoat for the sins, not only of omission but of commission, of the various'governments of the world. No international organization framed along the lines of Bretton Woods and designed under present circumstances can bring about vrorld prosperity. All these schemes for international organizations, Bretton Woods and any others, are based on. a false premise. Unless the premise on which any organization is based is sound and true, then the organization which is built upon it cannot serve the needs of humanity.
The conditions to which the minister referred, which prevailed in the pre-war days and which have been mentioned frequently by practically all hon. members who have spoken thus far, were not causes; they were effects. The minister stated, at page 3041 of Hansard:
The characteristic features of world economic relationships before the war were high and discriminatory tariffs, import quotas, export subsidies, depreciated currencies of uncertain value, discriminatory clearing agreements, multiple currency practices.
It is true that those conditions prevailed, but I assert that they were symptoms of the disease and not the disease itself; they were effects, not causes. I think the most convincing proof that tariff arrangements or any kind of trade relationships which may be suggested will not bring about prosperity may be found in what has taken place in the United States of America. There we have a

union consisting of forty-eight states. There are no tariff barriers between them, no inhibitions to trade, no obstacles, nothing in the way of the freest possible exchange.


John Horne Blackmore: They have the same money, too; stabilized money.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: They have almost everything that is required to bring about the greatest possible prosperity within the boundaries of that nation. They have a common language; they have one money system common to all. Yet in the pre-war days they suffered from the depression as much as any other country in the world, if not more. If adjustments in tariffs or the abolition of tariffs and the elimination of all these other things to which the minister referred as the causes of depression are the cure, then why was there a depression in the United States, when these things were absent from its internal organization? So I say the conditions and circumstances referred to by the minister and by other hon. members are the symptoms of disease and not the cause; and the thing we must do is to discover and eliminate the cause. Then the symptoms will take care of themselves.
In my opinion Bretton Woods will fail, and so will every other similar organization that may be attempted, because they are based upon a false premise. What is that false premise to which I refer? Why has there been and why is there now again suggested this constant drive for foreign markets? On every side we. hear that we must export, export, export. What has been the reason that the exporters in various countries of the world have agitated so strongly for exports? Simply because they believe that the people within the country either do not desire the goods or cannot consume them. The whole drive for foreign markets is predicated on the assumption that the people at home either do not wish the goods or are not physically able to consume them, and I say that is a false premise. It is true that those who have referred to foreign trade in this debate have said that trade must be a two-way street, that it must work both ways; but the mere exchange of goods between one nation and another does not guarantee that the people of those countries will be able to enjoy the goods when they receive them. The chief reason that the people of Canada desire to export-and this is true of the people of the United States and almost every country in the world-is not the fact that they do not desire the ^oods, but it.is largely that they are unable to purchase them. In days gone by many articles have been exported by Canada that we could

Bretton TToods Agreements
have consumed here if we had possessed sufficient purchasing power, and the same would apply to every country in the world.
I have before me a page from the Canada Year Book giving the statistics in regard to Canada's exports for the year 1938-39. I readily grant that we produce many commodities in Canada which we could not hope physically to consume, but we have also exported many things which Canadians would have been glad to enjoy themselves if they had possessed sufficient purchasing power. These items are arranged in order of importance, and I notice that the sixth most important export at that time was planks, boards and lumber, which we exported to the amount of $37,000,000. We all know that in those days prior to the war, as is the case now, many people would have bought that lumber if they had been able to do so. One only needs to take a trip across this country to discover the tremendous need that exists for new buildings. We could have used every stick of that lumber in this country. The next item in the list is meats. I am not suggesting that Canadians could physically consume all the meat products we produce, but there are many people in this country who would gladly avail themselves of much greater quantities of steaks, hams and all the other meats that are processed in this country if they had the ability to purchase them. People cannot afford to eat many steaks at a cost of $1.25 or $1.50 per meal. So I say that in pre-war days as well as post-war days we could consume in Canada far more of the commodities we produce in this country.
I see that automobiles are eleventh in -this list of twenty-five items; in that year we exported 58,S49 automobiles. What in the name of common sense are we exporting automobiles for when there are so many people in this country without automobiles and a great many more running around in worn out jalopies tied up with haywire? So one could go all the way down the line. In the past we have exported products which could very well have been consumed here at home, and I say the reason they were not so consumed was not that -the people did not desire them, but purely and simply that their purchasing power was not equal to their producing power. I have already said that it seems to be taken for granted on the part of those who are constantly talking about foreign trade that if we export a million dollars worth of commodities and then bring back in exchange a million dollars worth of commodities the people will be automatically able to buy those imported goods. That is 47696-196J
a false assumption. A word as to the reason why it is false, why the premise on which I claim the whole scheme is based is a false one.
One of the objectives which it is hoped to attain through the use of the Bretton Woods agreement and many other measures which have been adopted, both national and international, is the achievement of what is described as full employment. The minister stated several times in his address that that is an objective they are hoping to achieve. The term has been used frequently, indeed incessantly during debates in this house and, doubtless, elsewhere: we must "cure unemployment". I wish to challenge that contention. There is only way that unemployment in this modern world, this power-machine age, will ever be cured, and that is by setting up a slave state. Personally I do not want to see unemployment cured. Unemployment is not a disease. It is the greatest sign of progress which we have yet witnessed.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is a new* theory.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: Unemployment is a sign of progress and not a sign of decay. It has faced this country and it will face us again.
Statistics were quoted by an hon. member of this group, yesterday I believe, indicating that the United States is expecting 20,900,000 unemployed by the time the reconversion period is over. I am satisfied that that will be the condition in every country in the world, particularly in those countries which have the greatest development in technology. The reason for this unemployment must be obvious to everyone; yet it is ignored , continuously. Not only do hon. members and economists who talk and write on the subject ignore the fact that we have been and are now in a power-machine massrproduction age, but they ignore the fact that we have now entered the atomic age. The unemployment which prevailed prior to the war and which will occur again, once we get through the reconversion period, is merely technological; it indicates that man has used his head to save his back, and I think he is entitled to do that. Personally, subscribing to the philosophy that I do, I do not want to see unemployment cured, I want to see more unemployed.


John Ritchie MacNicol: You want to see more unemployment?


Walter Frederick Kuhl: Yes, more unemployment.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is a terrible doctrine.


Mr. GIBSON (Comox-Alberni):: More
leisure, he means. Call it "leisure"; it sounds better.
Bretton Woods Agreements


Walter Frederick Kuhl: The hon. gentleman says that that is a terrible doctrine.


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: Better come down to Nova Scotia if you want to see more.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: Why, the hon. gentleman has been trying all his life to become unemployed; so have I; so has every hon. gentleman in this house. It is the secret ambition of every individual to get out of all the work he can.


Charles Edward Johnston: We are not so successful as some hon. members over there.


Mr. MITCHELL:: That accounts for some being members of this house, I suppose!


Walter Frederick Kuhl: That does not mean that those who have that ambition desire to loaf; it means simply that they desire to reach a position where they can choose their activity instead of being forced to take it. That is the difference between work and leisure. I say that it is a false objective to endeavour to cure unemployment by providing work either nationally or internationally. What is the difference between that philosophy and the philosophy which Adolf Hitler followed? I see no difference.
I say that Bretton Woods will fail because nations, governments and those who speak on behalf of governments fail to recognize the impact of the power-machine age and-now- the advent of atomic energy. More and more we shall have power-machine production, and eventually the application of atomic energy when it is commercially feasible. When extraneous energy displaces human labour, it displaces the pay cheque; and when it displaces the pay check, obviously people have not purchasing power to buy the goods which machines make. Hence has arisen the drive to export those goods whjch would otherwise in large measure be consumed right at home. I believe this truth must be recognized by governments and those who speak on their behalf before we shall make any progress either in preserving peace in the world or in bringing about prosperity. We certainly shall have peace in the world only after we learn how to distribute our abundances. The greatest contribution which we as Canadians could make to the cause of peace would be to demonstrate how we can distribute our abundances here at home without mortgaging the lives of those now living, or the lives of future Canadians, to those who issue the money of the nation. If we can demonstrate how it is possible to distribute our own goods and avoid economic warfare with other
(Mr. J. L. Gibson.]
countries then I consider we shall be making the greatest contribution that Canada can make.
I assert that Canadians have the first claim to Canadian goods. All goods produced in Canada are produced with Canadian labour and by Canadian effort. Therefore Canadians have the first claim on Canadian production. Once we have passed through the transitional period, I am not in favour of exporting a single article until Canadians are first satisfied completely. I agree that during the transitional period we have a moral obligation to rehabilitate those countries which have been overrun by the enemy, but as my colleague, the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) indicated, this should be an outright gift and should not constitute a debt. I repeat that we as Canadians should rehabilitate the war-stricken countries of the world with some of the superabundance of goods that we have. But once they have been rehabilitated, once their machinery of production is brought back to the place where they themselves can provide almost all the things they need, we shall then be faced with the problem of disposing of our so-called surplus. That makes it imperative that all countries, particularly the United States and Canada, should institute within their countries a system which will enable the people at home to consume to the maximum of their own goods.
I assert that we must eventually come to the place where we accept one of the major proposals in the social credit philosophy, the bonusing of consumers or, in other words, a national dividend. I do not propose on this occasion to elaborate on that; but I am convinced that only by a national bonus, only by increasing the ability of the consumer to buy his own production, and that which may be brought in in exchange for genuine surpluses, can we ever bring about prosperity of a substantial nature. An hon. member over here has said that if is a case of Bretton Woods or chaos. I would suggest another slogan-a national dividend or chaos.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Ontario):: Would that be free of income tax?


Walter Frederick Kuhl: Yes, definitely. Taxes decrease rather than increase the purchasing power. I shall not be satisfied until all taxation is abolished. Those who think that taxation is necessary simply do not understand the a-b-c's of the relationship of money to goods. It is assumed constantly that consumption always equals production, but that is the greatest fallacy that can be assumed by any one. As long as we in Canada assume that when we produce a billion dollars worth of

Bretton Woods Agreements
goods we automatically have a billion dollars of purchasing power we shall make absolutely no progress. On previous occasions I have shown by statistics, and anyone can demonstrate it by examining the books of his own business, that in every business of this country there is only approximately half as much distributed in purchasing power as is produced. The thing we need is an increase in purchasing power, not a redistribution of it, and that is why I say that taxation should be abolished.
Even under a system where we enable the consumer to acquire up to the limits of his capacity to consume of our own production, I grant that there will be genuine surpluses which we can not physically consume. Those would be available for export. To-day when we have a surplus, whether genuine or not, we think immediately of exporting it. I think the reverse should be the case. When we have a genuine surplus, whether it be wheat or newsprint or aluminum or any other commodity, and we have satisfied Canadian consumers to the limit, we should import an equivalent amount from the other countries of the world.
By following that process we would put in an order to other countries for goods of an equivalent amount. Will they be ready and, willing to sell to us? Of course they will. That would turn the wheels of industry in those countries and thus generate purchasing power which would enable them to put in orders for our surplus. In that way trade wars would be overcome, or at least we would be doing our part to eliminate such trade wars. When those goods come into Canada, let us s,ee to it that the Canadian consumer has sufficient purchasing power to acquire them. Merely [DOT]exchanging goods, merely bringing back- one surplus in exchange for another, will not automatically guarantee distribution. As I have already said, we must tackle the question of distribution within our own country and .consider it the fundamental basis of the success of any international arrangement.
If that is done it will mean that those who now have a stranglehold on this nation and other nations of the world will have to give up some of their powers. To-day the economy of Canada is absolutely in the hands of those who create and issue money. Those who create and issue the money of the nation control the nation; the government does not. The government is helpless to effect any vital changes in the economy of the country as long as the power to create and issue the money of the nation is in the hands of private individuals. Before any country, whether it be Canada, the United States or any other, is in
a position to enable its own people to consume its own production, it must first restore to the crown its most sacred prerogative, that of creating and issuing the money of the nation.
By that I do not mean that I favour the nationalization of the chartered banks, because I do not. I believe that when the government goes into the banking business the people will be obliged to do business with politicians instead of with business men. I want to see the private banks remain in private hands so that business men may do business with business men, and not with politicians. But the power to create and issue the money which the banks now enjoy must be taken from them and restored to the crown, and then the crown must use that privilege on behalf of the people to; enable the people to consume their own production without adding to the debt and without an increase in taxation.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: Would the hon. member say that he was dealing with politicians when he took a ride on Canadian National Railways?


Walter Frederick Kuhl: There is a vast difference
between running a bank and running a railway. Far more judgment is required in a bank manager, who has to decide whether an individual is credit worthy or not, than is required of a man driving an engine or one engaged in any other form of railway work.
I was asserting, Mr. Speaker, that if we are to make Bretton Woods a success we must ia Canada restore to the crown the powers which will enable it to enable the people to consume their own production; that is, we must restore to the crown the power to create and issue the money of the nation. In this connection I should like to quote a statement made by Abraham Lincoln, who said:
Money is the creature of law, and the creation of the original issue of money should be maintained as an exclusive monopoly of the national government. Such needs can be served by issuing national currency and credit through the operation of a national banking system.
The government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the government and the buying power of consumers. The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the^ supreme prerogative of the government, but it is the government's greatest creative opportunity.
That is a statement of great significance. That is what should be done in Canada; that is what should be done in the United States; that is what should be done in every country; and until that is done, and until that privilege is used, by the state for the benefit of the '
Bretton Woods Agreements

people, Bretton Woods will not succeed in bringing about prosperity or peace in the world.
I consider that the refusal by those who are responsible to restore to the crown its sacred prerogative constitutes one of the greatest betrayals that have ever been made of the people of this country or of any country in the world, and my suspicion is this in connection with Bretton. Woods. My colleague the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansel!) on various occasions has suggested the operation of a power behind the scenes. I concur in his fear of this power. But whatever that power is, and whoever are the indviduals who possess that power and attempt to exercise it, it is in the final analysis the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) arid the ministry who are responsible. They must take the responsibility for whatever actions are done by this power. If anyone is getting away with murder in the realm of finance it is the responsibility of the Minister of Finance. He is the one on whose doorstep we must place the responsibility.


