1940-05-21

EUROPEAN WAR


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Before the house enters upon the business of this afternoon I feel I should acquaint hon. members with the situation as it is in Europe at the present time in so far as the government has information that may be regarded as official and wholly authentic.
The military situation in France has become more serious. The Germans, after breaking through the relatively lightly fortified line facing the Belgian border, were held on the south and east. They have, however, after a temporary slowing up, succeeded in making rapid headway toward the west and northwest, particularly down the valley of the Somme. Arras and Amiens are reported by the French authorities to have fallen. The enemy are striving to reach the channel ports and to cut off the Anglo-French forces in Belgium. The enemy have relied upon rapid advance by huge tanks and armoured cars working in close cooperation with diving bombers and followed by infantry.

d6
War-Participation 0} Canada

It has not been easy for the allied forces to realign their forces and to devise new tactics to meet the unexpectedly rapid advance, but they are straining every effort. The British and French forces have done brave and effective work in attacking enemy bases and lines of communication. The morale of the French armies is unbroken, and the appointment of Marshal Petain and Marshal Wey-gand to the supreme direction has given new confidence. M. Reynaud, in his frank and courageous address to-day, declares, " These two great peoples, two great empires, cannot be defeated. France cannot die." This is the true voice of France. It is equally the voice of Britain and of the entire British commonwealth of nations.
The situation as it apparently exists at the front is changing from hour to hour, aye even from minute to minute. In this, probably one of the darkest hours in the history of our country and empire, we can, however, all take some consolation by reminding ourselves of the past. The Germans were at the gates of Amiens, and the British army separated from the French army, in March, 1918. The hour was grave indeed, yet no one thought of giving up the struggle. Then, thanks to the resiliency and buoyancy of the French character and temperament and the dogged determination and persistence of the British, the line was reformed, reestablished and held, and finally the victory was that of the allied powers.
That is all the information I am in a position to give the house at the moment.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: I desire to thank the Prime Minister. I hope he will continue this practice of letting the house and the country know the worst or the best.



INQUIRY AS TO STATEMENT BY DEFENCE MINISTER

[Stage Direction]
on Canada's participation
Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Yale):: May I rise on a question of order to ask the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Rogers) if it is his intention to make a statement on Canada's participation in the war, and if he will do so at the resolution stage of the war appropriation measure so that in subsequent stages of the discussion we may be the better informed?
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of National Defence): I may say to my hon. friend that it had been my intention to speak while the resolution standing in the name of my colleague the Minister of Finance was under discussion, and I shall be very glad indeed to do so.



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL


Richard Burpee Hanson: If I am in order I should like to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) if he will be good enough to clarify what he had in mind yesterday when he was referring to the proposal which he then made that after a general debate on the resolution to provide the moneys required to support Canada's war effort the appropriation bill would be referred to a committee or committees of the house. If the Prime Minister will refer to page 49 of yesterday's Hansard he will see the passages to which I have reference. Perhaps in order to clarify my question I might take the time to read them:
There should be a general debate on the resolution. We can then refer the appropriation bill to a committee or committees of the House of Commons in order that there may be disclosed to the members of those committees information which would not probably be in the public interest to place on the pages of Hansard or to broadcast in debate to the House of Commons.
Further on he made this observation:
I should like to emphasize that the setting up of these committees will not preclude in any way any member from debating any subject to which he may desire to call the attention of the house and the country, and I give my assurance to hon. members that the constitution of such committees will not be used as a pretext for concealing any information which it is in the public interest to disclose.
I have studied those two statements very carefully and .they appear to me to be inconsistent. Reading the first statement by itself without reference to the second it would appear that the intention is to refer the appropriation bill to a select committee of the house, on which we shall be represented, and that there will then be disclosed information which the government may declare that it is not in the public interest to place on Hansard or debate in the house. That of course, if agreed to, and if we participate, would tie our hands and preclude us forever from using information so disclosed, whether or not we agreed with respect to the principle of public interest. On the other hand the second statement emphasizes the view that the setting up of a special committee or committees will not in any way preclude any hon. member, including I assume any member of the committee or committees, from debating any subject to which he may desire to call the attention of the house and the country.
If the information, or some of the information, given to this committee, is of such a character that it would not be in the public

War Appropriation-Mr. Mackenzie King
interest to disclose it, how is it possible that any hon. member can, if he so desires, use in debate the information so disclosed? The two suggestions seem to be incompatible and inconsistent, and before we are able to acquiesce and agree to act or cooperate I think the Prime Minister should clarify the situation. I invite him to do so; if he does not, we shall be obliged to review the situation further before reaching a decision one way or the other.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) that I am obliged to him for bringing immediately to my attention any matter concerning which there may be the slightest doubt in his mind as to the intention of the government. With respect to the appropriation bill, which is the one that relates to the war expenditure, the procedure is in the first instance the presentation of a resolution; the bill being a money bill has to be preceded by a resolution which is approved by this house. The resolution is debatable in- much the same manner as the bill itself. The resolution with the permission of the house was introduced yesterday and is now on the order paper. On the motion to go into committee on the resolution, general debate will take place. In the debate hon. members are free to make whatever representations they may wish with respect to its subject matter. If the resolution is adopted it will then be referred to the committee of the whole, and while in committee hon. members will be free to question the government on matters respecting Canada's war effort on which they may wish to have information.
Some questions may be asked to which it would not be possible, and others to which it would be unwise to attempt to make an immediate reply on the floor of this house. Whether or not the government would be justified in the nature of the reply it might make will of course be apparent from the nature of the reply itself.
When the committee stage is concluded and the resolution is referred back to Mr. Speaker and is finally passed a bill will then be introduced founded on the resolution. The bill will go through first and second readings, and after the second reading will, if the procedure proposed is followed, be referred to a special committee. The committee thought of is a committee which will be composed of hon. members from both sides of the house. It will have the right and the power to call for the production of papers and documents and to ask members of the public service, including
the heads of all three branches of the Department of National Defence, to appear before them. With respect to the appropriations that are being considered, such questions may be asked direct of the responsible heads of the defence services as hon. members may deem advisable. Obviously some questions will be asked calling for information which it might not be in the public interest or more particularly in the interest of the allied powers to have made public on the floor of this house or in any other way. Such information might, however, be imparted in confidence to members of a committee where it could not be given publicly. In saying this I hope my hon. friend and hon. members of the house will not think that the government would be trying in any way to withhold information which hon. members might wish to have and to which they are rightly entitled. Such information as it would be necessary to impart in confidence would be in the nature of military secrets and information that it would not be advisable to have given in a manner which might result in its reaching and assisting the enemy.
The government has left open for consideration the question whether it would be advisable to have one committee dealing with defence matters generally or committees to deal separately with the different branches of the service; for example, one committee to deal with matters relating to the army and another with the navy, and yet another with the air force.
I think I mentioned yesterday that it would be advisable that great care should be taken in the selection of the personnel of the committee or committees to which I refer. By that I mean that members of the different parties would be asked to select those of their number in whom they had the greatest confidence, having regard to the extreme importance of the matters which would be disclosed to members of the committee. That is not a reflection upon any hon. member of the house; rather it is a caution which it is important should be expressed by the government, which of course becomes responsible for all information that may be disclosed. I would say, for example, that any hon. member who had been a minister of the crown would naturally be first choice. A next selection might be from among members who have had wide parliamentary experience or special knowledge of the branch of the service to which the committee would be related, the purpose being to have on each committee as much experience and wisdom as possible in safeguarding matters of great public importance whether such experience and wisdom were gained from long association with
68	COMMONS
Supply-Appointment oj Committee
public affairs inside parliament or in other ways from outside, on the part of those who may be duly elected to parliament.
I do not know whether I have answered my hon. friend's question in full. My hon. friend did raise a question about members being free subsequently to bring up any subject for discussion. The thought was that many of the questions which might be mentioned in the committee of the whole on the resolution would be of such a character that hon. members would have to be informed at once, [DOT]"This is a confidential matter which cannot be disclosed on the floor of the house." It would be expected that material presented in that light would be further discussed in committee with members of the staff of the Department of National Defence and would receive the confidence that should be given following such a statement. It is not the desire in any way to prevent hon. members from knowing all that can possibly be known; it is simply a desire to follow the practice which has been followed for many years at Westminster, of taking the house as fully as possible into the confidence of the government in connection with confidential matters, but doing so in a manner which will protect the public interest. If I have not answered my hon. friend with sufficient clarity, and he wishes to speak to the matter further, perhaps he will do so. I may add that I shall, as mentioned yesterday, be only too happy to confer with my hon. friend and with the leaders of other groups in the house concerning the proposal before we move to have the appropriation bill referred to any committee.


Richard Burpee Hanson: With that understanding I am content.



APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE

William Lyon Mackenzie King: According to the rules of
[DOT]the house the first business to be taken up immediately after the motion regarding the address in reply to the speech from the throne has been agreed to is the constitution of the committees of supply and ways and means. Hon. members will find that standing order 57, which relates to that subject, is as follows:
The house will appoint the committees of supply and ways and means at the commencement of every session, so soon as an^ address has been agreed to, in answer to his excellency's speech.
These are the committees of the whole house. The committee of supply controls the public expenditure and the committee of ways
lMr. Mackenzie King.]
and means provides the public income raised by means of taxation. In accordance with the standing order I move:
That this house will, at its next sitting, resolve itself into a committee to consider of a supply to be granted to his majesty.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have no objection at all to this procedure, but I should like to point out to the Prime Minister that as yet we have not received the estimates.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No; the estimates cannot be before the committee of supply until the committee itself has been constituted, and at the moment I am simply constituting the committee. This is a formal routine procedure which is necessary at the beginning of the session. The estimates will be presented in due course. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ralston) will be able to inform the house, possibly tomorrow, when he expects to have the estimates brought down.
With regard to war expenditures I may repeat to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) that it is of course intended to follow the procedure which has been followed in previous parliaments at a time of war. Those expenditures will be dealt with in the appropriation bill and will not form part of the estimates.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I thank
the right hon. gentleman for that statement. I am not very familiar with this procedure.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That this house will, at its next sitting, resolve itself into a committee to consider of the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to his majesty.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: Now may I draw the attention of hon. members to standing order 56, which reads:
(1) A chairman of committees of the house, who shall also be deputy speaker of the house, shall be elected at the commencement of every parliament, as soon as an address ^has been agreed on in answer to his excellency's speech; and the member so elected shall, if in his place