William Ross Macdonald: I must remind the hon. member that his time has expired.


Mr. H. G. ARCHIBALD (Skeena):: Mr. [DOT]Speaker, I should like to take a few moments just to compare two things: the actual, with "the hope that was expressed last night. The ^Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), in introducing the Bretton Woods resolution yesterday, said, *as reported at page 3040 of Hansard:
The main issue which is at stake in the Bretton Woods proposals is the same as that involved in the united nations chanter which this house recently approved by so overwhelming a majority. That issue is: are we ahd other countries to organize and cooperate for peace, or is each nation going to use its strength and *resources at the expense of others in a struggle for survival?	[DOT]
This country is extending loans to countries over in Europe, and the actual thing is that we are going to get a rate of interest back by any means possible. Let me read a clipping from this morning's Ottawa Journal. The heading is, "Give Dutch Troops Canadian Equipment", and the item reads:
Amsterdam, Dec. 6-(Reuters). Dutch authorities are equipping four divisions with Canadian .army equipment, for immediate service in the East Indies, the Netherlands news .agency Aneta reported to-night.
. Canadian army headquarters at Appeldoorn announced the sale of $11,000,000 worth of *army equipment to European governments, the Dutch being the chief buyers. They have bought 1,500 trucks and other material and negotiations are taking place in Ottawa for the
urchase of tanks and field artillery worth
5,000,000. The report said 44 tanks now in
[Mr. Kuhl.l
Britain, 170 anti-tank guns, 26,000 Sten guns, 3,000 Brens, 42,000 rifles and bayonets and 1,200 mortars are involved.
The "mammoth base ordnance depot" equipment at Bordon, Hampshire, England, has been sold by Canada to the Netherlands government for $500,000 together with two Canadian army workshops in Antwerp with full equipment, -it was stated.
Mr. Speaker, this allows the nations once again to collect the rate of interest by the good old-fashioned method-at the point of a bayonet.


Mr. NORMAN JAQUES (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, before I begin I wish to correct a statement which I made the other day. I said that a man by the name of Leslie Roberts was present at a meeting at Chatham House in London last winter. Mr. Roberts informs me that' he was neither at Chatham House nor in London at the time. So I am glad to make that correction.
This debate undoubtedly is the most important that has been held in this house not only in this session but in any session outside of the declaration of war. Yet whom do I see in this chamber? Just a handful of members on the government side. I am glad to see that there are four or five members of the government in their places.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about the others?


Norman Jaques: Yes; what about the others? It is a' strange thing that in a debate of this importance, that while the two major parties have been at one another's throats during the session, this is, one might say, quite a love feast. I do not think there will be found much disagreement between them on this occasion. Not only is it a love feast, but one might say that they are actually dining off the gold plate. The minister said yesterday that no country was willing to revert to the gold standard. More than that, he said that prosperity, that is national prosperity, depends on export, trade, and he also said that export trade will be controlled by gold. That is definite enough, so that our prosperity will be controlled by gold.
Mention has been made of tariffs, and governments are always blamed for raising tariffs out of pure cussedness. It never seems to penetrate these people that tariffs are not a cause but a result. As a previous speaker said, it is because no industrialist country can afford to consume its own production, nor can it afford to consume the production of other countries in exchange for its own, and therefore in order to defend themselves they put on a tariff so as to export as much as possible and import as little as possible. In other

Bretton Woods Agreements
words, they export their unemployment. That is so elementary that I apologize for mentioning it at this time.	'[DOT]
We are told that all the experts were agreed. I do not know that that is very remarkable. No doubt they were all hand-picked and had already agreed; otherwise they would not have gone there.


John Horne Blackmore: Agreed beforehand.


Norman Jaques: Yes; and who are the experts? Most of them, those who Were used are the product of the London School of Economics, a socialist college or school of which the presiding genius at the present time is Professor Lasky. That college is responsible for the experts whom you people over there, who pride yourselves on being Liberals, are going to vote to support. I do not know whether hon. members have read Hayek's "Road to Serfdom." Here I should like to acknowledge an unknown benefactor. I did mention this book at the beginning of the session. I quoted from the "Road to Serfdom" and suggested that it would be a good thing if every member of the house would read it. A few days afterwards' a copy was sent to me, and I understand that every member in the house received one as well. I do not know who sent it, but whoever he is I take this opportunity of thanking him. He is a generous man, and a great benefactor if the book has been read.
The London School of Economics was founded fifty or sixty years ago by Fabian socialists in London, and some time before the last war it was endowed with some five million dollars by the.late Sir Ernest Oassel, .the German international financier. When asked by Lord Haldane why he had bestowed those millions on this college he said his reason was that it was the purpose of the London School of Economics to train the bureaucracy of the future wrorld socialist state. That is the purpose of the college, and that school has turned out a stream of economists, gold-plated economists, and subversive professors who have taught the youth of the empire to lose faith in the empire and in our power to govern ourselves as free peoples. And that work still goes on, and Bretton Woods is one rotten egg that has come out of that school, whether you believe it or not.
I do not pose as an expert, so may I quote Mr. Smith, congressman from Ohio, speaking in the United States congress in 1943 with reference to Bretton Woods. He said.
We are apt to be led to believe from the newspapers, radio and other reports that this scheme emanates from a few individuals. Mir. Harry D. White, special assistant to the secretary of the treasury, is being credited as the prime mover
of the United States contribution to the plan. Professor Maynard Keynes is being credited as the prime mover of the British contribution to this plan. Now, of course, we would be naive indeed if we were to believe that the officials of our treasury had undertaken this task on their own initiative or that Professor Keynes and perhaps a few of his associates had inaugurated their part of the scheme on their own accord. We may rest assured that back of this move are the most powerful international monied interests and financiers of the world. Furthermore, we may be certain that world power politics are playing a prominent role in promoting this movement.
I should now like to quote a man against whom I do not think anybody in this house will have much to say, namely, the Right Hon. Winston Churchill. I shall not apologize for quoting him. How are we to judge an expert except by the results of his expert advice? By their fruits ye shall know them. Listen to Mr. Churchill. In the House of Commons in 1932, as a private member he said this. I shall not read it all. He reminded the house that in 1925 when he was the chancellor of the exchequer he took the advice of the highest experts, men of great ability, indisputable integrity and sincerity, to the effect, that if they returned to the gold standard they would anchor themselves to stability and reality. He accepted their advice and he went on to say:
I take for myself and my colleagues of other days whatever degree of blame and burden there may be for having accepted their advice. But what has happened? We have had no reality, no stability. The price of gold has risen since then by more than seventy per cent. That is as if a twelve-inch footrule had suddenly been stretched to nineteen or twenty inches; as if the pound avoirdupois weight had suddenly become twenty-three to .twenty-four ounces. Look at what this has meant to everybody who has been compelled to execute their contracts upon this irrationally enhanced scale. Look at the gross unfairn^s of such a distortion to all producers of new wealth, and to all that labour and science and enterprise can give us. Minor fluctuations might well be ignored but I say quite seriously that this monetary convulsion has now reached a pitch where I am persuaded that the producers of new wealth will not tolerate indefinitely so hideous an oppression.
The man who made that statement was man enough to admit his mistakes; he, more than any one man, saved the world in 1940. I think we would do well to-day to listen to what he said then. He said that he was advised by the best experts, men of undoubted integrity and ability. He took their advice, and what- happened? Chaos and ruin. It is not too much to say that it was one of the main causes of the late war. And now we are going to do the same thing again. We have the same lot of experts who, have never apologized and have never admitted their mistakes.
Bretton Woods Agreements

I should like to go back a couple of years to a personal experience in this House of Commons. In 1943 I was speaking on international financial policies and the discussion turned to gold. I made the statement that eighty-five per cent of the gold under Fort Knox in the United States was owned or controlled by private interests. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) was in his place, as he is to-day. He took exception to my statement and said:
I should like to correct one misstatement of fact by the hon. gentleman. He said he would stake his reputation on the statement that eighty-five per cent of all the gold at Fort Knox was owned by private interests, and not by the
fovernment of the United States. I have sent or the federal reserve bulletin of July, 1943, and the annual report of the secretary of the treasury on the state of the finances for the fiscal year ending 'June 30. 1942. At page 638 of the federal reserve bulletin I find a table headed: "Analysis of changes in gold stock of the United States," from which I find that in June, 1942, the stock of the United States of America was $22,737,000,000 odd.
His final statement was:
The records are prefectly clear, that the gold stock of the United States is owned an- its entirety by the United States treasury.
Is the ministe'r equally sure to-day as he was when he made that statement? I staked my reputation on my statement. Is the minister equally sure to-day as he was then that all the gold under Fort Knox is owned in its entirety by the government? I should like the minister to answer that question.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Perhaps we had better wait until we get into committee. We are not in committee; no one is obligated to answer except in committee. If the hon. gentleman has evidence to the contrary I should be glad to have it. I shall look up the facts myself if he would like me*to.


Norman Jaques: When I made my statement I had not seen a copy of the annual report of the treasury. At page 594 there is a table headed: "Condition of the treasury." It says "Assets:	gold, $22,736,503,160.69."
Below that in another column there is this statement: " Liabilities: gold certificates, gold certificate fund-board of governors, federal reserve system, $17,735,182,989.18." Then on page 638 of the same report there is a table which shows the stock of money in the United States treasury. The first column is " Stock of money, 1942, $35,840,908,000." Then the fifth column is headed: " Held for federal reserve banks and agents, $17,750,403,000." Who owns this? How can a thing be an asset and a liability at the same time? I admit that I am not enough of an expert to understand that.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It does not say that the
same thing is an asset and a liability. It says that the gold certificates are liabilities, and the gold is an asset.


Norman Jaques: Well, on page 63S it gives the stock of money in the United States as $35 billion; but the amount held for federal reserve banks and agents is $17,750 million. It is just as though an elevator contains 100,000 bushels of wheat. There is the wheat, all right, but 80,000 bushels have been deposited by farmers who have grain certificates against it. I think that is the real position of the gold in the United States. I mention that because I consider it to be of fundamental importance. People get the idea that Bretton Woods will be all right because the people own the gold. I maintain that the people do not own the gold; they do not control it. Of course, when my colleagues and I criticize the policies of the United States, both their financial policy and their anti-British policy, it is understood that we are not criticizing the people of the United States at all, because they are perfectly innocent and, I may -add, largely ignorant of what is going on.
When I was in England the winter before last I put a question to an authority there, whose name I am not at liberty to mention in public because this was a private conversation, but I am perfectly certain that no hon. member would question his knowledge, and if they are - interested I should be pleased to give his name in private. I asked this gentleman if he had happened to read a certain debate, which I mentioned, in the Canadian House of Commons, and lie said that he had. I said, "Well, was I right or wrong?" He replied "Jaques, you were absolutely right; there is no question about that." I said, "Well, if I was absolutely right, how do you account for the fact that the minister must have been wrong?" His reply was, " I am quite certain that the statement was not made to deceive anybody, but he just did not know." So that even the experts do not know; that is the position.
I should now like to go back to the year 1943. In April of that year a Mr. Sandwell addressed a meeting of the league of nations society somewhere in this city, and according to the report which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen the next day he predicted a supranational authority with power to settle questions of immigration, natural resources, the protection of minorities, the repudiation of debt, finance and other questions. Then he went on to say that the loyalty of Canadians must be weaned away from the crown to an authority wider than Canada, wider than the empire and wider even than democracy. I

Bretton Woods Agreements
thought that was something which should not have been, said, especially in war time, and I brought it to the attention of the house on a question of privilege. Immediately I was assailed in the press right across Canada and called every name they could print. I was accused of wasting the time of the House of Commons. Particularly was I assailed by the Winnipeg Free Press. A week later there appeared a dispatch from Washington, as follows:
Secretary Henry Morgenthau disclosed to-day comprehensive administration plans to stabilize post-war currencies and fix their value in -terms of gold. The plans involve:
1.	Creation of ap international stabilization fund by the united nations and their associates.
2.	Fixing the value of currencies in terms of gold.
3.	An agreement -among participating countries not to devalue their currencies without consulting other members of the stabilization fund.
Both plans entail the establishment of a stabilization fund to be managed by an international bank, vitally important because it would mean that participating counti-res would -lose control over the value of their currencies for world trade purposes. This control would be vested in the bank, not in a parliament or a congress, and if a country wanted the rate .lowered or increased it could only appeal to the bank, not take action itself.
That was the first intimation of the Bretton Woods plan, and t^ie speaker at the meeting of the league of nations society here in Ottawa prepared the way for it by telling the people they would have to surrender their loyalty to the crown. In other words, they would have to surrender their sovereignty, and to what? To international bankers and the gold standard. Is that what we fought the war for? It is not what I rose in my place in this house in 1939 to support.


John Horne Blackmore: Our boys did not die for that, either.	[DOT]


Norman Jaques: No. What about the Atlantic charter? We do Dot hear much about that to-day. Let me refer to a recent debate in the British House of Commons, when they were discussing conditions in Europe at the present time. One hon. member said that instead of the united nations charter, "since Potsdam something different has been- added; we are contracting into a country very little larger than the United Kingdom over sixty million people. It appears that something like the , fiendish Morgenthau plan is i being carried out." Who is this Mr. Morgenthau? He is a former secretary of the United States treasury and connected with Kuhn, Loeb and other international bankers. He is also the sponsor of the international monetary plans agreed to at Bretton Woods. It was these
same international bankers who financed Japan's war against Russia in 1904 and German and Japanese rearmament for the second world war, while the British empire and America were kept in a state of depression and unpreparedness. Now, according to the Morgenthau plan, war-tom Europe is to be weakened by division, starvation, hardship and the liquidation of democratic leadership until reduced to a Balkan standard of living, and eastern Europe will be added to the "new democracies" within the power-complex orbit of the Soviet Union.
I should like to refer to an article published in a well-known magazine by Doctor Ludwig von Mises. We are told at the end of the article that Doctor Ludwig von Mises was recently professor of international economic relations at the graduate institute of international studies at Geneva, previously professor of economics at the university of Vienna, and author of "Socialism". Speaking of international finance between the two wars, he makse this statement:
The state of things which -prevailed in the last decades can be characterized -as a complete surrender of the rights of the creditors and of the investors. Every nation successfully made use of its sovereignty to the disadvantage of foreign creditors and investors. Every nation exercised its power to expropriate foreign investments directly or indirectly by discriminatory taxation, to debase the currency, with which loans had to be repaid. The history of international financial relations has, in the last twenty years, been one of almost continual embezzlement-. The governments of the debtor countries behaved like swindlers for the benefit of their own treasury and for the benefit of pressure groups within their population.
The new covenant of the -league of nations- %
One might say that instead of the league of nations we have got Dumbarton Oaks and Bretton Woods and the united nations.
-will therefore have to include -a rigid limitation on the sovereign rights of every nation. Unilateral measures which -affect the essentials of the contractual obligations, the currency system, taxation and other important matters have to be rendered unlawful. The debtor countries should not have any rights which -are denied to private debtors.
And he went on to say:
All these provisions will have to be efficiently enforced by international tribunals and by sanctions which the league must -apply with a greater measure of success than in the past. Without some kind of international police power such a plan could not be carried out. Coercive measures are indispensable in order to make reluctant debtor countries pay.
We have had Mr. Churchill's statement about the doubling of the debts by the gold standard, and, as a consequence, the impossible conditions in which the debtor nations found themselves. Now, under this scheme, under
Bretton Woods Agreements

Dumbarton Oaks, under the united nations set-up, it is suggested that we should'have an international police force. You can see the beauty of the scheme. First of all you put the world on a gold standard so as to double and treble the debts, and then, when private individuals and countries find it impossible to carry out their contractual obligations, the bailiff will enter the country and will be supported by an international police.


John Horne Blackmore: And atomic bombs,
likely.


Norman Jaques: Yes, and atomic bombs.
Speaking of atomic bombs and the activities of experts generally, both financial and other experts, I believe it is a good time to say that experts should be on tap, not on top. It is the experts who produced the atomic bomb. Is it the experts who are to tell us when to drop it, and on whom? That does not lie with experts. It does not need experts' advice; it needs only common honesty, which the vast majority of people have and would apply rightly if only they knew the truth.
Speaking locally, I have in my hand a little pamphlet setting out the farmers' action programme of the Alberta Farmers' Union and the United Farmers of Canada (Saskatchewan section). Most farmers are familiar with it.
I am going to quote only three or four lines on page 6 under the heading "Financial Policy":
The people of Canada must have complete control of the nation's money system which must be operated under the direction of parliamentary policy with a national finance committee in charge, under the chairmanship of a person who shall have the power of a judge of a superior court.	[DOT]
I put this question to every hon. member in this house': Under the provisions of this act of Bretton Woods, if it is adopted, will the people of Canada have complete control of the nation's monetary policy? That is the question hon,. members have to decide when they come to vote on this proposal. Are they going to vote for these ideas of internationalism, international government, international controls, or are they going to vote for the people who sent them to this place? That is the decision we have to make. It is a decision which I have already made, or I would not be speaking this afternoon.
A word about gold mining. I cannot help thinking-and in saying this I am not attributing anything in the nature of dishonest motives-that most of the speakers who have defended the Bretton Woods proposals are speaking on behalf of the gold mining industry of Canada. I repeat that I do not attribute improper motives at all; perhaps the 
majority, or an important section, of the constituents of some hon. members are themselves gold miners. Mention has been made, quite recently by the last Progressive Conservative member who addressfid the house, of the tragic and terrible conditions which exist at this moment in the greater part of Europe. We are officially told by Sir John Orr, who, I believe, is president of the united nations food organization, that more people will die this winter in Europe from starvation and hardship than were killed in the whole six years of war. Of those who preach the virtues of gold mining in this country as a means of producing employment and wealth, I would ask: How much food, how many clothes, and how much shelter will all the gold in the world produce for those people? Can they eat it? Can they wear it? Can they warm themselves with it? There it is, down in a hole in the ground, absolutely useless; yet we go on mining more and more gold, under the delusion that by doing so we are getting rich. If lunacy can go farther, I do not know in what direction.


Mr. ANTHONY HLYNKA (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, as the minister will no doubt have gathered, the Social Credit group is definitely opposed to any gold standard, camouflaged or otherwise. Gold has never reflected the real wealth of any nation, or of the world for that matter. I believe it would be well to define what is meant by wealth. We in this group believe that wealth is goods and services provided to the people when and if required. To us gold has the same meaning as any other metal which might be used in the making of rings, jewellery and so forth, and it should sell for about $2 an ounce and no more.
Yesterday the minister made a good speech in presenting the case for Bretton Woods, but in making his statement I think he was perhaps too confident of the success of this measure. I think he felt that it would go through without any opposition or perhaps without any discussion. In his presentation he made this statement:
In the measure now before it, the house is asked to express its approval of Canadian participation in the two new international financial institutions considered at the united nations monetary and financial conference held at Bretton Woods.
Let me repeat what he said, "The house is asked to express its approval." Apparently he did not think the house might not care to approve the measure; he took it for granted that it would approve. Even though he may be right, I still think the minister should have said that these proposals were placed

Bretton Woods Agreements
before this house for approval or disapproval. That is the stand I take. Then he went on to say:
The proposed institutions are intended to be part of the permanent framework of international collaboration in the monetary field.
In. the next column he continues and says:
The main issue which is at stake in the Bretton Woods proposals is the same as that involved in the united nations charter which this house recently approved by so overwhelming a majority. That issue is: Are we and other countries to organize and cooperate for peace?
Then he continues a little farther on:
In many parts of the world there is evident a keen awareness that if peace is to be maintained and if prosperity is to be achieved it will be necessary to plan for a higher degree of international collaboration than we have ever achieved in peace time in the past. In pursuit of this purpose, the united nations are in process of creating a number of institutions which are to serve as the instruments of such collaboration. The central institution is, of course, the united nations organization embodied in the San Francisco charter. This, it is hoped, will provide the political basis of security. But it is recognized that security also has an economic basis and that economic instability and poverty and unemployment provide a background conducive to political dissension among nations.
In other words, the minister chose to present this measure by way of making an appeal for the promotion of peace. I happen to have been looking over some of the statements which have appeared in various publications, and I find that this propaganda has been going on for some time, certainly since the beginning of the war. The words used' are practically identical with those used by the Minister of Finance in speaking to this motion. I find that the supporters of the so-cafled "Union Now" or federal union also claimed that we must have peace at any price. They asked the nations of the world to subscribe *o the establishment of an international government and to relinquish their national sovereignty. This international government was to have control over, first, the monetary policies of the countries in the union; second, the armed forces of the countries in the union; 'hird, an international police force; fourth, citizenship rights of the people in the union; fifth, postal and other means of communication and, sixth, the regulation of foreign and other trade. It is rather striking that the approach they used is almost identical to the one used by the Minister of Finance in dealing with this peace problem so-called. The minister continues and says:
The international monetary fund is primarily concerned with securing orderly exchange arrangements, while the bank is intended to help in the restoration of economies which have
been destroyed or disrupted in the course of the war and, over the longer period, to encourage and facilitate the international flow of capita] for productive investment.
I should like to quote from an article which appeared in the "Voice of Austria," published in August, 1941, in New York. The author of the article is Ludwig von Mises, who is described in the publication as being a recent professor of international studies at Geneva, a previous professor of economics at the university of Vienna and the author of "Socialism and Economic Analysis." The article says: ... if there is any hope at all that foreign capital can be procured for the post-war reconstruction of Europe, then a new legal system for the safeguarding of these investments and loans is essential. No country which stubbornly wishes to maintain its full sovereignty in this field can expect to attract foreign capital.
Do not the two statements read very much alike? Let me read what the minister said:
The international monetary fund is primarily concerned with securing orderly exchange arrangements, while the bank is intended to help in the restoration of economies which have been destroyed or disrupted in the course of the war and, over the longer period, to encourage and facilitate the international flow of capital for productive investment.
The article in. the "Voice of- Austria" continues:
The new covenant of the league of nations will therefore have to include a rigid limitation on the sovereign rights of every nation, which intends to borrow abroad or to obtain foreign investments. Unilateral measures which affect the essentials of the contratcual obligations, the currency system, taxation and other important matters have to be rendered unlawful. The debtor countries should not have any rights which are denied to private debtors. No country should have the right to inflict harm on foreign investors.
All these provisions will have to be efficiently enforced by international tribunals and by sanctions which the league must apply with a greater measure of success than in the past. Without some kind of international police power, such *a plan could not be carried out. Coercive measures are indispensable in order to make reluctant debtor countries pay.	_ _
Of course, this is equivalent to a very rigid limitation on national sovereignty. But there is no other way to make international _ capital transfers possible again. The nations involved will have to choose between the renunciation of the aid of foreign -capital or this -abandonment of their unlimited sovereign powers.
It appears to me that the whole crossword puzzle is gradually being -put together piece by piece. Parts of this scheme are embodied in various bills and presented to parliaments of the various democratic countries of the world. Of course they are made to appear very innocent and humanitarian in purpose. But these measures are being put through,
Bret ton Woods Agreements

and eventually we shall wake up one morning to find ourselves rounded up and with a wofld police force on the throne.
The Minister of Finance said:
On the political side, the keystone in the structure of institutions being set up for this purpose is the united nations charter. On the economic side we have, to date, three main pieces.
Then he mentions as No. 1, UNRRA, the united nations organization to deal with urgent problems of relief and rehabilitation; No. 2, the food and agriculture organization, and No. 3, the Bretton Woods agreement. Then he continues:
The structure of international collaboration will be by no means complete when the fund and the bank are established.
_ Which goes to prove that the whole system is being put together piece by piece and, as I have already pointed out, we shall wake up one day and find ourselves governed by an international police force. The minister says: Nor does the establishment of a monetary framework conducive to iliber-al commercial policies in itself -assure that liberal policies will in fact be followed. For this, separate -agreement is necessary.
The -minister is promising that he will bring in further measures to complete the puzzle. All we have to do is to look over some of the utterances and writings of the men prominent ih the economic -affairs of the world to see at once what striking similarity there is between their statements. I have a clipping from the Glasgow Herald of June 19, 19411, which quotes Sir Victor Sassoon, British merchant-banker who had arrived in Los Angeles the day before, en route to Shanghai. It reads as follows:
Sir Victor Sassoon said there was no other way to stop Hitler but to form a world federation of democracies, with Britain, Canada and Australia becoming a part of the United States.
"The United States," he said, "needs Britain, Australia and Canada to consume the exports of South America.
"It is now obvious," he added, "to business men of the world that the federal alliance of Britain is so necessary that it hardly bears discussion.
"Britain must come into the democracy of the United States with full rights of statehood.
"It is also obvious that such an arrangement would mean that Britain would -relinquish her traditions and institutions of government."


John Horne Blackmore: That is her reward for winning the war.


Anthony Hlynka: Yes. I maintain that it is not in -Canada's interests to see the United Kingdom reduced to the position of a second class nation. I maintain that it is in our interests to have the British commonwealth of nations remain the strongest power in Europe. But it is evident to all, I think, that

if these schemes are successful the British people will be placed in a secondary position, or perhaps worse.
Yesterday, the minister argued with the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) that the Bretton Woods proposals perhaps did not mean a return to the gold standard. He did not say whether the Bretton Woods proposals were or were not a return to the gold standard, but he placed the onus of proof on the hon. member for Acadia. It would appear to -me that it is up to the minister to tell us defi-v nitely whether it means the gold standard or not.


John Horne Blackmore: And prove it.


Anthony Hlynka: And prove it. In that connection I should like to quote from an article which appeared in the Victoria Daily Times of British Columbia of January 25, 1941, written by Major A. H. Jukes, D.S.O., O.B.E.. of Victoria, B.C. He said:
What does it mean to surrender our national citizenship, our control of finance, armaments, fiscal policy and judicature, and return to the gold standard?
That is what federal union proposes we should do. In return for what? Greater economic freedom for the individual? If so, we must have safeguards.
Promises are not enough. We should know: Who sponsors it? Who pays for it? And, above all, who will benefit by its adoption?
Is this another attempt to consolidate under a new name that -age-old enemy of individual freedom, centralization of power, with its absentee ownership and control? Can we recognize in it any concealed instrument of repression? Its advocates stress its sentimental value without explaining what we stand to lose.
I maintain that it is up to the minister to pxplain what Canada stands to lose if we subscribe to these proposals, and- it is also up to the minister to explain what we would gain by accepting them. To make a general statement on the proposals, which are said to constitute the most important measure to have been introduced in this house in- many a year, and discussing them in an ordinary manner, will not be satisfactory to anyone. It does not -satisfy me at any rate.
I need hardly say that the position of this group has always -been clear in reference to monetary matters, and I should like to quote from a press release which was issued by the Hon. William Aberhart, -late premier of Alberta, two or -three years ago. Mr. Aberhart denounced the federal union -proposals, and, of course, the whole scheme as it is being put over us at the present time. This is what he had to say:
The proposals involve the federation of the British nations, the U.S.A. and other demoora-/ cies in a union under a central authority. This

Privilege-Mr. Church
central authority would have absolute control over (1) the armed forces of all the countries involved in the union, (2) finance and (3) citizenship.
Control over finance would give the central authority power over every aspect of the economic life of every country within the federation. As I have pointed out before, "those who control the things that people want control the people." So that the central authority would have absolute power over the lives of all the people, in the union.
Suppose that the people of Canada were dissatisfied with the economic conditions being imposed upon them by the operation of the union's financial system, they would be powerless to do anything about it. Control over the money system would be vested in the central authority, and it would be beyond the jurisdiction of Canada's parliament to reform it.
_ Further, suppose that conditions became intolerable in Canada. Well-the international authority would have all the armed forces under its control, so the people could do nothing about it.
This all powerful central authority, with absolute totalitarian control over the people's lives, would be .the executive of the union's legislative bodies, on which the British empire would have minority representation and Canada would be impotent, for all practical purposes. Under such conditions it is more than likely that the British people would find themselves under outside domination.
As a scheme to secure the centralization of power on a vast scale for the purpose of divesting every democratic country of its sovereignty, destroying the British empire as a commonwealth of free peoples, abolishing existing democratic constitutions and substituting an international dictatorship by the money power, the proposals of "Union Now" could not be improved upon.
I maintain, however, that any loyal British subjeot, with a love of king, country and the precious democratic rights which are our inalienable inheritance, cannot but view with revulsion and alarm the open advocacy of a scheme which would rob us of all the things we hold dear, and for the preservation of which we are engaged in a life and death struggle against the menace of totalitarianism.
The late Premier Aberhart was an outstanding student of economic and political affairs, and that is the statement he made. Mr. Speaker, may I ask you to call it six o'clock?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member has still five minutes.