The Deputy Speaker
in the house, take the chair of all committees of the whole, including the committees of supply and ways and means, in accordance with the rules and usages which regulate the duties of a similar officer, generally designated the chairman of the committees of ways and means, in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
(2)	The member elected to serve as deputy speaker and chairman of committees shall be required to possess the full and practical knowledge of the language which is not that of the Speaker for the time being.
(3)	The member so elected deputy speaker and chairman of committees shall continue to act in that capacity until the end of the parliament for which he is elected. . . .
From this hon. members will see how important is the position of deputy speaker, or chairman of committees of the house. It is a very honourable position, requiring attainments and qualities on the part of him who may occupy the post very similar to those required to be possessed by the Speaker of the House of Commons. Indeed, the deputy speaker, as hon. members will have noted from the standing order, takes the chair at many times during the course of a session and may be called upon to substitute for the Speaker whenever the Speaker may wish to have someone take his place. It is obviously desirable that in selecting the one to fill this important office the house should make the best possible choice. The name I am about to propose is that of a gentleman whose experience in parliamentary affairs has been considerable. It is that of a gentleman whose known ability to fill any position of the kind is so familiar to hon. members who have been with him in this house in former years that I have not the least doubt that his nomination will meet with ready acceptance on the part of all.
The hon. member to whom I allude is Lieutenant-Colonel Thomas Vien, the hon. member for Outremont.
Lieutenant-Colonel Vien has had a long association with parliament. If I recollect correctly, he was first elected to the House of Commons in 1917. He dropped out of parliament for a while, during six years of which time he held the position of deputy chief commissioner of the board of railway commissioners. In his position on that board he was afforded wide experience in dealing with questions which required a judicial temperament and impartial decision. He resumed the practice of law for a short time before being again returned to this House of Commons. Lieutenant-Colonel Vien has been a member of the Commons for, in all, about thirteen years. In that period of time he frequently was asked to preside as chairman of committees and in the absence of His
Honour the Speaker and the deputy speaker to occupy the Speaker's chair. As a presiding officer, in a temporary capacity and as chairman of standing committees of the house, he earned a high reputation for fairness and a judicial demeanour. We all know in what measure he possesses those qualities of courtesy which are a traditional characteristic of gentlemen of his race. His facility in both of the official languages of the house is a most valuable personal and public asset.
I mention these qualities in order that hon. members on all sides of the house may know in advance why I believe that, if chosen as Deputy Speaker, not only will Mr. Vien do great credit to the position and honour to himself, but as I believe you, sir, as Speaker are doing at the present time, will reflect honour upon the House of Commons itself.
I move, therefore:
That Thomas Vien, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Outremont, be appointed chairman of committees of the whole house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That on and after Wednesday the 22nd May, 1940, to the end of the present session, government notices of motions and government orders shall have precedence at every sitting over all other business except introduction of bills, questions by members and notices of motions for the production of papers.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I do not rise to oppose the motion, but in view of the fact that this is a war session I believe all parties in the house should act as one. In other words it should be our sole purpose to win the war; that should be our main and only business. While there are many domestic questions, in my view they should wait until the war has been won. I do not intend to oppose the motion, but it is my intention to assert the rights of a free parliament and a private member. I do that because under our constitution the private member is the connecting link between the government of the day and the electorate, and when he ceases to function, parliamentary government is at an end.
I hope the motion before us, if adopted, will not prevent criticism. I am not referring to criticism offered merely for the sake of criticizing. All hon. members want to see the government get on with its war work, but
70	COMMONS
Precedence for Government Business
I trust that constructive criticism, or that which is based upon fact, will not be prevented.
Just a year ago we enjoyed the visit of the king and queen, representatives of monarchy. The visit showed the tremendous popularity of the monarchy and the decay and decline of the House of Commons because of the usurpation of the rights and functions of parliament by the executive. In my opinion we should assert the right to free parliaments, free assembly, the freedom of the press and freedom of speech. These conditions should continue, so long as they do not interfere with the prosecution of the war.
We need not be ashamed of the record of private members in the House of Commons. In the last twenty years, while I have been a member of the house, the initiative for forward action has come in a large degree from private members. They have taken the initiative with respect to our national coal supply, rearmament, supporting the war and Great Britain. The war has come so close to us that no doubt the government wants to get along with its programme, and I want, as does the country, action. On the other hand I do not want parliament to become a paradise of inaction, coma and inertia.
The first order under "Notices of Motions" stands in my name, and relates to the advisability of adopting measures for the better protection of soldiers serving in the expeditionary force, with particular reference to the establishment of a system of life insurance for all soldiers. This is not a long motion, and its discussion would not take more than ten minutes. We have insurance on bonds, securities and stocks; why not have it on the men who are overseas fighting our battles for us? The United States had a similar insurance scheme for all its soldiers at the time of the last great war. So had the city of Toronto.
It will be understood of course that I am not now discussing the resolution. Paragraph (b) deals with a transportation allowance for soldiers in Canada. We know the government pays for automobiles for some of its military district officers, and I believe our soldiers are entitled to the consideration I propose. Paragraph (c) of the resolution has to do with the guarding of public property. The last parliament placed responsibility on the municipalities, and the suggestion is that it should be that of the federal authorities.
While I am not opposing the motion I hope that in passing it we will not be turning the House of Commons, this free parliament, into a body of yes-men and nodders. We ought to use great care, because it is yes-men and

nodders who caused this war and the surrender to tyranny of Germany and Italy. We must be careful not to interfere with the rights and privileges of members of parliament who are sent here. Burke has said of a private member that his wisdom, his knowledge, his mature judgment he does not derive from parliament or the law of the land. It is a trust from Providence, and for such he will later be held accountable.
We should be extremely careful in this new parliament, because the last one was criticized for its lack of action. There are eighty-five new members with us, and we ought to use great care when we are considering the taking away of their rights and privileges and functions, which they may not realize are being taken from them. First I have to consider the rule of anticipation, a rule which, when a matter has by a reference been referred to a committee, prevents one from dealing with a problem until the report of the committee is before the house. I would point out, however, that twenty or thirty important resolutions stand in the names of private members, and that those resolutions in the past have given governments useful ideas. The government rejected for nearly ten years my motion for a national fuel policy, but at the end of that time on the eve of an election they have not been slow to accept and adopt the suggestion. They have not hesitated to say then, "We did this" or "We did that."
In my view the House of Commons should sit longer hours and in the mornings and, at least in the first week or two there should be an hour for the discussion of private members' resolutions. If that opportunity is not given, I hope the government will answer through process of ordinary question and answer, and that attached to answers will be an indication of policies proposed in regard to these private members' proposals.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word on this motion on behalf of the group with which I am associated. We wish to do everything possible to facilitate the business of the house. We believe that in the crisis which we now face the government should have the right of way with its business, but we want it to be clearly understood that we do not think that this should be allowed to become a precedent at any time. We would suggest that at a later date, when the urgent business has been transacted, some of these resolutions might be allowed to come before the house and be given consideration.
It is now almost a year since parliament met in regular session. During that time we have had a general election, and those of us who

Precedence for Government Business
are in our seats this afternoon have just come from the electorate. There are certain problems that we have been asked to bring before the House of Commons by way of resolution. While we are not objecting to the government asking us to forgo this right because of the circumstances that exist, we would ask the government to provide ways and means later on in the session, when perhaps the regular business slackens-those of us who have been in the house know that at times, for very good reasons, government business is not ready for the house-for the consideration of these private members' resolutions. Perhaps an alteration in the rules would make possible the consideration of some of these resolutions.
On behalf of the group with which I am associated I want to reiterate that we wish to do all we can to facilitate the business of the house, but we also want to maintain the right of a private member to discuss the matters which the electors have requested should be brought forward by member's resolution.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to
say a word on this motion, although hon. members have in some respects anticipated what I had intended to say; perhaps I was not sufficiently alert. I appreciate the desire of the government to get on with the business of the country at this time, especially after what we have heard to-day and what we have been hearing for the last two or three days from the front. I do not think there is any disposition on the part of anyone to retard the business of the session for the sake of discussing, shall I say, what are more or less academic questions.
I have never had a great deal of enthusiasm for the discussion of private members' notices of motions. In the years that I was in the house in days gone by I never had the temerity to introduce one myself. I always thought that it was more or less a waste of time. Nevertheless I suppose ten per cent of the resolutions which have been put on the order paper during the last ten, fifteen or twenty years have served a useful purpose. Of that ten per cent, probably half have resulted in action in one form or another. I had hoped that the government would see its way clear to giving private members at least to-morrow afternoon. I still hope that the government will consider that. It would be a compromise and. it would dispel any impression there might be in the minds of hon. gentlemen that they are being deprived of their rights and prerogatives. I just throw that out as a suggestion; I am not going to move an amendment to the motion.
There is one other thing I should like to point out. I hope this will not be considered as a precedent for future sessions. Private members have substantial rights of debate in this house and if they are taken away at this session, perhaps some future government, not next year but later, will say, "What is the use? We need this time; here is a precedent, let us follow it." I am not hopeful that the suggestion put forward by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat will have any effect on the government. As a matter of fact, as time goes on I believe there will be less and less opportunity for the discussion of private members' resolutions. If this motion is carried we -may take it as an accepted fact that it is the end of private members' motions and resolutions for this session. I commend to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the government the suggestion I have made, that private members should be given to-morrow afternoon.


Mr. RALPH MAYBANK (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to express in as few words as possible my opposition to the proposal of the leader of the -opposition (Mr. Hanson), that we postpone the adoption of this motion, or at any rate not make it effective for a day or so. There is a strong feeling in the country that -this government is too complacent, that it is not ready to go to work and that it has not been doing any work. Now the government proposes to put everything else aside in order to try to push forward its own plans. In the light of that, no opposition of any kind should be presented to the motion. It should not be delayed until to-morrow afternoon; it should not be delayed one minute. So far as its being a precedent is concerned, so far as taking away the rights of private members is concerned, where the devil would your private members' rights be if we lost the war?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Ralph Maybank: All -right; I will take back that- word and speak less feelingly; hon. members will understand it. I share very largely -the view that there is too much complacency on the part of the government, and this in spite of what I heard yesterday. I am not satisfied, and I want that to be known now. I would not interfere for one minute in any way with the prosecution of -the -programme of this government. Rather I want to see it put forward and got under way.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, my group is just as anxious as any grou-p in the house that the business of the government should go forward, but the expedition with which this war is carried for-
72	COMMONS
Precedence jor Government Business
ward does not depend altogether upon the speed with which we get through with this session of parliament. The government had plenty of opportunity to show its speed before parliament was called, and it will have abundant opportunity to do so after this session is concluded. Notwithstanding the consideration which should be given to this matter, I believe it is of the utmost importance that the individual members from the various parts of this country should have complete freedom to express the sentiments of their communities. I recognize that in this resolution all that is called for is that a committee shall be struck, and that-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


John Horne Blackmore: Then I say what I have said already with greater emphasis. I was out of the chamber temporarily and lost the trend of the discussion. I do not feel well disposed toward limiting the opportunities of private members.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I
may be allowed to say a word, because I did not speak on the motion itself. May I state at once how much I appreciate the attitude of hon. members in all parts of the house with respect to the proposal made by the government and the ready manner in which all have accepted it. I should like to assure hon. members that the government is just as desirous as they are that the rights of private members should be as fully preserved as possible. Were this not a time of war and were this not a war parliament; were it not the fact that at the moment the destiny of the great empire to which we all belong is at stake, I would not hesitate to try to meet my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson), in his suggestion that an exception be made of one afternoon for the discussion of private members' resolutions. However, with the situation what I know it to be, and as I have disclosed it to the house, I am sure that the people of Canada generally would feel that we had not a proper appreciation of our responsibilities in prosecuting Canada's war effort to the utmost, in the most rapid manner possible, if we did not seek every means to give precedence to the government's programme as respects Canada's war effort. For that reason I hope my hon. friend will not feel that I have not sought to meet his wishes. I am positive that it is in the public interest that we should make just as rapid progress as possible with the government's measures with respect to the war and Canada's war effort, and take up as little time as possible with other matters until progress has been made with these more urgent measures.