Anthony Hlynka: Very well, Mr. Speaker.
I should like to put on record the stand of the democratic monetary reform association which was adopted in the fall of 1941 in the city of Edmonton. Monetary reformers got together and drafted certain resolutions, and the one on foreign trade has this to say:
Whereas the peace-time struggle for foreign markets is basic because of international strife, and is the disastrous outcome of manufacturers and producers being-


James Horace King: Order. The hon. member appears to me to be out of order and has been for the last fifteen minutes. Throughout that time he has been reading from the same book. Standing order 41, section 293, paragraph (i) states that no member shall: use his right of speech for the purpose of obstructing the business of the house.
I do not say that the hon. member is doing so, but I have had sufficient experience of debate, both in the House of Commons and in the legislature, to know that it is not permissible for an hon. member to read com-tinuously from a book. If that were permitted, any hon. gentleman could make a speech by simply quoting from a book for forty minutes. I must rule that it is not in accordance with proper procedure.


Anthony Hlynka: Mr. Speaker, I was only quoting from pamphlets and books in support of my contention.


James Horace King: Order. I would point out to the hon. member that, notwithstanding the fact that he has quoted different writers, he has been reading from the same book for fifteen minutes.


Charles Edward Johnston: That is not right.


Anthony Hlynka: I have various booklets here, Mr. Speaker. One of them is "Federal Union Exposed"; another is a report; another is "Debt-and-Tax Finance Must Go" and a fourth is "Prepare Now".


James Horace King: I do not wish to enter into a discussion with the hon. member, nor do I think he wishes to debate the matter with the Chair. It is my duty to see that the debates are conducted in accordance with the rules. I have listened to the hon. member; I have also looked at him while he has been reading, and he has been quoting from the same book for fifteen minutes.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVILEGE-MR. CHURCH REFERENCE TO STATEMENT IN OTTAWA JOURNAL

Thomas Langton Church: I rise to a question'of privilege to call the attention of the house to an article in this evening's Ottawa Journal. The article is headed, "'Tommy' Church Slipped." I never slipped in my life. All I want is a modem plant to clear the sidewalks on parliament hill. I want efficiency in road and sidewalk cleaning. I

Private Bills
object to the article. It says that a veteran employee told the writer of the article that soml years ago I slipped on an icy spot and that I have raised hell about winter conditions of walks and roads around the hill ever since. I never made such a statement. They have now a modern plant in Toronto that can clean all the snow from the streets and walks in eight hours after it has fallen, and that is all that I ask here to make the walks safe for the public on parliament hill.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think the question of privilege is profoundly well taken, and would suggest that we now move to private bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 29, to amend an Act respecting Vancouver, Victoria and Eastern Railway and Navigation Company, The Nelson and Fort Sheppard Railway Company and Great Northern Railway Company.-Mr. Reid.
Bill No. 30, to incorporate International Air Transport Association-Mr. Mcllraith.
Bill No. 162, respecting the Lake Erie and Detroit River Railway Company and Pere Marquette Railway Company.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 28, respecting the Quebec Railway, Light and Power Company.-Mr. Lesage.
Bill No. 177, to incorporate Canada Health and Accident Assurance Corporation-Mr. Breithaupt.
Bill No. 158, to incorporate Compagnie de Fiducie du Canada.-Mr. Fournier (Maison-neuve-Rosemont).
Bill No. 175, to incorporate Canadian Conference of the Mennonite Brethren Church of North America.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 187, to incorporate The Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Whitehorse-Mr. Black (Yukon).	.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 116, for the relief of Kathleen Helena Henry Bates.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 133, for the relief of Nellie Sapphire Tanham Herring.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 163, for the relief of Frances Gladys Ruth Leveille Williams.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 164, for the relief of Dorothy Ada Greenwood Pringle.-Mr. Brown.
Bill No. 165, for the relief of Edward Vaugh-ton Molson.-Mr. MacLean.
Hill No. 166, for the relief of Elizabeth Jean McKay Hepplewhite.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 167, for the relief of Alfred Henry Gray.-Mr. Boucher.
Bill No. 168, for the relief of Dante Antonio Olak.-Mr. McGregor.

Bill No. 169, for the relief of Joseph Barzyk. -Mr. McGregor.
Bill No. 170, for the relief of Florence Mardi Harding.-Mr. Brown.
Bill No. 171, for the relief of Ernest Lavoie. *-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 179, for the relief of Samuel Gardner Bradford.-Mr. Whitman.
Bill No. 180, for the relief of Olive May Marks Sanderson.-Mr. Boucher.
Bill No. 181, for the relief of Marie Regina Elaine Arcand Dorval.-Mr. Brown.
Bill No. 182, for the relief of Joan Frances Timms Couture.-Mr. Brown.
Bill No. 183, for the relief of Edith Louise Boutilier Snow.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 184, for the relief of Cyril James Morgan.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 185, for the relief of Joseph Adolphe Aime Berthiaume.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 186, for. the relief of Molly Shus-terman Percher,-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 189, for the relief of Emma Grace Kriticos.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 190, for the relief of Donald John Northey Armstrong.-Mr. Hazen.
Bill No. 191 for the reelief of Goldie Boltuck.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 192 for the relief of Irene Nelson Johnston.-Mr. Boucher.
Bill No. 193 for the relief of Justinien Joseph Damase Gerard St. Amant.-Mr. Hazen.
Bill' No. 194 for the relief of Olive Pashley Mackie.-Mr. Emmerson.	.
Bill No. 195 for the relief of John Graham Gatehouse.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 196 for the relief of Gertrude Violet Kerwin Desjardins.-Mr. Nixon.
Bill No. 197 for the relief of Winifred Madge Jones Brown.-Mr. Whitman.
Bill No. 198 for the relief of Winnifred Catherine Bird Jackson.-Mr. Benidickson.
Bill No. 199 for the relieef of Archibald John Pratt.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 200 for the relief of Mary Theresa Sharp Mackay.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 201 for the relief of Edith Holbrook Hume.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 202 for the relief of Amy Helen Bowerman Hume.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 203 for the relief of Mary Anderson Bell Gordon.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 204 for the relief of Leopold Levesque.-Mr. McGregor.
Bill No. 205 for the relief of Myrtle Elizabeth Fraser Bennett.-Mr. Rose.
Bill No. 206 for the relief of Sylvia Pamela Solomon Lande.-Mr. Cleaver.
Bill No. 207 for the relief of Annie Kandel Askanazy.-Mr. Brown.	.

Divorce Bill
Bill No. 208 for the relief of Rose Acomsky Bloom.-Mr. Boucher.
Bill No. 209 for the relief of Ethel Meakings Downs.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 210 for the relief of Evelyn Isabel May Ramsay Jarvis.-Mr. Brown.
Bill No. 211 for the relief of Arthur John Frederick Temperton, junior.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 212 for the relief of Myrtle Ann Westover Coleman.-Mr. Rose.
Bill No. 213 for the relief of Marie Gertrude Owens Conant.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 214 for the relief of Louis Humble. -Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 215 for the relief of Sarah Silver-stone Michelin.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 216 for the relief of Roderick Auguste Robert de Lotbiniere Harwood.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 219 for the relief of Emile Bastien. -Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 220 for the relief of Cecilia Kate Burrows Andrea.-Mr., Maybank.
Bill No. 221 for the relief of Helen Eaton Gair Curnew.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 222 for the relief of Jack Bailey.- Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 223 for the relief of Winnifred Pearl Simcox.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 224 for the relief of Robert Dickerson Silverman.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 225 for the relief of Mary Arden Stead Eberts.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 226 for the relief of Omer Guindon. -Mr. McGregor.
Bill No. 227 for the relief of Leona Mary Murphy de Marky.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 228 for the relief of John Robert Mackenzie.-Mr. MacNaught.
Bill No. 229 for the relief of Gertrude Silverson Holmes.-Mr. Maybank.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on bill No. 188, for the relief of Harold James Chesterman- Mr. Maybank-Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Wilfrid Garfield Case: I want to ask whoever is responsible for these bills who bears the cost of having these divorce bills put through the senate. After all, as I sit here listening to these bills just going through like a machine I believe we are making a mockery of the whole thing. I understand that some 179 divorce bills have been dealt with by the senate, of which about 177 come from one section of Canada where they have no divorce courts. It seems to me we should amend the
constitution or do something so that we shall not have to deal with these bills in this fashion. Where is this thing going to lead?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on bill No. 230, for the relief of Herbert Lawrence Loucks- Mr. MacLean-Mr. Golding in the chair.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
@Acting Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Shall I report the bill? Carried.


Mr. HANSELL:: Before this last bill is reported I desire to make one or two observations; and I clo not choose this particular bill for the purpose, but rather what I have to say would apply to all of them. I do not 'rise to discuss the constitutionality of these matters or whether they should be dealt with by parliament or by a court, but after one has been here for a few years it becomes obvious that these bills are on the increase. Each year there are a few more, and here we have bill No. 230. I do not know how many divorce bills that would include, perhaps over two hundred, and that is far too many. There must be a reason for this.


Mr. MAYBANK:: There certainly is.


Ernest George Hansell: I know there certainly is, and we are all quite cognizant of it. The thing is a little too serious to pass over in a rather jocular fashion. I rise simply to say that the causes of these things must be removed if at all possible; and if in a small way one small voice crying in the wilderness might bring this matter to the attention of the people and institutions concerned, whether they be church or reform organizations, as to whether anything can be done to eliminate the cause, it must be all to the good. Every divorce meas a broken home, and in many cases children are involved. Does it mean that society on the whole is on the downgrade? Surely we should be alarmed at the situation if that is the case.
I notice, in, reading some of the evidence in these cases-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Ernest George Hansell: Yes, I sometimes pick them up and remark to some of my colleagues, "Now I am going to read my bed-time story."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Ernest George Hansell: That is about what the picture is, in most of them anyway. I notice
Divorce Bill

that almost invariably there is liquor connected with these cases. And when one goes to a moving picture-show, one hardly sees a picture these days which does not show someone, maybe in two or three or a half a dozen scenes, taking a drink.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Shame.


Ernest George Hansell: That sort of thing must have some influence upon our younger generation; I do not believe that we should treat these matters with too much levity. If society is going down-down-down, we had better look out for our Canadian institutions, our Canadian life, and our nation. Someone had better become alarmed about it all. Evidently hon. members are not very much alarmed. All I can say is, that they had better be, because the same thing may happen one of these days to one of their own children. I am not overmuch impressed with the position regarding constitutionality. I believe Quebec is doing something to try to stop this' thing; I honestly do. It may not be the way I would do it, or the way someone else would do it, but the fact that they do not want a divorce court is an indication that they do not want divorce. That is certain. It is about time that someone in Canada sounded a note of alarm.
Mr. LaCROIX: I have been listening for years to discussions in connection with these divorce cases, but I have never heard any practical suggestion in this house to solve the problem. From my humble point of view therp is only one way to settle it, and that is, to kill all these divorce bills through our vote. Then there will be no more divorce bills next session.


Ralph Maybank: I thought at first that the hon. gentleman who has just sat down was going to say that we should kill all the adulterers before they committed adultery. That would be conclusive, just as hanging stops murders. However, I wish to make two or three suggestions which have come to me in looking over some of these bills and listening to the arguments which have gone on from year to year.
I cannot see that there is very much object in discussing whether or not these bills are on the increase here in parliament. I am under the impression, for what it may be worth, that they are not, although this year there is a larger number than usual.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is later in the year.


Ralph Maybank: This is a year when one may expect a considerable number of "saved-up" divorces. There have not been quite so many over the war years as there were before,

but there has been a great deal of unnatural living of Canadians during these war years, and quite a lag-if one may borrow a term we use regarding industry-with respect to the bringing of divorce suits. That accounts in part for the larger number of divorce bills which are now before parliament, just as there is a larger number before the courts. I think that condition will continue for two or three years; then the outraged spouses will have caught up with the demand for divorce and things will become normal again.
Some reference has been made to the evidence in these cases. I am not at all satisfied with the divorce procedure as it obtains in the houses of parliament, although in any remarks I make in this respect I want it understood that I am not criticizing any persons in another place who conduct the divorce hearings. But it seems to me, as I read the evidence in these cases, that there is a great deal of illegality, aside from the adultery, behind all these cases. If one takes a page out of one case and puts it into another case there will not be any difference; you would never know as you were reading that you had run into another case; they are all so similar. The evidence in case A, if you tore out the title page, would seem to relate to case B. When you find that degree of similarity in divorce evidence you are bound to conclude that there must be collusion behind [DOT]these cases. For that reason alone I do not think it is satisfactory to carry out the divorce business the way the houses of parliament are doing it at the present time.
When this matter came up a few days ago the Minister of Finance remarked that he thought some person ought to make a concrete suggestion as to what should be done, and not merely to inveigh against this practice from year to year; and that is what I desire to do. I have three proposals. The first is, that parliament simply stop being used as a divorce court. I see no reason why a spouse living in Quebec should expect the houses of parliament to go into action' on his or her account merely because he or she has made a bad choice in marriage. I do not think parliament should be used for the purpose of passing special laws for special cases. However, there will be many who will think that that recommendation is too drastic. If that be so, I would suggest that a court be set up. I do not say you have to foist courts upon Quebec; there is another way of doing it. At any rate we should get these cases away from the houses of parliament and into the courts where there is machinery for checking up with reference tc the honesty of the evidence. Again, if it be not desired to make that decision immediately

Divorce Bill
to set up a court, the third suggestion I make is that early in the next session of parliament the government set up a committee composed of members of both houses to consider the whole question and to bring in recommendations as to how we can get rid altogether of this business, which is liked by nobody in either house. [DOT]


Mr. HACKETT:: Mr. Chairman, I have very definite-


William Henry Golding: I do not think we can allow a lengthy discussion on the bill. The bill was carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


John Thomas Hackett: I submit that the bill has not been carried. I should like to associate myself to some extent-


William Henry Golding: The bill has been carried and there is nothing before the house.


John Thomas Hackett: I submit that the bill has not been carried.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


John Thomas Hackett: When was it carried? We have listened to three or four speeches. I protest that the bill has not been carried. We have been sitting here waiting for an opportunity to speak.


William Henry Golding: I must disagree with the hon. member. The bill was carried and I asked if I would report the bill. That was carried and then the hon. member for Macleod said a few words, but we cannot allow a general discussion cn divorce at this time.


Mr. MacINNJS:: On a point of order; if the bill was carried and the discussion was out of order, then the hon. member for Macleod and the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre should have been declared out of order, or the hon. member for Stanstead should be allowed to speak. I agree that he can say what he wants to say on the third reading and he cannot be stopped then.


William Henry Golding: The hon. member for Vancouver East is quite right.- We should have stopped any discussion. However, hon, members can discuss these bills on the third reading if they wish to do so.


John Bracken: With all respect I suggest that you have already allowed two members to speak and you should let the third one speak.


John Thomas Hackett: I was about to say that-


William Henry Golding: Order. If the hon. member wishes to
discuss these bills he can do so on the third reading. I will report the bills.
Bill reported.
Mr. RALPH MAYBANK (Winnipeg South Centre) moved the third reading of bill No. 116; bill No. 133; bills Nos. 163 to 171 inclusive; bills Nos. 179 to 186 inclusive; bills Nos. 188 to 216 inclusive; and bills 219 to 230 inclusive.
Mr. JOHN T. HACKETT (Stanstead): Mr. Speaker, I should like to add just a few words to what has been said by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Maybank) and by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell). I think the way in which divorce bills are being treated by parliament is not doing a great deal to enhance the respect, of the Canadian people for parliament. If there has ever been a time since this dominion has existed when we should maintain respect for our institutions it is now when they are being so sorely tried.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has suggested that a committee be set up to study the question of divorce as it presents itself to parliament. I should like to suggest that that committee go even farther. We are confronted with a menace to the life of our country. I doubt if there is a man within sound of my voice who does not agree that divorce is undermining our society. If that be true, then parliament should be interested in attempting to allay the evil. Some people may say that that is not the function of parliament, that that is the function of our schools, our churches, our homes or o'her bodies, but I submit that anything that is so important, anything that has cast such a blight upon the national life should be considered, and considered promptly, by parliament.
Merely to ascertain where divorces are to be heard will not go to the root of the evil. When we attempt to stamp out malaria we do not merely kill the mosquitoes that carry the virus about; we go to the swamps where it originates and try to dry and cleanse them. That, I submit, must be done if we are to be freed from this evil. If the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre is considered-and I think it is a subject worthy of the consideration of parliament-the question to come before the committee should go to the root of the evil and not merely stop at considering the inconveniences caused to parliament and the indignities heaped on parlia-
Divorce Bill

ment through having to deal with these matters as we have been dealing with them to-night and in the past few years.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, divorce has been increased in latter years as after every war. I suggest that the minister should consider appointing a legal committee to deal with this whole matter of divorce. At every sitting of the high court of justice in Ontario the judges are loaded down with these cases; at times there are two or three hundred standing on the record. The fees in a few cases are sometimes exorbitant and many poor people cannot pay them. Then they must wait for six months before the final order is issued. I think a legal committee on legal bills should consider the whole question involved herein at the next session. The Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) should also consider introducing some amendments with regard to procedure.
It was stated in the house the other evening that divorce through the courts would be cheaper than in the senate, but in my opinion the law court method is about as dear, because you have lawyers on both sides and a file of pleadings, and a big bill of costs would be run up. I think there should be a fixed fee for divorce, say fifty or seventy-five or one hundred dollars, and divorce should be transferred from the jurisdiction of the high court to the county courts for the reason that at the assizes held in many cities and towns there is a large expense for the grand jury. I suggest to the Minister of Justice that during the parliamentary recess he consider the appointment of a legal committee because we have many legal bills coming up, and it would save a great deal of time.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Mr. Speaker, I just wish to say that I have been four limes credited with having made a contribution to this debate, and I am not guilty.


Mr. J. H. MATTHEWS (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, this discussion indicates that many members of the house are deeply concerned about this great menace to our national life and quite a number' have asked what can be done about it. I am not so much concerned about the saving of time of parliament, because I think that what we are here for is to spend our time in discussing issues of national importance, and anything that is a menace to our national life is the business of this house.
* Some hon. members have mentioned different causes for this disease that is in our national life to-day. The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) has spoken of the liquor in-

terest. That is only one thing. I think the cure goes far deeper than any committee of this house could bring about. It goes beyond the work of the churches. You have to go into the home of everyone in this country, and we as fathers and mothers should endeavour to instil into the hearts and minds of our children a proper Vegard for the vows that married people take, vows made before God, not just a vow to be taken to-day and lightly cast aside to-morrow, and that divorce is not to be as easily obtained in the future as in the past. I read somewhere quite recently, and I was intrigued with the suggestion, that in Russia they are making it increasingly difficult for people to get married, and I think that is one of the lines along which we shall need to travel in the future. As it is to-day, two young people meet each other; they feel that there is a certain compatibility between them, and without consideration of what the future may hold or whether they will be congenial companions for life, and perhaps supported by a few drinks of liquor, they go out and get a licence and say, "Let us find a preacher and get married." That is all that many young people think about marriage.
I believe that in the home, in the church, in our schools, and in all our social organizations we should endeavour to instil into the minds of our young people a deeper regard for the sacred contracts into which men and women enter.
Then there is, I think, a work that parliament can do. I venture to say that at the next session, if not at this one, we should consistently demand a recorded vote on every one of these divorce bills that come up, and let the members of this house stand up and be counted so that we shall know just where they stand on this matter. The members of the other place will then find that we are beginning in this house to regard divorce with something of the seriousness that it demands.


Hon. H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to reiterate what I have said in former sessions of this house in opposition to the method of handling divorce which we have had illustrated here this evening. It is nothing but a farce, and I think this house should rid itself of the responsibility of giving its assent to divorce bills in the way it is being done here to-night and has been done on former occasions. I therefore approve of the recommendation of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Maybank) and think the suggestion made by the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) might very well be incorporated in the work of the committee. At any rate our first and

Divorce Bill
important duty is to get rid of the present unsatisfactory method of granting divorce. None of us knows the details of any of these cases, and we are quite incompetent to say whether the parties applying should be given their freedom. Although I would not for one moment suggest that we impose on the province of Quebec a court to deal with divorce if they do not want it, I think the people of that province who wish a divorce could very well come to a court in the city of Ottawa where they could seek relief by the regular process of law.. I protest against the present procedure and hope that something will be done at the next session to remedy the situation.


James Horace King: Shall the motion carry?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Carried, on division.


Mr. PIERRE GAUTHIER (Portneuf):: There are five members standing, Mr. Speaker, and we want a vote. We are entitled to it.


James Horace King: Call in the members.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, it is an
established rule according to British practice that one may rise to a point of order after the division has been called. My point of order is this, that for years the House of Commons here has been, as a matter of convenience, putting through a great number of divorce bills on one motion. I submit that for the purpose of this vote the protest can be against only one specific bill or measure and not a number of bills en bloc. I think that is reasonable; I think it is sound and I think it is sensible.


Mr. TUCKER:: On the point of order, I
ffould suggest that the matter goes even farther than that, the taking of the vote on other than the first bill being out of order. Had they not all been put at one time, perhaps the division would not have been asked for. Perhaps each hon. member asking for the division may have had different bills in mind. Therefore I submit that the whole request for a division must be out of order. Obviously when thirty-eight bills are put at the same time it cannot be said that each member who rises is rising on the same bill, or the first bill; he Inay be rising on the second, the third or the fourth. Therefore I submit that the whole request for a division must be out of order and we must start over again on the motion for this reading of these bills.


Ernest George Hansell: On the point of order, may I say this, that I concur in the remarks that
have been made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) and the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker).


James Horace King: Order. Standing order 8
says definitely:
When members have been called in, preparatory to a division, no further debate is to be permitted.
If the house insists on the point of order I must say that I have already put the question to the house and have called for the members. Therefore, according to the rules, I do not think I should permit any debate on the motion itself. If it is the desire of hon. members to prove to the Chair that they have a right to discuss the point of order I may give them that opportunity, and if I am not sure of the decision that I should give I shall reserve it until later.


Pierre Gauthier: On the point of order, I believe that divorce is rather a point of disorder, and if we call for a vote it is because the majority of the province of Quebec are opposed to divorce.


James Horace King: Order. Probably I have
not made myself understood to the hon. member. I could not permit a debate on divorce or on the motion. The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) raised a point of order and said that a single vote should not be taken on all the divorce bills which have been reported by the committee of the whole, but that it should be taken on one bill at a time. I wonder whether I can permit a debate on that point of order. If the minister insists on a debate I shall reserve my decision and give my ruling a little later. Therefore we shall not have a vote now.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I thoroughly concur
in your judgment, Mr. Speaker. I think it might be of advantage to the whole house if you would reserve your decision and we shall proceed to the next order of business.


Major James William Coldwell: On a point of order,
is the suggestion of the leader of the house in conformity with the rules of the house? After a motion has been put, is it possible to raise a point, reserve the decision, and take a vote at a later hour? I would ask the Speaker for his ruling.


James Horace King: That is what I do not
know.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Horace King: I am grateful to the
house for its applause, but they will see very plainly in the rules of the house that it may
Divorce Bill

often happen that the Speaker is not sure and not in a position to give a ruling; but as the house is master of its own rules the Speaker asks the house for permission to reserve his decision to study the question and to give a ruling which will have the approval of the house and which will be fair to all.


Mr. MacINNIS:: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I agree that perhaps your action is the correct one at this time, because we are dealing with a matter that has never come before the house since I have been a member of it. If the point of order raised by the leader of the house is correct, that the vote must be taken on only one bill, it does not get us very far unless we take it as a precedent for a decision in all other cases. I submit, Your Honour, that a proper bill must receive three readings in this house; and if there is a division called for on any of those readings then a division is in order; otherwise there is nothing before the house. Every bill must go through that procedure, and these bills legally are no different from any other bill. While I agree with your decision to reserve judgment until some future time, and until you have had an opportunity to go into this question, I cannot agree with the point of order which was raised by the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the hon. member for Rosthern.
Mr. SPEAKER; I should like to call the attention of the house to paragraph 107 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, third edition, at page 53:
In all matters of doubt, the Speaker will consider attentively the opinions of members of experience, or sometimes, instead of expressing his opinion on either side, may ask instructions from the house or reserve his decision on the point in discussion, or suggest that the house may, if it think proper, dispense with the rule in a particular case. In doubtful cases, he will be largely guided by circumstances.


Mr. STIRLING:: May I ask whether the matter now stands until eight o'clock on Tuesday evening?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It stands until His Honour has made his decision and it is convenient for all hon. members of the house to proceed again with the consideration of these divorce bills. The time will be . announced and due notice will be given to all hon. members.
Motion (Mr. Maybank) stands. fMr. SpeMrw.]



BRETTON WOODS AGREEMENTS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Hon. J. L. Ilsley (Minister of Finance) that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a measure to grant authority to accept on behalf of Canada and to carry out the obligations of Canada under the articles of agreement for an international monetary fund and an international bank for reconstruction and development prepared by the united nations monetary and financial conference held at Bretton Woods in July, 1944; to authorize the payment of the subscriptions required from Canada out of unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund to an amount not exceeding seven hundred million dollars; and to authorize the borrowing under the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, 1931, of sums not exceeding seven hundred million dollars.
Anthony Hlynka: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose for the dinner recess at six o'clock I was trying to place on record the stand of the democratic monetary reform organization on this problem of gold, but since Your Honour raised an objection to lengthy quotations I shall refrain from quoting anything more and proceed with my remarks.
I should like to say that I personally do not know how any international control of money will assist Canada in distributing the goods and services we produce among our own people. I say that to try and pretend that we can solve great problems on a worldwide scale is pure and simple shadow-boxing, and that the practical and sensible thing to do would be first to put our own house in order and endeavour to solve our own prob-' lems within our own boundaries. Surely this nation has reached the position where the leaders of government should be able to find ways and means of distributing the goods and services which the people of Canada produce, but of course we always hear appeals and speeches telling us that the only way we can . solve our problems is to get into the world arena of international finance and tie ourselves to the gold standard and other international organizations. Strange as it may seem, since the beginning of the war, great pressure has been applied .in every field to endeavour to get us to join various international organizations. Instead of hearing speeches and discussions in this house as to ways and means of preserving democracy, we hear speeches and appeals from the government benches to tie ourselves to international organizations, because this country seems to be too small for us.	,

Bretton Woods Agreements
The slogan of this group, Mr. Speaker, is that that which is physically possible and desirable must be made financially possible. How in the world can we make everything that is physically possible and desirable financially possible within our own country if we tie ourselves to some external force or authority? The people of this nation, and particularly those who advise the government, should be in a position to find ways and means of making financially possible that which is physically possible and desirable.
I have said that we must endeavour to put our own house in order before we embark on an international scale. I hardly need say that during the period from 1929 to 1939 the gold standards and all the other devices they could think of failed dismally in this country. Why did not the gold standard system or scheme prove a success at that time? Why did we have to abandon the gold standard during the war? Simply because we knew that to tie ourselves to this mechanism or this scheme would not solve the problems of the nation. Now, in the peace-time period, no system which will tie Canadian currency and credit to any basis of gold will help Canada to distribute her goods and services, rehabilitate her returned men, and assist in putting this nation on its feet economically.
I will add only one other thought, I consider that all these international schemes are carefully and cleverly aimed at reducing the nower of the British commonwealth of nations. For centuries the British empire has been the bulwark of freedom and democracy, and we must not permit any scheme to be introduced. piece by piece, until we finally realize that we have surrendered our sovereignty and those liberties for which the British people have fought for more than a thousand years.
If this measure is as important as the minister says and as other hon. members who have supported it claim that it is, it should receive the fullest scrutiny and the most careful consideration; and I for one cannot see how we can examine the proposals as closely as we should, or discuss them as thoroughly as we should, in the short space of time remaining at our disposal. I fail to understand why the minister did not bring in this measure at the very beginning of the session. It is one of the most important measures. Why has it been postponed until practically the last week of this session? I do not wish to impute motives to the minister or his advisers, but I suppose it was expected that during the dying days of the session the measure could be rushed through this house

without much trouble and of course the government would not have to put up such a very strong fight.
Therefore, in closing, Mr. Speaker, I urge the minister, even at this time, to give the most careful consideration to this suggestion.
I do not believe he would lose much if he postponed the discussion of this issue for a time, or left it over to the next session, so that the people of the nation may be better informed upon it and hon. members have had ample opportunity to discuss it as thoroughly as they should.