May I point out that the resolution does not shut out any motion or bill. It simply gives precedence to government measures. Public bills will be introduced as usual and will be given their place on the orders of the day after government business, but they will not be considered after eight o'clock on Tuesdays and Fridays.
In making the motion which I have, we are but following the practice which has been followed at Westminster throughout the period of the war. In relation to the last session at Westminster, Prime Minister Chamberlain, on November 29, 1939, moved:
That during the present session government business do have precedence at every sitting and no public bills other than government bills be introduced.
It will be seen that motion went even further than the motion before the house. It prohibited even the introduction of public bills. As the positions have become parallel, I should like to read to the house what the Prime Minister of Great Britain said, speaking to the motion on November 29:
I told the house yesterday that the government intended to propose to take the whole time of the house with government business to provide for the presentation of government bills only, during the present session.
A little further on he said:
I propose to follow the precedents of the last war. In the sessions of 1914-16, 1916, 1917-18 and 1918 similar action was taken. At that time the then Prime Minister, Mr. Asquith, said that every effort was concentrated upon one purpose, namely, the successful prosecution of the war, and that the time was inappropriate to bring forward controversial legislation on matters of academic interest.
Mr. Chamberlain went on to quote from Mr. Asquith certain words which I should like to re-quote inasmuch as they express the present intention of this administration with respect to the matters to which they refer. Mr. Asquith said:
So long as this order is in force the government will introduce no legislation of a party or a contentious character and they will, indeed, confine their legislative proposals, unless in some exceptional ease, to such measures as may be found necessary to facilitate, financially and otherwise, the successful prosecution of the war.
Prime Minister Chamberlain went on:
The position to-day is the same as it was then. We must confine our efforts to the consideration of those matters which are urgently necessary for the successful prosecution of the war.
I think hon. members will agree that in following the practice which has been followed at Westminster in this time of war, the government is making no mistake. Indeed, were it to attempt to depart from such a

House of Commons-Select Committee
procedure in this all important time of crisis, it would I believe be considered remiss in its duties.
I should like to say one further word in reference to the word "complacency" which with respect to the government's attitude towards the war, has been used in different parts of the house and by a section of the press in different parts of the country, a word of which use was again made this afternoon. I hope that hon. members of the house will seek to appreciate the very difficult position in which the government finds itself with reference to making known to the public from day to day and from week to week much of the information which we should like the people of Canada to have. In the first place when the government did begin to broadcast information with respect to Canada's war effort-it made numerous broadcasts setting forth the work of the government with respect to the winning of the war-we were accused, and accused very widely as I recollect it, especially throughout the recent campaign, of putting forth propaganda. Any description of its war effort was increasingly characterized as an endeavour on the part of the government to popularize itself. That is one ever present danger that it is impossible to avoid in any statements made by the government with respect to Canada's war effort. On the other hand there is the danger, and it is a greater danger still, that in duly publicizing our war effort it is very difficult to give the information that the public generally might wish to have for its own use, without, at the same time, imparting that information in equal measure to the enemy. That is a circumstance of which the government has constantly to take full account.
I really believe that such impression as has been created in the minds of some that the government has been complacent in any particular with regard to its war effort has arisen from the causes I have mentioned. It arose first of all from the fact that during the period of a general election it was inadvisable to introduce into the discussions in a political contest fresh information from day to day with regard to what the government was doing. And since that time such information, for instance, as I gave to the house yesterday was of such >a character that it seemed advisable to withhold it until parliament met in order that, if there was any question with respect to its authenticity or the fairness of its being made public by the administration, that question if raised could be immediately answered from official sources on the floor of parliament itself.
Now that parliament is in session, there will be opportunity for hon. members from day to day to question the ministry with respect to matters concerning which they believe the public desire information. Now that such information will be coming forward from day to day as a result of our parliamentary discussions, I hope that what I believe to be a wholly erroneous impression with respect to complacency wherever it exists will very rapidly disappear. I believe that hon. members who heard what I gave last night, of the government's record must already feel that any criticism of the kind has been wholly unwarranted, and would probably not have been made had the public been able to receive before last night the extent of the information which was given at that time. I mention this only because I feel that at this time of war, when the government is doing its very best on behalf of the people of Canada, it is hardly fair to Canada itself not to give the fairest representation to the public of the government's action, also that when the government is carrying the load it is, the government is entitled to expect as much in the way of legitimate support, as little in the way of non-constructive criticism, as it may be possible to give in the one case, and to avoid in the other.
With respect to the rights of members to get information on matters of interest to their constituents and to themselves, may I say that there is not a subject that I can think of that cannot be discussed frankly and fully on the estimates, or, as regards the defence services, or the appropriation bill. The estimates of the government cover all the public services. They will be presented to parliament, and as they are discussed in the house members will be free to bring up for discussion questions relative to items under consideration. The items as a whole cover,
I believe, every conceivable category that has to do with matters of public interest and concern.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: That a select committee consisting of Messrs.
be appointed to consider with Mr. Speaker the procedure of this house in regard to a more expeditious dispatch of public business and to suggest any changes that may be desirable therein; and also to inquire into the terms and operation of the House of Commons Act,



House oj Commons-Select Committee
the Senate and House of Commons Act and provisions of other acts relating to the internal management of the House of Commons' affairs; and to recommend such amendments thereto as the committee may deem advisable; with power to call for persons, papers and records, to examine witnesses and to report from time to time.
He said: As some hon. members have indicated by what they have already said, it is apparent that this particular resolution bears an immediate relation to the one that has just been passed. The proposal is that a committee of the house should be appointed to consider matters of procedure looking to a more expeditious dispatch of public business and to such changes as may be desirable therein. In other words, while the house has just passed a resolution giving the government the right of way with regard to government business to the fullest extent that could be desired, and to that degree may appear to be depriving hon. members in part of some of their rights, the proposal is that that whole situation will be reviewed by a committee of the house composed of members of the different parties, who will be free to bring back to the house recommendations which in their opinion are essential for the preservation of the rights of private members or for the purpose of making still more secure the position of the government with respect to expediting public business.
I do not think I need say more on this resolution except to observe that, as it stands at the moment, it does not mention the names of those who will compose the committee. If the resolution carries, however, I am advised that there can be no exception to the Prime Minister announcing later on the names that have been agreed upon. The resolution having carried, it will be assumed that the house will be agreeable to the names decided upon after conference between the whips. I believe it is better not to insert the names immediately as not to do so will afford fuller opportunity for careful consideration and conference in the selection of the personnel.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question but I should not like to be debarred from saying something on the resolution later on, although I do not intend to discuss the matter at present. Has not the government in mind something concrete which it proposes to lay before the committee, and if so what is it? I ask that question in order that we may know the reason for setting up the committee. Personally I have not heard a demand for such a committee to be set up, and I would ask the Prime Minister to be good enough, if he feels so disposed, to inform

the house what the government has in mind, or what has actuated him in making the suggestion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The sole motive of the government in making the suggestion is to gain an opportunity to expedite the business of the house. The kind of questions that would be considered by this committee might be, for example, to provide for presenting non-money bills without notice and passing them through the three stages the same day. I do not say that would be a question which the committee, if appointed, would agree upon immediately, but they might consider whether it would not be one means of helping to expedite the business of the house. Another matter which would require consideration would be that of giving government business precedence at an earlier date; in other words, a reexamination of the resolution which has just been passed.
Another question might be that of limiting the number and kind of questions to be placed on the order paper. My hon. friend is an old parliamentarian and he has no doubt seen *the order paper frequently filled with questions many of which might be asked in the course of discussion in committee of supply, questions that mostly serve to clog the order paper, and help to protract the proceedings of the house. My hon. friend, I am sure, has also seen the order paper clogged with innumerable resolutions often making it impossible for the most important resolutions to be dealt with before others much less important are reached. There might be adopted measures similar to those at Westminster with respect to resolutions, whereby a better method might be found of deciding which of them should have precedence, how many should be taken up, and so on.
Again, there is the question of appeals from decisions of the Speaker. There has grown up in the last few parliaments a practice of appealing from decisions of the Speaker, made with such frequency that it seems at times to make the rule of respecting the Speaker's ruling the exception rather than the practice. That is putting it a little strong, but the committee might well consider whether the practice of appealing from decisions of the Speaker, unless there is a very special reason for so doing, might not be restricted in some way.
Then, again, there is the right of ministers to amend their own motions. It is a very small matter, but I have seen considerable delay created in the house when a minister who has a measure before the house has to turn and find one of his colleagues to propose

House oj Commons-Select Committee
the desired amendment for him. That seems to me to be the kind of thing which might be regarded as unnecessary at this time, when we have very serious matters to consider.
Then there is the question of a possible change in the hours of sitting. I am not at all sure that I would wish to see the hours changed in many particulars. I think, however, that if we followed the practice on Friday of meeting in the morning and adjourning at six, instead of meeting at three in the afternoon and sitting until eleven usually with a slim house in the evening, that procedure might help to expedite the business of the house to have it attended to more thoroughly and also serve the greater convenience of hon. members. That is a good example of the kind of question that might be considered.
Again, there might be a standing order to curtail protracted debates. There are certain statutes concerning the business of the house that might be improved. A suggestion has been made that there are sections of the Senate and House of Commons Act with respect to the leader of the opposition and some of his perquisites or prerogatives-


Richard Burpee Hanson: I hope
you are not thinking of curtailing them.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -which might be looked into with advantage, I believe to him. There are some sections in the act that are now anomalous or obsolete that might be improved. The clerks of the house and of the senate, and the law clerks, might prepare possible improvements for submission to the government.
That is the presentation as I made it to my colleagues, and I wish to assure my hon. friend that there is no subtle device or aught that is at all devious behind anything that I have put forward or ulterior motive behind the resolution as a whole.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am
obliged to the Prime Minister for having acceded to my request and given the house the concrete ideas he has in view. To some of these suggestions I think we can give most favourable consideration; there are others which I should like to ponder a little.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon.
friend understands that I am not putting them forward as government proposals, but only suggesting the kind of questions a committee might profitably consider.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I know; I am just making some general observations. There are others to which I should be definitely
95826-6J	'
opposed. There can be I think no objection to the motion in itself. I cannot recall the year, but I remember that under Mr. Speaker Lemieux-


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: The year was 1927.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Thank
you. A committee of this kind was set up, and my recollection is that some very good men were on that committee.