Angus MacInnis: If I thought there would be no further discussion of this order I do not think I would take the time to discuss it; but if we are to carry on discussions I suppose that what I have to say may have as much weight as the views of somebody else. The proposal which was made yesterday that the matter be referred to the banking and commerce committee was a perfectly reasonable one, and we should have accepted it. After we had heard from those who are familiar with the terms of the Bretton Woods agreement, and any other experts-. I almost hesitate to use the word-then, if we were not satisfied, the proper time for a debate such as this would be when the bill comes back from the banking and commerce committee.	[DOT]


John Horne Blackmore: It would be too late
then.


Angus MacInnis: No, not a bit later than it is now.


John Horne Blackmore: It would be all signed
and delivered by that time.


Angus MacInnis: I think my hon. friend is afraid that he would be convinced.


John Horne Blackmore: We would be hog-tied.


Angus MacInnis: This bill, when it comes back from the banking and commerce committee, is really no closer to enactment so far as the powers of this house are concerned than before it goes to that committee.
In, my opinion the issue before us is very simple, although the Bretton Woods agreement is very complex. We are not now asked to approve the Bretton Woods agreement; we are asked to approve the principle embodied in the Bretton Woods agreement, and then to send it to the banking and commerce committee so that it may be investigated section by section, and so that hon. members who are later to vote on it will have an understanding of what they are voting for. The real issue before us is, do we want international cooperation in the matter of trade and finance, or do
Bretton Woods Agreements

we want to "go it alone"? That, as I see it, is the issue involved in either accepting or rejecting this agreement.
To-day and yesterday I listened to speeches on the dangers of international control, and fears that we might lose our sovereignty and have an international police force imposed upon us. That, to me, seems a strange fear, after having been engaged for six years in an international war. It would be better, perhaps, to accept an international police force than to engage in another international war in a few years. We have come to the point where the choice is, international cooperation for peace, or international cooperation in war.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: Even cooperation.
Mr. MacINiNIS: Even cooperation. But my hon. friends did not object to that cooperation
during the six years of war. I am not finding fault with them for that.


John Horne Blackmore: What does the hon. member mean by that?


Angus MacInnis: My hon. friends did not object to Canada associating herself with other 'nations throughout the world in order to destroy the forces that were destroying the world. My position is that, having done that, having given our blond and treasure in bringing about peace, are we now to let all that go by and each country take its own way with its own affairs in opposition and competition to all other countries? That would end as it must end, as it has ended twice in a generation, in another world war. That seems to me to be the simple position with which the people, not only of Canada but of the world, are confronted.
We have heard a great deal of talk about national sovereignty. Will some one tell me how many countries have to-day any national sovereignty that is worth while? I think I could count them pretty vrell with the fingers of one hand. We have reached the stage where if we are to have peace; if we are to have that measure of cooperation that will bring about prosperity, not only for ourselves but for others, we must be ready to give up a great deal of our national sovereignty. Indeed that is the way world progress has been made. Not only have people given up things, but privileges have been taken away from sections or from groups in order that those privileges might be extended to even larger numbers of people. That is the way democracy has developed in nations, and that is the way it must develop in the international sphere.
Reference has been made to the danger to the British empire and the British common-

wealth of this agreement. To-day in 'London, right in the heart of the British empire, a measure of this kind has proceeded even farther along than the road to enactment than this bill. I understand it has reached first and second reading. That measure is to approve the Bretton Woods agreements. Do my hon. friends to my left believe that the British government has taken that action in order to destroy the British commonwealth or the British empire?


John Horne Blackmore: They were clubbed into it yesterday.


Angus MacInnis: My hon. friend says they were clubbed into it. The fact is that they have taken another step on the road to international cooperation.


John Horne Blackmore: International slavery.


Angus MacInnis: We shall have to differ on those points. I must associate myself with the people who are dealing with these matters not on a narrow basis, a basis that is provincial to-day, national to-morrow, and then perhaps narrowing down to one city or one county. Let me say again that this Bretton Woods agreement is a very complex document. I do not say that at the moment I approve it; if I were asked to make a snap judgment I would say that, on balance, as far as I understand it I approve it. Some of the doubts I had in regard to it were removed yesterday to some extent when the Minister of Finance spoke. In the committee, if we do not fully understand it we can ask questions and have things explained to us, provided that we do not go into the committee with the feeling that we know everything and that we shall have to explain things to the people whc drew up the agreement.	*.
Let me say a word in regard to the experts. I agree that experts can be wrong the same as ordinary people can be wrong. Considering the field that must be covered by the average member of parliament in carrying out his activities; considering the great magnitude of the matters he must deal with, he cannot possibly carry on unless many things are explained to him. In many cases he must accept what he is told and use whatever intelligence he has to deal in the circumstances. It is rather funny to hear my hon. friends to the left object to experts. I remember a few years ago, when the late Mr. Aberhart was alive, when anything was asked about the social credit programme and how it would work the answer given was, "It is none of your business; you could not understand it; leave it to the experts."

Bretton Woods Agreements
I remember the stock illustration that was given. We were told that when we entered our bedroom and pressed a button to turn on the light we did not know how the dynamo operated or how the electricity was generated in order to provide that light. But yet we made use of it. That was the argument we w'ere faced with. Now when we come to a question that is as extremely complex as this one we must rely on experts, and I suppose there can be. experts in finance as well as experts in electrical engineering or any other kind of engineering.
It is not a question of having a perfect thing either one way or the other. It is not a question of black or white. I think the position the intelligent man must take is to examine the problem that comes before him, accepting what is good in it and rejecting what is bad as far as he can see it. Then he can indicate the way he wants to go. I submit that if we let this question go to the committee, on banking and commerce we can come back here and those who favour it can be stronger in their support. If the experts or those who know most about the agreement do not make out a case in the committee, then those who are opposed to it can come baek with their opposition much stronger. Why not let the agreement go to the committee so that we can act intelligently?
Mr. PATRICK H. ASHBY (Edmonton East): Mr. Speaker, there seems to be some doubt in the minds of many members as to whether Bretton Woods is on or off the gold standard. I submit that Bretton Woods has set up a new gold standard. We are as much as told that we can either take it or lump it. Here it is on page 31:
Par value of the currency of each member shall be expressed in terms of gold as a common denominator or in terms of the United States dollar of the weight and fineness in effect on July 1, 1944.
There it is, as bold and as impudent as it could be. It may have had a little dirt washed over it, but it is the same old carat; it may have been increased to sixteen carats, but it is still there; it is the same old gold standard. I do not claim to be an expert oh gold. I personally put very little value on gold. Most certainly this metal has an increasingly minor role to play in the economics of most nations. What I am concerned with are results.
At page 205 of the Fortnightly Review for December, 1944, is an article written by one of the leading authorities on gold and finance. In fact, he was the co-editor of two Paris economic weeklies from 1935 up to the outbreak of the war and economic consultant to
various British and French firms in Paris, a graduate of Lausanne university, a doctor of social science, and he has contributed articles and political subjects to journals in Paris, London and New York. If he were not an authority this publication would not publish any statements from him. He said, at page 205 of the Fortnightly Review, under the heading, "The Role of Gold":
Bretton Woods set up a new gold standard. Any attempt to explain away the provisions of fund agreement article IV section 1 (a) on this point is condemned to failure. It may be better or worse than its pre-1914 or 1925 predecessors. That is open to argument. What is not open to argument is the fact that its reintroduction is in the overwhelming interest of the United States of America which, with a gold stock of $20,000 million dollars, is fundamentally concerned in preventing its demonetization.
It may be better or worse, but it is still a gold standard, and I feel sure that it is worse. When we speak of the United States of America we do not mean the people of the United States of America. What we mean.are the financial dictators called financial experts, with their vaults of gold, who control the lives of the people of that country and who hope to control the world. They are the supreme yet hidden power whose methods they are determined shall be upheld and maintained at all costs. This insane gold standard is wrong. It does not matter what system or standard we use; if the results are not what we want the wrong methods or the wrong standards are being used. The gold standard has never given and will never give us the results we desire. It always has and always will produce fear, poverty, wretchedness and insecurity, with ever-increasing debts and taxation, breeding crime and vice and ending up in periodic wars of ever-increasing violence. It is not the duty of the people we represent to adjust their lives and living conditions to a gold standard or to any other method or system whatsoever. It is our duty, sir, as representatives of the people to learn what results our people desire and want and then to instruct the experts whoim we have appointed to devise ways and means that will produce those results. The people must hold us, the members of this parliament, responsible for all sickness and for all deaths in Canada caused by a lack of any food, clothing or shelter. They should hold us responsible for all crimes committed for financial gain. They should hold us responsible for all conditions of poverty and suffering as long as the materials required are not available or .potentially available in Canada.
Likewise we must hold our appointed experts responsible, and it is our duty to our people to transmit to them the names of the
Bretton Woods Agreements

individuals who are responsible for the financial system and for even attempting again to introduce and fasten upon us another gold standard. It is the duty of this parliament to remove from office any expert who does not obey our instructions. We must not serve finance but serve our people, who have chosen us in good faith to represent their will. It is the duty of the experts first to obtain from this parliament instructions as to what the people want, and then make their plans accordingly.
In this Bretton Woods agreement these international financial dictators responsible to no one have, without any instructions from us, devised a certain system and standards, with full knowledge, we must admit, of what the results will be; they have introduced a new gold standard for a purpose, and the purpose or result they know must follow is not one, I can assure this house, that will create a happy, contented and prosperous nation of people. It is designed, I feel certain, to repeat in a more drastic form the conditions which the gold standard has always brought about.
I spent some time when a student at Oxford in studying .money and discovered that the whole system was based on fraud. Until we replace this system with an honest method, the results will always be disastrous. We must learn to distinguish between means and end. between methods and results. We do not want par value of currency expressed in terms of gold or old umbrellas. What we want is corned beef and cabbage. In other words, we want what we want when and where we want it.
In 1894 it was clearly stated by some of the world's keenest economists that the gold standard means inevitable war. But once war is brought upon us, gold is abandoned and money as required for destructive purposes is created in abundance. The gold standard means inevitable war. We know that. We have had several wars during the lifetime of many hon. members now present. Modern wars do not just happen. We are being ruled, not being served, by those who worship gold.
I wish the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) would not look so glum. Let us be cheerful about the matter. We have not lost yet. In fact, if this government only realized it, they stand to-day in a position which could be used and long remembered by humanity for many generations to come. In the hungry thirties I decided to go off the gold standard and to go on a standard that was backed, but not by worthless metal. I decided to go on a standard backed by real assets. I went

off the gold standard and on to the turkey standard. I believe in that old slogan, a chicken in every pot; but my slogan in the hungry thirties, when we could not sell our turkeys, was a turkey on every table.
What we want to-day is not counterfeit money, but genuine money, money backed by the real available assets created by the people. As I have said, I went off the gold standard and on to the turkey standard. That is true. In the hungry thirties I received bills as usual. At first it was just an ordinary bill, and I would set it to one side hoping I might be able to meet it the next month. When the next month came, a word was added to the bill, the word "please"; and then the next month still more words were added, "please remit". "Past due" would, appear on the bill the next month, and so on, until finally many of them gave up hope of ever being able to collect from a farmer who possessed untold wealth in the form of food which nobody could buy.
Consequently I started in to make some money myself. I know that the chartered banks had greater facilities than I had. They made beautiful bills, some of them highly coloured, and on each of them was the picture of the president or the vice-president. My bills had to be made of common ordinary paper, but I wanted mine to look fairly good too. Indeed I tried to embellish them. Now, whose picture should I put on my bills? Well, money is nothing but a joke, and the greatest joke in the funny papers was old Major Hoople, so that I cut out the picture of that notorious gentleman and pasted it on my bills, one of which I now hold in my hand. On the left-hand side is a picture of Major Hoople, the big joke, and on the other side is his wife Martha; for my money, if it amounted to anything, had to have some force and push behind it, and she was the one who was always pushing the major around. As it looked a little bare, I also stuck a tuberculosis seal on it.
Armed with about $75 of this money which I had made myself I went to town to pay my bills. I did have a little difficulty at first, but I explained that my bills were genuine money, the only genuine money in circulation, that my money represented real available assets. I explained to people that my bank would never have to close its doors, that I was not afraid of running my bank, because there were goods at any time available to all who wanted them in the form of turkeys, whereas a bank, if too many begin to collect their money, will close its doors since it has nothing back of its money, nothing whatsoever but pure unadulterated bunkum.