Ernest Lapointe: Hear,
hear. My hon. friend was on it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I was not thinking of myself, but I was thinking of Sir George Perley, a highly honoured and respected member of this house, who knew a lot about the rules for-shall I say-a layman. I think the gentleman who was subsequently Mr. Speaker Black was on that committee, and your humble servant. We evolved the forty-minute rule, of which we had high hopes. If the Minister of Justice was on that committee-


Ernest Lapointe: I was.


Richard Burpee Hanson: -he will probably remember that he thought that by limiting speeches to forty minutes we should curtail the duration of sessions of parliament.
I do not want to speak dogmatically, but my impression is that it did not have any such effect; more people spoke, and they spoke oftener. You cannot by any time limitation curtail free speech in a body of men composed of Anglo-Saxons, men who desire freedom of thought, speech and action. However, I would not go back on the forty-minute rule; it has had some salutary effects-we do not have to listen to such long speeches. But I am a bit fearful that some of the suggestions which the right hon. gentleman has made will have the effect of curtailing discussion. Of course the government can put things through if they want to, but if this resolution is adopted it will have the effect of curtailing the rights of private members and of extending the power of the cabinet and the executive. I know that in England they have had to do these things; the pressure of empire business is so much greater than the pressure of business here that perhaps they cannot give effect to all the desires of private members along the lines of certain social legislation which is being promoted from time to time. But I hope the government will pause before taking any step that would curtail the rights of hon. members of this house-I am taking as long

House of Commons-Select Committee
a view as I can-and result in the aggrandizement or enlargement of the powers of the executive in the House of Commons itself.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hear, hear.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am
astonished that even the suggestion of such a thing should come from a Liberal prime minister.


Thomas Langton Church: I would support this motion if I thought it would cause immediate action and help in getting on with the war. But I fear it is going to have the opposite effect. We in this house have been slow to see how the executive, known as the cabinet, have been usurping the functions and privileges of parliament. The present government got along without a parliament for a year less eighteen days, except for four or five days last September. We might just as well abolish parliament altogether if we are going to refer the question of war to the Minister of Finance's committee and stop any criticism of it. They criticize war mistakes in Britain and France.
The committee system has been weighed in the balance and, in my opinion, found wanting. We have had illustrations. What is parliament for? What are the functions of parliament? Parliament is a place where the people whom we represent can address their grievances to the government and have them dealt with by 245 members in this house. It is a place where the country can get facts, something they have not been able to get so far about this war; where they can get facts about government policy, about immigration, about trade and tariffs and finances and the way the country is run. There is no other place where the people through their representatives can get these facts and the government's explanation of federal policies. They cannot get them from the press or radio; they can get them only from one agency, where the press and radio should get them, must get them in part, namely, from the government of the day. Under our parliamentary system the responsibility is on the government of the day for laying down a policy, and their responsibilities and trust should not be shunted off on some committee or side show.
What is this committee system? We were told that if the Canadian National Railways estimates were referred to a committee we would find out the facts and have some control, but the big I's were not restrained, they kept on building big hotels and all kinds of branch lines almost to the sun, the moon and the stars. When you entered the committee what did you see? I went to the committee 
four or five times; they invited me once, and once was enough. Members sat around a table, more than two-thirds of them smoking the pipe of peace and passing everything- a whitewashing affair.
Now, if we are going to deal with the bill of the Minister of Finance about the war by referring it to a committee we might just as well close parliament right now, and there will be no criticism or redress of grievances. Think what criticism did in France, the glorious country to whom civilization owes so much to-day; how it speeded up action. They are practical people, they know the world in which they live, they can appreciate the present struggle, they know what Germany is because they have lived beside her for thousands of years. In France they get reforms not by shunting things off to a committee but by the chamber of deputies taking them up and forcing the government to speed up the war on land, at sea and in the air before they grant supply. I am just referring to the committee system.
I had a resolution along the very same lines as this motion in the sessions of 1937, 1938 and 1939. It called for a committee to take up the whole question, in view of the foes within the country and outside. It proposed to reorganize our parliamentary system, our constitutional system, our cabinet system, our legal system; to bring our system of government up to date to meet modern conditions. This resolution proposes to amend the Senate Act. That is an old plank from the platform of the Liberal party-senate reform. Do they propose to refer the selection of senators to this committee? They were to reform the Senate; how did they reform it? They made it worse than it was before. It was proposed in this house in the dying days of the session in June last year that instead of the crush and crowding of the opening in the senate they should use this chamber for the opening day. But the government would do nothing. Now they propose to deal with the Senate Act. The resolution is not broad enough to deal with Canada's main domestic problem, namely parliamentary reform, constitutional reform, cabinet reform, law reform. In the old country they had reform of the House of Lords; we want senate reform and law reform. We are miles behind the old country all along the line. Four years before the war Britain acted and reorganized her parliamentary and legal system, with the result that she was ready.
I have seen some of the results of these committees, their reports received in the dying days of the session. What happened here three days before parliament closed one

House of Commons-Select Committee
session? At eleven o'clock in the morning the then Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Power) brought in the report of the elections committee. The late member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) discussed the report and no one else was given a chance to say a word; the chairman got up and moved the adjournment of the debate and prevented further discussion. That was the last we heard of that report until an hour or two before the close of the session, when no one could speak on it.
See how we have dealt with the Canadian National railways. Once we divest ourselves of powers and functions that is the last of it. Very little was heard about the committee on agriculture or the grain committee after these references to committees. Another point is that when these matters are referred to these committees no action can be taken in this house because of the rule of anticipation.
This government has been very fond of the committee and royal commission method of dealing with these questions which should be dealt with in this house. It has been a favoured method of the federal government to postpone action on the very matters with which they were elected to deal, on which action was most imperatively required in connection with both domestic and external affairs. These committees and commissions achieve nothing; that is one reason why they are appointed. In any event they are only advisory and their reports to this house generally do not amount to anything. Here we have this commission on the constitution, which I am told cost $400,000, and the report will just go to the archives. Canada has had enough of these Pickwickian committees and commissions, all of which are instructed by the government as to their personnel and as to the scope of their inquiry. Many of these appointments are made for reasons of expediency, while some of the commissions are overloaded with professors.
We are behind the times in Canada. If something of this sort is needed I believe the government should adopt the resolutions I brought before the house in 1937, 1938 and 1939, on parliamentary, constitutional, cabinet and law reform, which would include senate reform. Dear knows senate reform is badly needed, when we see some of the appointments which have been made there recently for political reasons.
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, I have devoted a great deal of thought and study to the subject of parliamentary practice and have gathered a library of parliamentary rules embracing every parliament, legislative assembly and legislative
council within the empire. I think perhaps my collection is more complete than any other here in Ottawa, even in our parliament. I will gladly place my collection at the disposal of any hon. member who would like information about the 'parliamentary rules of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa or even the legislative bodies of Jamaica, the Bahamas or any other part of the British empire. Once in London I approached a firm of publishers and asked if they would publish a book on comparative parliamentary procedure and practice throughout the empire. I left the manuscript in the hands of a reader who, when I returned after a few days, said to me, "Sir, the only way to have this published is through a foundation, because no one will read a book on parliamentary practice and procedure."
A few years ago, as a delegate to a small conference of the British Empire Parliamentary Association, I had the opportunity of addressing a few words to a meeting of that conference at Westminster, which meeting was presided over by Sir John Simon. I went on to explain the practices in the various legislative bodies of Canada and other parts of the empire, and told my fellow delegates that the most complete rules in Canada were those of the province of Quebec which had been prepared by Mr. Geoffrion at the time Sir Lomer Gouin was premier. Then a delegate from New Zealand rose and said, "What is the use of mentioning any number of rules? They do not count at all, because in every legislative body the main rule is the will of the government."
I believe it will be agreed that the text of a rule is not so important as an understanding of the British parliamentary tradition at Westminster. It is our duty as a parliament-and I speak for the Senate as well as for the House of Commons-*to follow as closely as possible the British tradition which has been established at Westminster and which has been in force there for many centuries; but what is the use of aping it? There is a great difference. In this parliament we have two books; we have the rules of the house, which is a very thin book, and we also have a compendium which has been prepared by our common friend Doctor Beauchesne, the clerk of the house. As I have said, the rules themselves form a much smaller book than the compendium, but they are the rules adopted by this house. We are the masters of our destiny. I remember quite well when a dinner was given to my chief, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), at the Chateau Frontenae in Quebec city after the election of 1926. Speaking of the position of the Prime Minister in this parliament my right hon. friend said, "I am only the first
78	COMMONS
House oj Commons-Select Committee
among equals." In this house, Mr. Speaker- and I take this opportunity to congratulate you warmly upon your election as Speaker- you are the master. You can call the prime minister to order just as you can call the leader of the opposition or myself to order, should the necessity arise. Moreover, you have the responsibility for whatever happens in this house. Therefore in this parliament you are the first citizen; that is why you preside over our deliberations.
I am veiy much concerned about any change in the rules at this time. If the change is to expedite the business surely it is superfluous, because I never saw the address voted as quickly as it was this session. This morning I met people who asked me if it was true that the address had been voted last night. That was very expeditious. The house opened on Thursday; the address was moved on Friday; there was no sitting on Saturday or Sunday, and on the second day of debate the address was adopted. It cannot be more expeditious than that. Of course the house is free to change the rules if in these times they are found unsuitable. My fear is, however, that under the cover of patriotism some people who are not members of the house may take advantage of the war to improve their own personal positions.
There are many new members in the house this session, and I congratulate all of them upon their election. I believe that the average of the House of Commons in 1940 is better than that in 1935, although I must express my regret that a few members were defeated. Speaking in a non-partisan way may I tell new members that in the House of Commons the danger does not lie in the application of the rules; it lies in what is done outside the rules.
A moment ago I was referring to the rules and orders of the house. Those rules and orders are contained in a small book which has been divided into two parts, dealing respectively with public bills and private bills. Any hon. member wishing to get information concerning debate on public bills has only to look at the few rules passed by the House of Commons and contained in that book. To show how tiny is the understanding of those rules may I remind you, Mr. Speaker,-and probably you have not forgotten-that at times I have heard even ministers of the crown referring to rule No. 535 or rule No. 625, when in fact there are not even two hundred rules passed by parliament. Those references in Doctor Beauehesne's book are merely to quotations from authors who have written respecting parliamentary procedure and practice. They are not rules; they are references. They refer to quotations from authors such as
[Mr. Pouliot.l
Bourinot, May and others, who have summarized rulings given by speakers either in Canada or at Westminster.
One point I have never understood, and it is this:	A member may say whatever he
thinks is true. In saying it, he may use any language, provided it is the king's language, about any individual, with the exception of His Majesty the King, members of the royal family and members of the House of Commons and the Senate. I remember well that a former leader of the opposition used very strong language regarding a newspaper man from the west, and in the use of that language he was called to order and was sustained by the chair. I can remember that on one occasion, when Mr. Bennett was either prime minister or leader of the opposition, I made a statement which was denied by him, and I had to withdraw. There was no reason at all for my withdrawal. My word was as good as that of a millionaire, and in this chamber my rights were equal to those of Mr. Bennett or anybody else. In the event of an hon. member making a statement and that statement being denied by another hon. member, the hon. member who believes the statement is inaccurate has the right of denial. But the member who made it cannot be forced to withdraw unless he has used unparliamentary language or expressions which are not fit for use in debate.
Therefore, sir, we have before us the very reason why we should be most careful when amending the rules of the house. One reason is that the rights of any hon. member, whether he be a back-bencher or a front-bencher, a private member or a minister of the crown, are deserving of the most careful consideration. All hon. members have the same right in debate, and you, Mr. Speaker, must decide who is right and who is wrong. You cannot decide in favour of one against another simply because one is a minister or a privy councillor and the other is a back-bencher. That is only elementary justice and fair play.
Then, there is another thing to be feared in the House of Commons, and that is the atmosphere created at times. May I at this point congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ralston) upon his appearance in the house. I am glad to see him here, particularly because he is so healthy, and does not pose as a sick man. Sometimes debate has been hampered because of sickness, and when we have approached a discussion in the house we have thought that we must be in the corridor of a hospital. One could almost smell the chloroform, the anaesthetic, the bandages and the iodine. That was the atmosphere in which we worked. One was tempted to believe that he was speaking in a hospital where there

House of Commons-Select Committee
were sick men, and on occasions we have had to swallow everything because of that sickness. I know something of that-but I did not swallow anything.
Then there is the atmosphere of the pink-tea room. I realize of course that the newcomers are surprised when they hear me make these statements. However they must be familiar enough with British traditions to know that every civil servant is represented in the House of Commons by his minister, and if a civil servant acts under instructions received from his minister, or in accordance with those instructions, then he must do it within the knowledge of the minister, and that minister is bound to defend him in the house or to resign his portfolio. On the other hand if it is within the knowledge of a member of parliament that in any respect any civil servant has been faulty, he is within his rights when he asks information from the government about such individual. We are the ones who are called upon to vote -the salaries and at times without any explanation to vote formidable increases in already high salaries of civil servants. We must inspire in those individuals both fear and respect of parliamentary institutions. I tell -the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), the new Secretary of State, (Mr. Casgrain)-whom I now congratulate

the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), my old friend the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mc-Larty), and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ralston) that among the whole gang of bureaucrats by whom they -are surrounded they will never find anyone as true and as sincere as any member of the House of Commons, whether that member be on one side or the other.
At times the government may not like to listen to criticism from the other side or even from this side of the house. Ministers do not like -to be contradicted. But I will tell you, sir, that no member of parliament can be elected by thousands of votes unless he has something to his credit. Moreover, each member on this side of the house is a bar of the ladder on which the government climbs to power. No bars, no power. Bars are small things, but they must be considered. The Prime Minister and his colleagues know the respect I have for them, but at the same time they know that discussion is impossible in this house unless you, Mr. Speaker, or the chairman of the committee of -the whole, comply not only with the letter of the rules that we have, which I admit are very complete, but also with British parliamentary tradition, which I hope will be kept intact for the future in this country as well as in Great Britain.


Mr. J. H. HARRIS (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I will leave it to someone else to clear the atmosphere or to describe just what kind of atmosphere we come out of when my hon. friend sits down. Considering the cloud under which we rest to-day we ought to be brought back most quickly to a realization of our responsibilities. I am thoroughly in accord with the suggestion that there be a more expeditious dispatch of business. However, I cannot just see how a committee which will call and examine witnesses and perhaps bring in a report at the end of the session can be of much use at this particular time.
Let us get on with the public business of this country, whether we sit Friday morning, Friday afternoon or Friday night. Let us sit all the time and get on with the business if there is business to be done. Let us get on with the government business of this country. Let us get on with the war effort of this country as quickly and expeditiously as possible without having these academic discussions as to whether or not a committee should be set up. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has been good enough to give us some idea of what this committee might do. What is the real object in setting up this committee? In my opinion its real object is to shorten this session. We have had too many short sessions.
The Prime Minister says that we should follow Westminster. Since this tragic war started, Westminster has not missed a month without sitting. Those elected to the parliament of Great Britain were able to examine the actions of the government and let the people know what was going on. How have hon. members felt since war was declared? Hon. members did not know what was going on and yet the people looked to them as members of parliament to let them know what was going on. Hon. members waited patiently from the time of the short session to the next very short session expecting that they would learn something, but there was an almost imbecile inactivity. The government now brings forward a resolution which will tend only to shorten the session. We should be sitting each and every month; we should be sitting through the hot weather, through the cold weather and at all times while this emergency exists. We are ready to expedite the business of the government in every way we possibly can, but do not send us home leaving everything for the government to do. That is not enough. The people of Canada must know what is going on.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friendso
Unemployment Relief


Joseph Henry Harris: We are all disturbed at the news, but we in Canada are British and we can take it. We do, however, want to know what is going on. I will answer the question of the Prime Minister in just a moment. Let us follow Westminster and let us give the people an opportunity of knowing what is going on.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was going to say to my hon. friend that if it will help us to get on with our war effort, and if he were prepared to end his speech, I would be quite prepared to withdraw the resolution. Rather than have any doubts as to the motive of the government in this matter, with the consent of the house I will withdraw the resolution immediately.


Joseph Henry Harris: I have never been accused of wasting the time of this house and I do not propose to do it this session. I am quite in accord with the suggestion of the Prime Minister that he withdraw the resolution.
Motion (Mr. Mackenzie King) withdrawn.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Minister of Labour) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide assistance in the alleviation of unemployment and agricultural distress out of moneys appropriated by parliament, and for such purpose to supplement the measures taken by the provinces towards providing assistance to those in need, establishing unemployed persons in employment and training and fitting suitable persons for productive occupations, and also to provide financial assistance to the provinces by way of loan, advance or guarantees out of unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund, and for the appointment of necessary officers, clerks and employees.
He said: His Excellency the Administrator, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Is this the usual preliminary resolution giving notice of a bill?


Mr. McLARTY:: Quite so.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is there any explanation which the minister desires to make at this stage?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I think perhaps it might be better to do it when the bill is presented. This is a reenactment of the Unemployment and Agricultural Assistance Act.


Joseph Henry Harris: Are there any additions or changes?


Norman Alexander McLarty: There are three amendments, but they are not of great importance. There is one amendment in connection with the preamble to the bill. If it is satisfactory, perhaps these explanations could stand until the bill is before the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I might say that this motion is not debatable; it is simply a formal motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce an amendment to the Soldier Settlement Act to authorize the director of soldier settlement, with the approval of the minister, to grant to the original soldier settler the mines and minerals acquired with the lands, and also to authorize the director to dispose of mines and minerals underlying land not under purchase contract by an original soldier settler.
He said: His Excellency the Administrator, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Penitentiary Act and the Penitentiary Act, 1939, to provide for the removal of convicts from the Yukon and Northwest Territories to gaols or penitentiaries in the provinces, and for the payment by way of compensation to the provinces for the confinement of such convicts therein.
He said: His Excellency the Administrator, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

National Defence-Air Ministry


[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources, for the Minister of Public Works) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize the Minister of Public Works on behalf of his majesty to enter into an agreement to pay to the corporation of the city of Ottawa the sum of $100,000 for the year ending July 1, 1940.
He said: His Excellency the Administrator, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Seeds Act, 1937, to empower the minister to prescribe fees for seed control services.
He said: His Excellency the Administrator, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of National Revenue) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide that the order in council respecting civil service superannuation dated 11th August, 1939, shall have the same force and effect as if sanctioned by act of parliament on the said date.
He said: Plis Excellency the Administrator, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend The Wheat Cooperative Marketing Act, 1939, to provide for the calculation of initial payments paid to selling agencies, and also to grant authority for payment of liabilities of the minister under any agreement and of administrative expenses.
He said: His Excellency the Administrator, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
The Prime Minister-in committee of the whole-the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce an act to provide for the appointment of a Minister of National Defence for Air, at the same salary as the Minister of National Defence, to deal with matters relating exclusively to the air service, and also for the appointment of additional deputy ministers for the military, naval and air services respectively.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, the resolution which appears in my name is one related to the appointment of a Minister of National Defence for Air. I should like, if the house would give its consent, to have this resolution expedited, passed and if possible the bill introduced to-day with a view to having the second reading of the bill to-morrow. If the house will give its consent to expedite this ' very important bill which has immediately to do with the prosecution of the war, I would like to move that the house do go into committee of the whole on the resolution at the present sitting.


Mr. MacNICOL:: May I ask if the bill will restrict the duration of office of the new minister to the duration of the war?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, it will for a definite period in reference thereto. Mr. Speaker, if the house consents, I move that



S2 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
National Defence-Air Ministry
the house go into committee of the whole at to-day's sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce an act to provide for the appointment of a Minister of National Defence for Air, at the same salary as the Minister of National Defence, to deal with matters relating exclusively to the air service, and also for the appointment of additional deputy ministers for the military, naval and air services respectively.
His Excellency the Administrator, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Vien in the chair.
Mr. MASSEY:: Mr. Chairman, if I might be permitted a brief word I should like to commend the government for the step they are proposing in this resolution. I think we all realize not only the gravity of the situation but the stress and strain which must be put upon the Department of National Defence as a result. We appreciate that it is obviously impossible for one man no matter what his capabilities adequately to cope with all these matters. The onerous responsibilities placed on the shoulders of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Rogers) cannot possibly be carried by one man. Yesterday afternoon we listened to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) as he laid before the house the present plans of the empire training scheme. It is my privilege and one of which I am proud to be an officer of junior rank of the Royal Canadian Air Force, and I have some very definite ideas in regard to the importance of the air training plan. I am sure that hon. members will fully appreciate that the air training scheme as at present in project and in course of development is one which will and must demand the full services of a minister qualified to cope with the extent of the plan itself.
I might further be permitted to say that as a result of my contact I am deeply impressed with the calibre of the men who are in the Royal Canadian Air Force, from the chief of the air staff down to the airmen and [DOT] aircraftmen. One cannot help but be proud of his fellow Canadians when one associates with them as it has been my privilege to do.
I have reason to make these few remarks only to commend the government for the step they are taking in establishing a ministry for air and to assure the Prime Minister that this step will be most fully appreciated by the Royal Canadian Air Force. I say this without attempting to belittle in any way any of the efforts of the personnel of the air force themselves. They are a magnificent body of men, 
and while we may be proud of the Royal Air Force and its personnel, I think it is well known that there are no pilots and airmen equal to Canadians, and they deserve the best that can be had. There is nothing too good for the Royal Canadian Air Force; there is no service which the government can render that can exceed its responsibilities to the Royal Canadian Air Force. It seems to me that the step contemplated by this resolution is one in the right direction, and I commend the Prime Minister for it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to express to the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey) my warmest appreciation of the remarks he has just made. They are doubly appreciated, coming from him as an officer of the Royal Canadian Air Force, and especially as he appears in the house this afternoon wearing the uniform he does.