________________Bretton Woods Agreements
I explained and read to them what my bill said, and I shall read it to the house. "This piece of paper represents real assets, is not issued as a debt, and is non-interest bearing." After I explained that this was actual, genuine money it was quite readily accepted. In fact, so readily was it accepted that I had no further difficulty in getting rid of it. I went to a newspaper; I may as well mention it, a very commendable newspaper, the Edmonton Bulletin, because they had implored me to continue reading the Bulletin-, otherwise I could not have followed up the antics of Major Hoople nor could I have read news about this government. Well, I went into their office and told the clerk I wanted to renew my subscription to the Bulletin. "Yes, sir," he said, and he immediately wrote out a receipt, thinking I was going to put my hand into my trousers pocket and pull out counterfeit money to pay for the subscription. Instead of that I reached into my coat pocket and pulled out one of my own bills-


An hon. MEMBER:: Genuine money?


Mr. ASHBY:: Yes, genuine money, and I presented it to him. I said to him "Here is genuine money. This is what it says: 'Will give to the order of the Edtaonton Bulletin thirty pounds of A-l turkey valued at six dollars, payment for the Bulletin for one year.' " There was a "6" all over it in case anybody could not read. The clerk looked at it for a while. He looked at Major Hoople; then he looked at me, wondering-


An hon. MEMBER:: Which was which.


Patrick Harvey Ashby: Which was which; wondering if it was my likeness. I saw him glance at the other pictures, thinking perhaps one might have been the Minister of Finance or even the Prime Minister himself. "Well," he said, "I really have no authority to take this money; I shall have to see the editor or someone." So he went into one of the other offices. In a few moments he came back. Before that there was not a smile on his face; now he was happy; he was contented. He was smiling all over when he said, "We will accept your money." I went home and left that bill in the office and I received the Bulletin for one full year. The date was changed because they were extending it for another year. Later on, after this transaction I have spoken of, a man telephoned me and said, "I have one of your Hoople bills. Is it any good?" "Why, man alive," I said, "read what it says on it." "Well," he says, "do I have to come to the farm to cash it?" I said, "I am not a banker. You do not 47696-197
have to come to my doors. You do not have to wait until you see me. Just let me know whenever you want to cash it and I will deliver the goods." Then I said, "But where did1 you get the money?" He replied, "I received it as part payment for my wages." One of those bills bought goods, and then it extended on and paid wages. This man was then about to buy some of my produce w'ith it, and he did, after I delivered it to him. I hold that bill in my hand now. It has the stamp of the Edmonton Bulletin on it. It is marked "paid" and endorsed on the back by the man who finally bought the turkeys from me. Mr. Speaker, that is really all that money is, a permit to buy goods.


John Horne Blackmore: A claim to goods.


Patrick Harvey Ashby: A claim to goods. Surely we can find experts w'ho can see to it that our money is backed not by some metal buried in caves or vaults, but by the assets made available by the people, backed by goods. I am certain that this will be done in time. It is inevitable. That time is coming when real money shall be created and issued in terms of public need. If we do not do that I am sure we may perish.
That government, no matter what party may be in office, nor in what country it may be, which has the courage and the initiative _ to-day to take this step will go down in history as the greatest reformist for good in modem human history. The present Liberal government here and now will get our wholehearted support if they do that, and they now have that opportunity.


Walter Adam Tucker: I feel somewhat under an obligation to say a few' words because I was a delegate from Canada to the conference at Bretton Woods. In view of that fact I considered that I should make a few comments on some of the speeches which have been made. First, in regard to our own experts who attended that conference, it is well known to the members who were there -their names are to be found in the final act of the united nations monetary and financial conference at page 6-that our experts were the equals of any there. I watched those experts in action, and I came to the conclusion that Canada had economists who were certainly able to hold their own in discussion with economists from any other part of the world. I feel that I would not be doing justice to our own outstanding economists who attended that conference if I did not say that.
Further they played a more vital part in the conference than those from many other

Bretton Woods Agreements

nations, because of Canada's position with reference to the United States of America and United Kingdom. When from time to time it appeared that there was some conflict between the United Kingdom viewpoint and the viewpoint of the United States, the Canadian delegation more than once performed the very great service of helping to reconcile the viewpoints of the two parties.
With regard to the suggestion that Great Britain has been clubbed into accepting Bretton Woods, I take it that that is based upon the idea that Great Britain did not agree to enter Bretton Woods until the loan of over four billion dollars was actually agreed to. It was well understood at the time of the conference that this international monetary fund could not possibly hope to function unless Great Britain was given a loan which would enable her to tide herself over the difficult period which it was known would follow the war. That was well understood by everybody there. Naturally, Great Britain could not possibly hope to carry out her obligations under Bretton Woods unless the interval after the end of the war was bridged by a loan which would enable her to get on her feet once more and begin to be able to pay for her necessary imports by exports. Therefore any suggestion that she was clubbed into submission, or anything of that sort, is not well founded.
There is this further thought; having watched Lord Keynes and his associates on the United Kingdom delegation in action, I can say in all sincerity that I do not think for a single minute that a man such as Lord Keynes has shown himself to be, one of the outstanding economists of the world, or his outstanding and able associates would agree to anything that would harm their own country and the British commonwealth of nations.
There is some suggestion that this is going to tie the nations of the world to gold. It was well understood in the British parliament before Lord Keynes came across to attend this conference, that Great Britain would not permit her currency being tied rigidly to gold. That was one of the reasons why the conference took longer than was originally expected. In other words, there had to be a formula whereby Great Britain would be able to have elasticity in her internal set-up, and should not be tied rigidly to gold.
When my hon. friends of the Social Credit party, for whom I have the greatest amount of friendship, suggest that, when a man like Keynes starts out from the United Kingdom pledging himself that he will not permit his country to be tied to gold at this conference, and when he says after he goes back that he has not, that he has carried out his promise,

he has not done so, that in spite of that we are tied to gold, then I submit that they are saying something which in their own minds they must find it very hard to believe.


John Horne Blackmore: They will prove it.


Walter Adam Tucker: The hon. member says that they will prove it. This is a most complicated agreement; it is a complicated mechanism, and for anybody in this house to take that mechanism and by citing a clause here and a clause there without citing the qualifying clauses and the escape clauses, and try to arouse fear on the part of the people who cannot possibly have a chance to study this in all its implications, he is not fulfilling the responsibility which I think we owe to those who sent us here to work for them.
From the best study which I was able to give this matter at the time I attended the conference and since I say that when Lord Keynes said that this agreement does not mean that we are tied to gold, in my humble opinion I believe he is telling the truth and nothing but the truth. There were people at the conference who were just as anxious that they should not be tied to gold as my hon. friends can possibly be. For example, the representatives from Australia and New Zealand were very much exercised about this matter. I refer to men like the Right Hon. Walter Nash, a man just as anxious about it as my hon. friends are, and who believes in their ideas to a certain extent, who watched from this viewpoint the working out of this agreement very carefully. I submit to my hon. friends, who often have spoken with approval of the opinion of the Right Hon. Walter Nash, that he would not have agreed to the Bretton Woods conference findings if he had not been satisfied that the freedom of action of New Zealand to build up a high level of employment within her own country was fully preserved even after they agreed to adhere to the Bretton Woods decision.
There is one other matter on which I feel I should say something. There has been some suggestion that in its attitude to the international monetary fund and the international bank for reconstruction and development the United States is motivated by some scheme of imperialism, of getting control of the rest of the world. In reply to that suggestion I would say that the conference was called by the late President Roosevelt, who sent to it as his representatives some of his best economists and closest friends. When the conflicting viewpoints were being discussed and it was proving difficult to reconcile them, one always felt the driving force of that great humanitarian President of the United States

Bretton Woods Agreements
behind the suggestion that the conference must not fail. Remember, the war was not yet won; Dumbarton Oaks had not yet occurred; we did not have the united nations organization set up. This was one of the first attempts to establish a scheme of cooperation among the nations of the world. We heard more than once that it was the wish of the President of the United States that the conference should succeed in its work in working out a basis of agreement in regard to setting up a clearing-house for the currencies of the world and also for the setting up of a bank which would help rebuild the war-torn world. To hon. members who suggest that in some way this is aimed at the British commonwealth I say, that in its darkest days the British commonwealth had no greater or more valuable friend than Mr. Roosevelt. When it is suggested that he would lend his great position, prestige and power to the drawing up of an agreement concerning this plan with some ulterior motive in view, some imperialistic motive, with the intention of destroying the British commonwealth, I say that suggestion comes with ill grace from anyone on the floor of this Canadian parliament representing a people who were touched to the heart with gratitude when in the darkest days of the war they heard that great president say that his great and powerful nation would not stand idly by and see us overrun and conquered by a foreign nation. I should like it made perfectly clear, in all fairness to the honoured memory of that great leader of mankind, that he could not possibly have had in mind any thought of dominating the rest of the world or of breaking up the British commonwealth when he arranged for this conference and urged those representing him there to reach an agreement.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me remind you that the way of mankind down through the ages has not been easy. It was not easy during the war that is just over. I have spoken to people who have seen what has happened in Europe, and they say the things that happened there are so terrible it is of no use trying to describe them, because the ordinary human mind cannot conceive of these things happening to fellow human beings. During the first great war those who wanted to escape the direct impact of war felt that all they had to do was remain neutral, and the war would not touch them. Well, some of the nations which adopted that policy during the first great war were among those who suffered most terribly in this war. And the people who suffered were the ordin-47696-1973
ary working people of the world. It is they who pay in large measure the price in human suffering and human misery.
To those who oppose this agreement I say that, like any international agreement, it cannot wholly satisfy every nation that adheres to it. The main thing is that mankind should come to international agreements in all phases of activity. If we learn to work together in the conduct of economic affairs, the settling of international disputes, the settling of disputes in regard to the use of raw materials, the setting of fair prices to primary producers the world over, the fixing of fair wages for all the workers of the world, the controlling of cartels and combines, and in regard to all the other things that require international action; if we achieve real success in dealing with them, we are well on the way to enduring peace. I suggest that it would be a most retrograde step, when forty-four nations have agreed on these proposals, for Canada, which depends perhaps more than any other country in the world on international trade, to be the one country questioning the motives of the power which originated this plan and which is making the greatest contribution to its success. I say that we owe it to the past and to the future to see that this step is taken, and to see that it is not the last step toward1 international cooperation in all fields of human endeavour. We must press forward along the way to ultimate world peace in all realms of human activity.
Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River):	Mr. Speaker, perhaps I would not have spoken on this matter but for some things that were interjected into the debate this afternoon and particularly this evening, which I think require that I take a few minutes of the time of the house to discuss. I am sorry that the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) is not in his seat at the moment, because I have someething to say to him in particular. In the course of his brief remarks he made the statement that he for one would support giving up a great deal of our Canadian sovereignty in order to obtain peace and prosperity. The difference between the hon. gentleman and myself and this group-and, thank heaven, a good many other in this house-is that we value freedom along with peace and prosperity, and we shall always value freedom. I can quite well understand that the objective of the hon. member may be peaceful prosperity. So is that our objective; but I say to him, and I think it ought to be quite obvious to all hon. members, that men can never be satisfied and happy if they have to give up their right to choose, which is the most sacred right they have and the one they value most,
Bretton Woods Agreements

in order to obtain peace and security. I wish to point out to hon. members that an inmate of any well-run gaol in this country has the four freedoms and has them in abundance. No one can deny that a man in any well-run gaol or institution in this country has freedom of speech. He can talk all day and all night if he wants to, and nobody denies him.


An hon. MEMBER:: It depends on how
loud he talks.


Mr. LOW:: They talk pretty loudly too. No inmate in a well-run gaol in this country is denied freedom from want. He has all the food and shelter required to keep him healthy and strong.


Mr. WHITMAN:: How do you know?


Solon Earl Low: I have investigated a good many of them, without being an inmate. Furthermore, nobody can deny that they have freedom from fear. They have armed guards during the day to keep their enemies away- that is something which we do not have. They are behind walls of steel and concrete at night to keep their enemies away-and that is something we do not have. They have freedom of worship. In a well-run gaol the authorities will supply assistance by way of priest or rabbi or minister of the gospel to any man to help him to worship in his own way without molestation. But there is one thing which men in these well-run gaols do not have, and that is freedom of choice whether they will stay inside the gaol or go outside; and that is the reason why so many take their lives in their hands to break gaol and get out. They want that freedom; and all the other freedoms and security they have inside the gaol mean nothing to them without freedom of choice-real freedom. I for one will not give up my freedom, without tremendous struggle, for any security.
An hon. MEMBER. Hear, hear.


Solon Earl Low: I want the hon. member to
know, too, that there are a good many in this house who feel the same way. All that surrender of sovereignty he talks about on an international scale can easily become surrender of sovereignty on a personal scale. We stand for the greatest possible amount of individual freedom along with security and peace.
One other thing, Mr. Speaker, referring to experts. We have not made light of the experts, but we have pointed out that experts have differed greatly in opinion about Bretton Woods. They have differed so radically that it arouses in thinking men suspicion and a determination to go into this thing and find out what it is really made of. If there were
FMr. Low.]
a preponderance of acceptance on the part of the experts I would not be questioning it, but we can quote as many experts as can be cited by hon. members opposite. Just as many experts as those who hold that Bretton Woods would be a good thing for us, will be found to say that it will damage us and will be a detriment to the recovery of the world after the war. It is because of that fact that we question the finality of this expert opinion. We can agree that it is necessary to have expert opinion and we are glad to have it. But it is the responsibility of members of this house to find out for themselves. Experts can be wrong, and they have been wrong. I point out to my hon. friend what Winston Churchill confessed about what "experts" deluded him into doing in 1925. He stood up like a man and told us that he had expected peace and happiness and security following the return to the gold standard in 1925, but that these expectations were delusions, and that prosperity could not return under that rigid system of tying money to gold.
So much for experts. I turn for just a minute to the speech of the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker), who stated that he was sure Lord Keynes would not have had agreed to something which would harm his own country. Well, it must be obvious to anybody that he made the very best deal he could and he broke his health in the three months that he was trying to make it. He was there with his cap in his hand, and he could not afford to take any chances in the success of his mission. There is no doubt about that.