Thomas Langton Church: Will this particular bill be within the four comers of the empire agreement, and has the British government been consulted about it and consented to it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not quite sure that I catch my hon. friend's meaning about the four corners, but I gather that what he desires to know is whether this measure will apply to the administration of the British commonwealth air training scheme-whether that whole scheme will come under the administration of the air ministry. If that is the question, I answer yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Are there to be three ministers of national defence in charge of naval affairs, air and the military service respectively, and three deputy ministers?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The present
Minister of National Defence will be the minister immediately responsible for the army and navy. The minister for whom provision is being made in this bill will be immediately responsible for matters pertaining to the air service. The present Minister of National Defence, in order that continuity may be preserved in the administration of the department and to ensure the proper coordination of the defence forces will have a certain supervision over the entire services, and the final say where questions of policy affecting the relations of all three will have to be considered. I may as well mention immediately that the intention of the government, if this measure is passed, is to request His Excellency the Administrator to appoint as Minister of National Defence for Air my colleague and friend the present Postmaster General (Mr. Power). My hon. friend, as hon. members are aware has from time to

War Appropriation-Mr. Ralston
time for many years filled the position of acting Minister of National Defence when the minister of that department has been absent from the capital. The present Postmaster General has been in complete charge of the Department of National Defence during the recent absence of the present minister in London. He is already wholly familiar with the work of the department not only as it relates to the air service, but also to the other services. The two ministers, happily, enjoy the closest of personal as well as public relations, and there will be, I believe,^ to each of them a distinct advantage in being able to confer together with respect to matters affecting the department as a whole.
In the old country it has been found advisable at this time of war, where they have had three separate ministries, one for the army, one for the navy and one for the air, to have one minister take supervision of the three services. That function, so far as it relates to the proper interrelation of the services, will continue to be performed by the present Minister of National Defence. For many reasons I believe no better possible choice could be made for minister for air than the present Postmaster General. He has not only had the experience to which I have just referred in administering the affairs of the Department of National Defence. He has had wide experience in the administration of other government departments. He also, as we all know, served his country overseas in the last war.
There was a question asked by my hon. friend opposite; I did not catch his words. Did he ask me whether the bill would define "Minister of National Defence", or did he wish to know whether it would be confined to him?


John Ritchie MacNicol: I was not very clear
and I am not quite clear yet as to what is intended. The last line refers to the military, naval and air services, and I was wondering whether there was to be a minister for military services, one for naval services and one for air services, and three deputy ministers.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The question my hon. friend asks is whether there will be three separate and distinct deputy ministers, one for each department. There will be three deputies but only two ministers responsible for the three services.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Mackenzie King thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 15, to amend the Department of National Defence Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That sums not exceeding $700,000,000 be granted to His Majesty towards defraying any expenses that may be incurred by or under the authority of the governor in council during the year ending 31st March, 1941, for-
(a)	the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada;
(b)	the conduct of naval, military and air operations in or beyond Canada;
(c)	promoting the continuance of trade, industry and business communications, whether by means of insurance or indemnity against war risk or in any other manner whatsoever; and
(d)	the carrying out of any measures deemed necessary or advisable by the governor in council in consequence of the existence of a state of war.
With provision also empowering the governor in council to raise by way of loan under the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, 1931, such sum or sums of money, not exceeding in the whole the sum of $700,000,000 as may be required for the purpose of defraying the aforesaid expenses, the principal and interest of any such loan to be a charge upon and payable out of the consolidated revenue fund.
He said: I do not propose to take the time of the house for very long in connection with this resolution. The matter of the physical aspect of Canada's war effort was dealt with at length by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) yesterday, and I have no doubt that in the course of the discussion there will be full opportunity to obtain the fullest information consistent with the public interest with regard to the various phases of our war effort. Suffice it for me to come immediately, as the desire has been indicated from all sides of the house, to the business of the day, that is to present in a word or two the make-up of the sum which it is now suggested may be voted for the use of the government in connection with the purposes set out in the resolution.
The house will remember that, back in November last, I intimated to the public of Canada that the programme which had been laid down by the government and which had been announced, it will be remembered, within a very short time after parliament prorogued, was estimated to cost $315,000,000. After that there had been added a considerable amount, I think some eight or ten millions, on account of what we have referred to repeatedly as ancillary troops, troops which may be used eventually as corps troops or divisional troops; and in addition there had been added the estimated cost of the air training scheme, all
[Stage Direction]
War Appropriation-Mr. Ralston
of these for the first year of war, that is to say the year ending September 1, 1940. At that time I intimated that Canada's rate of expenditure during that first year of war was estimated to be about SI.000,000 a day. Since that time that sum has had a very progressive and sturdy growth. I am not asking for any sympathy in the position which I occupy in endeavouring to direct to some extent, if I can, the economic policy of this country and this government. But I do say that the sums which come to one for consideration and which have to be dealt with in connection with the provision of funds for our war activities are- may I say this at least?-somewhat larger than I have been used to in private life. They are almost overwhelming. This sum to which I have referred, which amounted to something like 8375,000,000, grew so that when the estimates were prepared at the end of the year for the session which was to open on January 25, 1940, it amounted to, not $375,000,000, but $500,000,000. Soon after that I intimated in a public address which I made that I estimated that these commitments which were proposed would, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1941

if hon. members will differentiate that from the first year with which I was dealing, the first year of the war-amount as I said to not less than $500,000,000. Then some items of difference arose from factors which are difficult to estimate.
May I say there is the greatest difficulty in estimating the cost of military units because obviously it depends entirely on where the military unit may be serving, in other words on what the cost of maintenance may be, or to use a more brutal word, what the wastage may be; and the wastage depends on the degree of activity in which the unit is engaged. Officers of the Department of National Defence advised me that it was difficult to make estimates and they had to do the best they could by taking the rates of wastage which were being used from time to time, resulting from experience, in order to make up these estimates. The amount was roughly $500,000,000. Included in that were amounts for some other departments which were engaged in war activities. That amount continued to grow. I do not want to go into items at all; but I remember one item, it did not mean the provision of another division or anything which the public would know anything about, it was an increase in the establishment of the rifle battalions in the division. That sum alone, just for the increase of the numbers in each rifle battalion in the division, of which there were nine, amounted to between $5,000,000 and $6,000,000.
I remember also there was a change in the 
engineers establishment, and although there was still a division, the changes made in that item amounted to about $4,000,000. I remember that a depot for mechanical transport-and there was nothing to indicate to the public that anything was being done; it did not show on the surface-cost about $1,200,000. I just mention these items to indicate some reasons for the increase which took place in the financial obligation.
In addition there was the announcement made by the Prime Minister in January that a second division would be going overseas, which meant an increase in cost, on account of the necessity for providing additional equipment, of something like 841,000,000. There were other items which I need not mention which increased the estimate to between 8560,000,000 and $570,000,000. Then in preparation for this session the estimates were reviewed again, further additions were made, and the amounts-and here again I realize that they are estimates-were in round figures: for the army, $265,000,000; for the navy, $100,000,000-the Prime Minister used the figure 8103,000,000; I think that is the more exact figure-for the air force, $100,000,000, and for the air training plan, after allowance for payments to be received from our sister dominions of Australia and New Zealand, the net cost will be, according to the estimates, something like $120,000,000, making a total of between $585,000,000 and $595,000,000.
Mr. HOMUTH:: Does that figure for the air training plan include the capital expenditure on the fields and so on?


Mr. RALSTON:: That would include the capital expenditure on the fields. The cost of the air training plan is lumped, as I think was said by the Prime Minister yesterday, at something like $600,000,000. I believe he was a little modest in that estimate, but there again officers find it very difficult, in forecasting a programme, to set down the cost of fields and buildings covering a long period. May I say here to the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey) that I have a great admiration for the air force. There is one branch of the force which I think excelled themselves; along with Air Vice-Marshal Croil, they took part with the staff officers from the air ministry of the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand in working out this plan and endeavouring to make the most effective programme and the best estimate possible. These men made no less than three different plans and estimates, necessitated by variations in the plan which resulted from the fact that Australia and New Zealand took over certain portions of the plan which originally were

War Appropriation-Mr. Ralston
expected to be carried out here, but which they preferred to do at home, particularly in connection with the elementary training. This made readjustments necessary and required the preparation of completely new estimates. As I was saying, that amounted to between $585,000,000 and $590,000,000. There were also certain administration services.
And now, as the Prime Minister announced yesterday, there has been authorized the formation of a Canadian corps. I am sure there are many people in the country, and possibly some members of this house-and I am one of them-who did not realize and possibly do not realize yet what that involves in the matter of expenditure. The formation of a Canadian corps, as I 'have learned, is not simply the putting together of two divisions and having a corps headquarters. The formation of a Canadian corps means the augmenting of those divisions by corps units. By the way, I understand each division contains no less than forty units, although most of us think of a division as being composed of nine or twelve battalions with a certain number of ancillary units such as army service corps, ordnance and signallers, et cetera. As I was saying, the formation of a corps does not mean simply putting together those two divisions; it means the provision of a number of units known as corps units, which operate with the corps as an integral and cohesive body, which, if the two divisions were operating in another corps, would normally be supplied by that corps command, whatever it may be. When I tell hon. members that the additional cost due to the forming of a Canadian corps complete with all ancillary units does not mean just the cost of a corps headquarters, but means, according to the estimates given me, between $50,000.000 and $65,000,000, they will realize that the decision which was made by the government involves a substantial further financial commitment. In addition, as the Prime Minister has indicated, it has been decided to mobilize a third Canadian division. The estimated cost of that third division for one year of service in Canada, in England and overseas, is in the neighbourhood of $38,000,000. So that the $591,000,000 may be increased by about another $100,000,000, and then there are amounts to be provided for other departments for expenditures connected with the war.
It may be said that possibly this bill does not provide sufficient money. Those of us who are on the government benches know that as the result of communications we have sent overseas other suggestions have been made and other matters are under consideration by way of cooperation. At the moment, however, this $700,000,000 is the amount for which we are asking parliament.
I was indicating that it was difficult to make estimates in the matter of military units. Let us take one example in connection with the air force, which has been referred to by the hon. member for Greenwood. The initial cost of a fighting squadron, including pay and allowances for one year, without active operations, is $2,500,000; but the cost of keeping in the air in actual operations those twelve or sixteen machines depending on the sort of squadron it may be, is something like $10,000,000 for the year. The initial cost of a bomber squadron is in the neighbourhood of $2,700,000, while the cost of keeping those machines in the air and restoring wastage for the period of a year is something like $23,000,000. So, as the house will understand, in estimating the cost one has to take some hypothetical figure and some hypothetical view as to what will be the degree of activity of that particular unit.
The house may wish to know the expenditures from September 1 to March 31. For this period the total payments on defence account were $112,000,000. The total payments to May 15 were $136,000,000. The commitments from September 1 to March 31, in addition to pay and allowances, amounted to $267,000,000.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Up to what date?


James Layton Ralston: From September 1 to
March 31.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Could
the minister give us any break-down of that expenditure?


James Layton Ralston: I have a break-down
here.
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury 1:	I do not
want to give the minister too much trouble.


James Layton Ralston: I had thought those particulars might be given when the bill reached committee, but I am perfectly willing to give them now if my hon. friend prefers.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I will
leave it to the discretion of the minister.


James Layton Ralston: Then perhaps I can
leave it until the bill reaches the committee. I have already stated that the commitments from September 1 to March 31 amount to $267,000,000. The degree of financial obligation which we undertook can be perhaps realized to some extent by comparing these appropriations with those for the last war. Please, Mr. Speaker, do not let anyone think I am making any invidious comparison between our efforts in the last war and our efforts

War Appropriation-Mr. Ralston
in this war. What I am pointing out is that an entirely different situation exists to-day. In the last war our contribution obviously was largely represented by man-power. This time it is represented by man-power and machines; by a naval force of from 6,000 to 10,000 men as compared with 1,500 in the last war; by an air force, which of course did not exist at all in the last war, and by the air training scheme, which of course is entirely new. In the last war the appropriation that was requested by, I think, the Prime Minister of the day, who sponsored a similar bill, was $100,000,000. This year we are compelled to ask for $700,000,000 for practically the same period. May I add also, in order to show the financial obligations we have undertaken as compared with those of the last war, that to-day the dollar is worth more in terms of purchasing power than it was at that time.
I do not think I need go into further detail in connection with this resolution. I have tried to give a running picture of how the amount is made up and have indicated sketchily the differences in the various departments of activity in this war as compared with the last war. There has been some talk of red tape. I think my colleagues will agree, as I believe the house would agree if it knew the circumstances, that every endeavour has been made to shorten not only departmental but also official procedure in every way. In my capacity as Minister of Finance I have not hesitated to sign my name to authorizations which I believed would be honoured by this house and by the Canadian people, authorizations covering commitments extending beyond the first year of war and even beyond the first fiscal year, where that seemed to be necessary in order to promote, speed up or produce greater efficiency and greater economy in the production of war materials. Speaking of commitments, I think I should remind the house that the amount provided for in this bill does not by any means represent the total economic effort of Canada.
As the house already knows, we have endeavoured to assist the United Kingdom in connection with the purchase of goods from this country by providing here a market for the acquisition or, as we sometimes call it, the repatriation of Canadian securities held in the United Kingdom. This means that we are furnishing an internal market to take the place of an external market for those particular securities, and providing the funds necessary therefor.
The first operation provided for the repatriation of something like $91,000,000 in securities.
I might say that since that time there has been a substantial accumulation of sterling, and only a few days ago I gave authority for a rMr. Ralston.]
still more substantial accumulation of sterling on the part of the Canadian government, looking forward to a further repatriation effort which would be made in the not far distant future. In the meantime, as members well realize, that accumulation of sterling provides the funds necessary to assist in the purchase of Canadian goods.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Before the minister leaves that question, would he be good enough to explain a point (to the house? As I understand it, these securities are purchased with government funds with the idea of disposing of them in Canada.


James Layton Ralston: No; those are government securities which are redeemed. The particular issue with which we dealt before was one which was callable.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Your own obligations?


James Layton Ralston: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I thought you were dealing with something along the lines of securities of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.


James Layton Ralston: No. They were dominion securities which were payable in England, and callable.


Richard Burpee Hanson: When the minister spoke in the first instance, he did not distinguish between our indebtedness and other indebtedness.


James Layton Ralston: They were dominion securities payable in England, and callable. They had been registered, and were subsequently requisitioned by British authorities on our suggestion, and the Dominion of Canada provided the money necessary to retire them.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That clarifies the situation.


James Layton Ralston: I am glad my hon. friend reminded me of that point, because there is another matter along similar lines I should like to mention to the house. I may say that in addition to that, in order to assist, notwithstanding our foreign exchange control regulations regarding the transfer of foreign balances held by non-residents, we concurred in the requisition by British authorities, shortly after the outbreak of war, of balances held by United Kingdom citizens in Canada. That provided further Canadian dollars for the British authorities.
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury: That was their own.

War Appropriation-Mr. Ralston


James Layton Ralston: Yes, their own, and held by their own citizens. A few weeks ago we authorized an arrangement-and this brings me to the point mentioned by my hon. friend- whereby Canadian securities held by British investors were allowed to be sold in this market, subject to permit issued by the exchange control authorities of the two countries. This gave the United Kingdom government the benefit of the Canadian dollars provided by the Canadian market for the purchase of these securities.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Which
would be at the disposal of the British government.


James Layton Ralston: Yes. In other words, it was the repatriation of privately-held securities as compared with the repatriation of publicly-held securities. As I have said, that repatriation programme means of course that that much more money has to be found in the Canadian market in order to provide Canadian dollars for the purchase price of those securities which previously had been held in the United Kingdom market.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Of course that is a refunding operation.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend will understand that it was a refunding operation well in advance of our obligation to refund, and at a time when facilities for refunding are, in view of our war necessities, much more limited.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There
might be a profit in the matter of exchange.


James Layton Ralston: It is at a fixed rate, an arranged rate. I can say to my hon. friend without hesitation that our friends in the United Kingdom have been exceedingly appreciative of this method of providing Canadian dollars for their purposes.
One other matter I should like to mention is the suggestion which appeared in one of the morning papers to the effect that the entire payment of this year's war bill will be by borrowing. This bill does not mean that, by any means. I wish to assure the house and the country of that fact. It is true that in accordance with the last paragraph of the resolution provision is made for the issuing of bonds and the borrowing of any sum up to the amount stated. But that is only to assure us of adequate authority for that purpose. Our policy-and I believe it is the policy wanted by the people of Canada-is that which was announced at the first session after war was declared, namely, a policy of paying as you go, so far as that may be found possible. The system of raising funds for purposes of the war will be by taxing taxation, and then
by borrowing any portion of our war expenditure which it may be found necessary to finance in that way.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would the minister permit a further question? Has the government formed any estimate of the national income?


James Layton Ralston: Yes. Perhaps, however, my hon. friend would permit me to deal with that when we are discussing the budget.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Of course I am not trying to embarrass the minister.


James Layton Ralston: I understand that. It will be understood that that question involves a consideration of the full commitments of the country, for both w'ar and civil expenditures.
I would prefer to deal with that matter when we come to the budget.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Very well.


James Layton Ralston: I know my hon. friend and other hon. members will not expect me to go farther by way of mentioning the methods by which we will raise this amount of money, and particularly in connection with matters of taxation because that is properly a budget matter.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Could the minister tell the house how much we may have to borrow?


James Layton Ralston: No, I am not in a position to say that at the present time.
I have given a brief outline of what is contained in the measure, and the way the amount has been made up. We have been asked, and I have been asked, what the extent of our war effort is to be. I have said before and I say it to-day-and without any heroics it is said in the words of the speech from the throne-that the limit of Canada s war effort is only the limit of her strength and of her capacity. I am sure the government and the house believe that Canada wants to put eveiy ounce she can muster into the war, and that in trying to estimate and appraise her capacity every true Canadian will approve the principle of not how little, but how much. It is in that spirit that we have approached the problem of providing funds for the war effort outlined yesterday by the Prime Minister. As I have indicated already, as a result of communications we have sent to the United Kingdom further measures are contemplated. I can only assure the house that if it is seen fit to give this vote of credit or appropriation to the government, it will be used in the best way which earnest men can devise, not in any spirit of . complacency but as men who realize only too vividly the seriousness of the responsibilities
War Appropriation-Mr. Bruce

resting upon their shoulders, in an endeavour to make as definitely effective a contribution as possibly can be made to the success of the cause which is at stake in this the greatest world crisis of all time.


Hon. H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the house readily acceded to the request of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to discontinue the time-honoured custom of replying to the speech from the throne because we were informed that we would have other opportunities. The consideration of this resolution to provide the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ralston) with additional funds presents such an opportunity, of which I shall take advantage for a few moments. I may say at once, speaking for myself and, I feel sure, for my associates, that we will vote any amount of money asked for to enable Canada to make the maximum war effort and to get our factories busy with the manufacture of the implements of war.
Those of us who, like myself, are newcomers to this house enter upon our duties under conditions that are the gravest the parliament of Canada has ever been called upon to face. Even in the darkest days of the last war the danger to Canada seemed much more remote, and indeed was more remote than it is to-day. Canadians, in company with all right-thinking people of the world, are in the throes of a terrible awakening. Even in the long period of foreboding when the vileness of the nazi ideology and the ruthless brutality of nazi aims were becoming more and more apparent, Canadians were slow to visualize the menace that overhung the destinies of free and enlightened people. I fear even at the time when this new parliament was elected many were cherishing the conviction that the nazi danger was a nightmare that would pass away, so far as the British empire and the western hemisphere were concerned.
To-day we are beginning to recognize realities. Britain was and is our shield, but hour by hour the tidings show Britain to be fighting with her back against the wall. Easy-minded persons who had said repeatedly, "the United States will protect us anyway," are faced with the sharp realization that the United States are themselves alarmed for their own safety. Their president has not hesitated to sound the note of alarm. All free peoples are face to face with a situation in which lethargy and half-hearted measures may mean their doom.
We, the elected representatives of the people of Canada in parliament assembled, have a responsibility second only to that of our soldiers in the field. Throughout this broad

land the people who voted for us, aye, and the people who voted against us, look to us for concentrated effort and for comprehensive measures more potent than have so far been forthcoming, in behalf of our national security and in behalf of the cause of freedom, justice and Christian civilization. Ours is a sacred task, a consecrated task. God forbid that in future days it should be on the lips of any of our own sons to say that in this grave crisis Canada failed in her duty and failed to play her part manfully because of the weakness of her government, because of the weakness <Tf her parliament.
An awakened people look to us now, irrespective of our party affiliations, to see to it that no stone shall be left unturned and no ounce of energy left unemployed to save Christian civilization in the death grapple in which it is engaged. I suppose that there is no member of this house who has not received messages asking, "What is Canada doing?" If by the time the present session ends we have not provided a full and satisfactory answer to the demand of the people, we shall indeed have a bitter ordeal to face. Every act of government and parliament from now onwards must be directed toward the single aim of helping to make victory complete, or we shall experience disgrace.
In common with many members of this house, and with Canadians from sea to sea, I welcomed the words of the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) when on Friday last he sounded a note of rebellion against the attitude of complacency which so far has marked Canada's dealings with the problems of this war. The hon. member, as by right, voiced the high aspirations of the youth of this country. And, let me add, he spoke also for a myriad of others no longer young.
The Prime Minister and his colleagues, as was natural, have received many congratulations on their victory of March 26. It brought them an immense majority and congratulations were no doubt in order, but let me warn them that those congratulations will speedily turn to imprecations if there is a continuance of that complacency. I have no desire to minimize the burdens the government has to bear, but I would be remiss in my duty if I did not dwell on the fact that it must now face an awakened public consciousness of danger that was torpid when the last parliament was dissolved suddenly in January. In March the people of this country voted blindly and without clear information as to what the government had done to maintain the great and glorious name Canada won for herself in the last war through the glorious efforts of