Percy Ellis Wright: Does the hon. member think that England ever goes to anybody with her cap in her hand?


Solon Earl Low: Yes; she has had to do so now.


Percy Ellis Wright: Crazy!


Walter Adam Tucker: I did not hear what the hon. member said.


Percy Ellis Wright: I asked the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) if he thought that England ever had to go to anybody with her cap in her hand.


Walter Adam Tucker: I do not think so.


Percy Ellis Wright: I do not think so either.


Solon Earl Low: I will give you the chance to find that out in just a moment. The true test would be this: why did not the United States of America advance the three billion-odd dollars to the United Kingdom without forcing them to accept Bretton Woods?

_______________Bretton Woods Agreements


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not think they forced them.


John Horne Blackmore: It was in the press yesterday.


Solon Earl Low: All the press reports emanating from England since last night intimate that that was a necessary condition of the granting of the loan. That being the case, Mr. Speaker, I say to you that it would have been a much better support for the argument of the hon. member for Rosthem had he been able to say, when the United Kingdom came over and presented their case and the whole matter was investigated, that the United States was willing to grant those advances without the necessity of agreeing to Bretton Woods.
The hon. member for Rosthern also quoted the case of New Zealand. I should like to make it abundantly clear that here was another country coming cap in hand, another country, which had been accustomed for many years to go to England and there getting down on her knees for loans to keep her solvent in an economy which had been wasted on foolish experiments; an economy with the highest per capita debt in the whole world, and with her finances shattered. Certainly she came with her cap in her hand. She was in exactly the same position as was Great Britain.


Walter Adam Tucker: If my hon. friend will listen, I may say a word on that.


Solon Earl Low: I will give the hon. member a chance when I get through. He can make his answer at a later time, but I should like to continue and finish this line of thought which I am following.
The hon. member observed that Walter Nash would not have accepted a condition which would be detrimental to his own country. Well, what better chance had Walter Nash to get to understand the full implications of Bretton Woods than had some of the other experts of the world? For twenty-one lays they met at Bretton Woods, as I recall it, from July 1 to July 22, 1944. The hon. member said that he saw Lord Keynes and Walter Nash and some others in action. That is fine. But Professor Paul Einzig, with plenty of opportunity to study this whole thing, makes a statement like this:
And the text of the measures with the aid of which sterling is proposed to be wedded to gold has been made so obscure and complicated that even the expert with the specialized studies of a lifetime behind him has to read it many times before fully grasping its true meaning.
If Paul Einzig, with all his experience and training and understanding behind him, had
to read it many times before understanding the full implications, what chance had Walter Nash to understand it in twenty-one days?


An hon. MEMBER:: Or Walter Tucker.


Solon Earl Low: Or Walter Tucker either.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Solon Earl Low: The hon. member for Rosthern -excuse me.
This measure requires the most careful study, because the results may be most disastrous, first to the debtor nations, and then ultimately to our own and other creditor nations. The very fact that authorities differ so widely not only in their interpretations of Bretton Woods but also in their conception of the whole thing, that some say it is related to the gold standard and others that it is not so related, that one group says it will solve our problems or resolve some of our national and international difficulties, and another group says it will not, but that it will aggravate them, should give us ample reason for pause. It ought to make us determined not to rush headlong into an agreement like Bretton Woods, without ample opportunity for full investigation and debate. There have been a good many things introduced into this house this session of far less importance than Bretton Woods, that have occupied far more time than it appears this will have, and it is high time that we changed that order of things and got down to important matters and gave them their proper place in the business of this house: That is why I think a vote of censure ought to be passed on this government for having failed to bring in this measure earlier and for having held it up until the dying days of this session and then trying to rush it through the house. That is not a thing they can be proud of.
There are literally hundreds of questions about Bretton Woodls that require full answers before anybody could possibly be in position to judge whether it is a good thing or not. I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver East that this measure should eventually go to the banking and commerce committee for full investigation. We would then have a chance to call in witnesses, examine them, get their views and straighten it out. I am prepared to go to the committee with my mind open. When I have heard what all the witnesses and members have to say I shall then be in position to judge whether it is a good thing or not. But to get those answers I say will take time, and plenty of time.
Some people, including the hon. member for Grey North (Mr. Case) who spoke this afternoon, seem quite willing to commit Canada
Bretton Woods Agreements

to Bretton. Woods on the strength of the agreement of the experts from forty-four nations who met at Bretton Woods. I have already pointed) out that experts can be wrong. Many times in the past they have been wrong, and we are reaping to-day the results of the great mistakes that the so-called experts have made.
They can very well be wrong in this instance, more particularly because in approaching this question of opening world trade on a multilateral basis so that every nation may have access to a fair share of it, they have not approached the matter in any new sense at all. They have made a slight modification of the old approaches. It looks to me as though they have attempted to- put crutches under the tottering old economic system of scarcity. Any time that they attempt the same old approach we can expect the same old results. That is why I question very much the basis of this whole agreement.
It seems to me that the system which they are trying to bolster up by introducing this Bretton Woods arrangement has failed us so dismally in the past that the people of the world generally are seeking honestly for a new approach that is based on the real Christian principle, "thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." That is the only principle that we can ever depend upon to get us out of our difficulties.
The Minister of Finance ought to be anxious, and I pay him the compliment of thinking he is anxious, to give the members of this house full andl complete answers to the many questions that arise in our minds about Bretton Woods so that all of us who are the representatives of the people can feel reasonably sure that whatever we do in the end about Bretton Woods will be the- right thing, not only for Canada but also for the rest of the world. It i9 our responsibility to get the- answers to those questions. That is why we should) have had the resolution and the bill before us weeks ago. However, it is here now, and I hope that no one will attempt to discourage the fullest and freest possible discussion on the measure.
If the minister -can prove clearly in his re-outtals that Bretton Woods will assure to every nation access to a fair share of the world's trade; if he can show at the same time that Bretton Woods will facilitate payment by debtor nations for their imports without piling up against them burdens of unpayable debt and interest; if he can prove that Bretton Woods will contribute to the maintenance of world' peace and of peaceful prosperity, then I say to him that I will give him every support of which I am capable to get the measure through this house at the earliest possible time.

We in the house should examine Bretton Woods and all the arguments and the agreements in connection with it mainly from the point of view of the debtor nations, whose economic welfare these agreements are designed to promote in the first place. We should not worry ourselves too much about creditor nations and their welfare at this time. The creditor nations can be expected to get along quite well even if neither the international monetary fund nor the international bank for reconstruction and development ever come into being at all.
I was reminded when the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Ashby) was speaking of another part of the same article from which he quoted. He was quoting R. P. Schwarz who had written an article which appeared in the Fortnightly Review of October, 1944. I should like to take a moment or two to point out what I think is something of great importance to the house in connection with the economic preponderance of the United States in this world. I think the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) mentioned that matter in his speech yesterday. Just as a passing reference I should like to mention it, now that the matter has been raised. Mr. Schwarz stated:
Do the Bretton Woods agreements reduce the economic preponderance of the U.S.A. to hearable proportions by ending excessive economic inequalities between nations which, in the long run, must of necessity produce adverse political reactions?
To answer this question, it becomes necessary to examine somewhat more closely the special economic position of the U.S.A. For, clearly, the dominant role it has acquired in the world economy since the first world war makes it the key factor in all future developments. All relevant facts and figures for that purpose will be found in the "United -States in the World Economy," a publication issued by the bureau of foreign and domestic commerce of the United States department of commerce.
That was printed and published in 1943 by the United States government printing office in Washington. Here are some of the facts given in -that document:
These figures show that in 1929 the U.S.A. accounted for 15-6 per cent of world exports, the highest percentage of -all countries; for 12-2 per cent of world imoorts (second place, after the United Kingdom); that during 1925-29, -the net value of its industrial production represented 46 per cent of the total value of -all countries included in a comprehensive league of nations index; that -its national income, in 1929, equalled that of twenty-three other countries combined (including the United Kingdom, France and Germany); that between 1919 and 1929. the United States investment market supplied 7,500 million dollars' worth of loans to foreign countries-more than the total of foreign loans floated in all other lending companies combined; that, finally, -the United States gold

Private Bills-Ruling
reserves expressed in present fineness rose from about 3,400 million dollars in 1919 to about 18,000 million dollars in 1939 (and have since risen further by another ten per cent).


John Ritchie MacNicol: They have risen, higher than that.


Solon Earl Low: Perhaps, but at least ten per cent.


John Ritchie MacNicol: To 23,000 million dollars.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Schwarz concludes by
saying:
This dominant position was achieved in the short period of fifteen years after the outbreak of the great war.
On motion of Mr. Low the debate was adjourned.



PRIVATE BILLS


James Horace King: I wish to give my decision on the point of order raised this evening. I have considered the point of order raised by the Minister of Veterans Affairs with regard to the reading en bloc of the divorce bills reported to-night from the committee of the whole. I do not deny the minister the right to raise a point of order at the stage of the proceedings at which he raised it, but his point was that under our practice the question for third reading should have been put separately in each of these bills.
After mature consideration I have come to the conclusion that an objection to the question cannot be raised after the members have been called for a division; the objection should have been raised before that. It may be noted that the motion is that these bills be now read a third time. An affirmative vote will mean that they are read now. On the other hand, a negative vote would leave it open to any member to move that the third reading of one or more of these bills take place at a later date. Of course, such a procedure is seldom resorted to; nevertheless it is sound practice as shown in paragraph 756 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, second edition, which is a citation from Bourinot, pages 509-510, and reads as follows:
When the motion that the bill be now read a second time is negatived, the bill disappears from the order paper, but it is competent for a member immediately to move without notice: "That the said bill be read a second time on-next." On this motion being agreed to, the bill takes its place on the orders. The same practice obtains with respect to the bill, at any previous or succeeding stage.
So I will ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to call in the members.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On another point of order, Mr. Speaker, leading the house for the time being I gave a guarantee to the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) previously this evening that when Your Honour had come to a decision, due and proper notice would be given to the opposition of when this matter would be resumed.


James Arthur Ross: In view of what the minister has just said, it would be most unusual to take a vote now, because a great many members have left on the understanding that a vote would not be taken to-night.


Mr. SENN:: I understand that the minister did give that undertaking, which I think should be observed.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, with all respect I must insist on the word I gave to the opposition being observed.


John Horne Blackmore: Would the minister speak a little louder so that we can hear him?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My point is this.
During the debate on the point of order I gave a personal guarantee to the hon. member for Yale, who was then leading His Majesty's loyal opposition, that there would not be a final disposition of this matter until due and proper notice had been given to the other parties in the house after His Honour had had time to consider his decision. I regard that undertaking as an obligation of honour which should be observed.


George Russell Boucher: Mr. Speaker, what the minister stated is quite right, but I think he voluntarily gave that undertaking. I do not think it was at the request of any member of the house.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes; the question had been asked me.


George Russell Boucher: Was it asked that the minister give that undertaking?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Speaker, on a question of order, is it not correct to say that these bills should have been taken individually
instead of holus-bolus?


James Horace King: I put the motion before the house that these bills be now read a third time. Objections were raised and some hon. members asked for a division, so I called in the members. That was the only thing the Speaker could do after five or more members had risen in their places.
As I have stated in my decision, the hon. minister raised a point of order. I have studied it and have arrived at the conclusion that I
Private Bills-Ruling

have only one thing to do, and that is to proceed with what I had already decided before the point of order was raised by the minister, namely, to call in the members. I think it is my duty now to call in the members, but since the house is master of its proceedings, if it is the unanimous desire of the house not to proceed with the vote to-night but at a later stage, the Speaker being the voice of the house I shall do what the house desires me to do. But I repeat that unless I have unanimous consent not to proceed with the vote to-night it is my duty to call in the members to vote.


Mark Cecil Senn: The hour for private bills has long since expired, Mr. Speaker.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I clear up that point? There is no such thing now as a private bills hour as the rule was suspended for the session.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to pass any opinion on whether Your Honour should or should not call in the members and proceed with the vote, but I recollect very well that the minister told the hon. member for Yale, who was then leading the opposition, that before a vote was taken, some time would intervene for notice to be given before the vote was called.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Would it meet the convenience of hon. members if we disposed of this matter first thing to-morrow at eleven o'clock?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am entirely in the hands of the house.


James Horace King: If I have not unanimous consent, I must proceed with the vote.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Proceed.


James Horace King: Is it the unanimous desire of the house that the vote be postponed until e-morrow?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


James Horace King: Call in the members.


Mr. GARIEPY:: Mr. Speaker, as a motion to adjourn is always in order, I move that we adjourn.


James Horace King: No member can put that motion to the house. The question before the house is a motion moved by Mr. Maybank, seconded by Mr. Croll, that bill No. 116; bill No. 133; bills Nos. 163 to 171 inclusive; bills Nos. 179 to 186 inclusive; bills Nos. 188 to 216 inclusive; and bills 219 to 230 inclusive, be now read the third time.


John Thomas Hackett: I have an understanding
with the Minister	of National Defence (Mr. Abbott). Had I voted, I would have voted	
against the third reading.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I	was paired with the hon.
member for Outremont (Mr. Rinfret). Had	
I voted, I would	have voted against the
motion. Mr. BOUCHER;	: I was paired with the
hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Robinson).	
I do not know how he would have voted,	
but had I voted, I would have voted for the	
motion.

________________Bretton Woods Agreements


William Alexander McMaster: I was paired with the Solicitor General (Mr. Jean). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: I was paired with the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green). Had I voted, for once I would have voted with the opposition.
Bills read the third time and passed.
It being five minutes after eleven o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Saturday, December 8, 1945.