War Appropriation-Mr. Bruce
her soldiers. Voting blindly, a majority of the electors of this country resolved to give the administration a new lease of power. It was a vote of confidence that embodied a great trust.
It is the duty of the government to see to it that that trust is not betrayed. Nor should it be forgotten that it was by no means a unanimous vote of confidence. Nearly 2,000,000 electors who voted for opposition candidates were clearly dissatisfied with the manner in which the military effort of this country was being organized and pressed. Since Hitler's blitzkreig in Denmark and Norway began early in April they have been more than ever dissatisfied.
Every member of the house, no matter to what party he may belong, is face to face with an electorate which is demanding a great deal more information than the government has vouchsafed to it and more information than private members have so far been privileged to receive. After eight months of war very few of us know what is actually the exact position of this country as a belligerent. In the press, in public assemblages, and on street corners questions like these are being asked: What has been done about recruiting since it became clear that Hitler had embarked on a total war? Was the empire air training plan which was advertised to the world last autumn pressed with all speed, and how is it getting on? How far have we advanced with the second division, which months ago we were told would shortly reinforce the first? Is Canada really mobilized, in both a military and industrial sense? When I was in my home city over the weekend I was asked questions such as these, and, of course, I had no answers to give. The sooner the government provides the answers fully and candidly, the better for the morale of this country.
It is interesting to those of us who sit on this side of the house that, through pressure of events elsewhere, the opposition has suddenly assumed great importance in the public mind. Though months ago many were talking as though critics of a government were unnecessary in times like these, now, on all sides, we are told that an efficient and vigilant opposition is necessary if the government is to be spurred on to the necessary effort. It is being impressed on us that our responsibility is a grave and patriotic one. I think I speak for my colleagues when I say that we shall endeavour to live up to that responsibility, under the distinguished and able parliamentarian whom we chose as our house leader and who yesterday justified the wisdom of our selection.
Dependence on our vigilance and patriotism is being expressed in many quarters. It is, I take it, a symptom of the apprehension which many Canadians feel. There is a much deeper realization that the task of winning this war for civilization will be longer and heavier and more difficult than many at the outset anticipated. The possibility that through lack of energy and initiative victory may be withheld is a thought that, while it may chill the hearts, inflames the energies of a people such as ours. The fear that Canada may be found wanting is a more intimate one. People are dismayed by the thought that Canada has not, so far, done its share to avert the fate which awaits all decent people in this world should the Nazis triumph.
The public demands assurances, not by promises but by action, that whatever sins of omission or commission may have occurred in the past, our effort shall be wider in scope and more intense in efficiency and resolve. True patriotism at the present time visualizes the Canadian nation as a young and virile people engaged in a righteous campaign for the salvation of all that is precious in human existence. There is alarm lest Canada has not been living up to the full glory of that picture. The duty that lies before government and parliament is to quell such alarms; to make our effort tally with that vision.
Canadians have not as yet had it made clear to them in what directions and to what extent they can make their contribution effective. It was hinted from governmental quarters that a different kind of assistance would be needed in this war. If the conditions created by new methods of warfare demand new and different measures, the public unrest should be quelled by knowledge of what the new requirements are. Why was the public kept in the dark so long? The government cannot escape the charge that its policies and administrative methods have aimed at keeping the lid on public enthusiasm. Let there be an end of this. In the face of hourly news from Europe, public sentiment is boiling over. An arbitrarily limited assistance in the face of danger is repugnant to all our thoughts.
A check has been put on recruiting. Men anxious to serve in any capacity have had it coldly intimated to them that this desire is misplaced enthusiasm. The government certainly has it in its power to create channels for the energies of those who wish to serve. Britain is making use of every man and woman available for service. Why does Canada lag behind? At least the government
War Appropriation

Mr. Bruce

can provide camps for voluntary training where young men could find outlets for their patriotic ardour by drilling in their spare time. And who is so bold as to say they shall not be needed?
There is another point of paramount importance. While we must spare nothing to organize the most complete war effort of which Canada is capable, we should pursue a policy of rigid economy in respect of nonessential war-time work. This is a vital consideration. The people have been warned of the necessity for war-time thrift, but unfortunately there has been little evidence that the government is pursuing a like policy of thrift in non-essential expenditures. It is to be feared that political promises in connection with projects initiated in peace time but nonessential now, have overridden counsels of economy. This is no time to be building post offices and railway stations, when England is calling desperately for men, guns and aeroplanes.
The state of the public mind demands clear information as to what measures the government is taking to coordinate war administration and deal with the problems of military organization, problems which the cabinet has neither the time nor the technical knowledge to solve. I beg leave to suggest that there be added to any advisory board of military, naval and air experts that may now exist a small group of members of the Senate and Commons who have had war experience in the past. Such a body would, I feel, be of real assistance in coordinating our war effort and facilitating business. Moreover, I urge on the Prime Minister the early appointment of a Canadian Minister of Defence, overseas, who shall be in continuous consultation with British military authorities. This I believe is essential. The transatlantic telephone has its uses, but it cannot alone suffice in the present crisis.
In conclusion, let me say that I am speaking for the first time in a tribunal hallowed by the memories of public men who served their country during the past eight decades, men whose names are bound up with the history of our nation. In seeking election I had no political ambition, no interest but to serve the cause of helping to stimulate a total war effort by this country.
I said on election night that the government would have my support in all sincere and efficient efforts to achieve that aim, and, Mr. Speaker, I repeat that assurance on the floor of this house.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of National Defence): As the first speaker from this side of the house to follow the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce), I should like to offer him my congratulations upon his initial participation in the debates of this house. I feel I can offer those congratulations no less sincerely because I dissent very strongly from some of the conclusions which he expressed in the course of his address. As members of the house are aware, the hon. member for Parkdale had a long and honourable public career, in the medical profession as a distinguished officer of our medical services in the last war, and later as Lieutenant Governor of Ontario. I am quite sure he will bring distinction and honour both to himself and to his party as a member of this house. Those of us on this side who must differ from him in his political views have the highest respect for the patriotic motives which prompted him to stand as a candidate for election to parliament in these troubled times.
Before I proceed with the main portion of what I had intended to say this evening, I should like to make an appeal to this house to avoid where possible anything in the nature of recrimination. Some idle words have been spoken in this house regarding the alleged complacency of members of this government in the face of .the present crisis.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, before the crisis.


Mr. ROGERS:: I wish to say to members of this house that no men, whatever their party affiliation might be, could hold positions of responsibility at this time without having a keen sense of duty and without being desirous at all times to put forth the maximum effort which this country can summon to the aid of the allied powers. I wish to rebut most strongly any suggestion of complacency or indifference directed against members of this government, After all, surely we can remember the issues at stake in this gigantic struggle. From the outbreak of war and long before, when with clear vision he saw how events were tending, the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King) has given of his utmost at all times to organize a maximum war effort on behalf of the Dominion of Canada. And why should it be otherwise? We know the issues at stake in this struggle; we know that our political freedom is in jeopardy; and I ask members of this house who are familiar with the history of Canada

War Appropriation-Mr. Rogers
whether one who bore the name of William Lyon Mackenzie could be indifferent to those issues at such a time as this.
I turn next to my colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). Has this house forgotten, has this country forgotten that not long ago the Minister of Justice risked his political future in order to bring a united Canadian sentiment behind a vigorous war effort on the part of the dominion? Has this house forgotten, has the country forgotten that in that crucial struggle which was essential if this country was to put forward a united effort, there stood by his side his colleagues from the province of Quebec, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin) and the Postmaster General (Mr. Power), who is soon to be Minister of National Defence for Air.
I turn next to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ralston). It so happened that two of my brothers served under his command in the last war. Had it not been for a stubborn medical board I, too, would have served under his command. Is there a single member of this house who will charge the Minister of Finance with complacency or indifference in this war?
I turn next to the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar), who was a member of the Union government in the last war. Is there a member of this house who is prepared to say that the Minister of Mines and Resources would be less zealous in this war than he was in the last?
I turn to the members of this government who served in the last war-my hon. friend the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) and my hon. friend the Postmaster General-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And yourself.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Can it be said for a moment that those who form this government, those I have named, and every other member of this government, have not been as ready and willing to put their utmost effort into this struggle as any other group of men in any other part of this house would be under present conditions?
And so I would suggest to the house at the outset to-night, particularly in the face of the grave crisis which confronts us, that we try to concentrate upon those things that bring us together and put to one side for a while those things that must sometimes divide us. I find no fault with criticism; let there be criticism, but let it be directed to the policies of this government and not at any time to the motives of its members.
If I interpret correctly the mood of this house, there is no desire that any one at this moment should spend a great deal of time
in a general review of what has happened in the past. I do not intend to detain the house at great length. Much of what I had intended to say has come to have little relative importance in relation to the great events which are taking place at this day and hour. At the same time, I did feel it my duty and I believe that it would be perhaps the wish of the house that I should make some report upon my recent visit to England and France as one who for the time being holds the position of Minister of National Defence, and should give at least in broad outline some of the measures which 'have been taken by the government in order to meet the present grave situation. I say I shall give merely an outline of this, because it does seem to me that no extensive review on my part would wholly meet the situation. I assume that within a short time this resolution will be before the house in committee; it will then be within the power of any hon. member to address to the government questions respecting those various aspects of the war effort in which he may be particularly interested. I cannot promise to answer at once all questions that are directed to me. I have not been able as yet to charge my memory with all that has happened during the period of my absence. I can tell the house this, that I feel it my duty as Minister of National Defence, to avoid giving any answer here unless I am convinced that the answer is accurate. I shall therefore ask the indulgence of the house from time to time when I say that I will take a question under advisement and will secure the information as soon as it can be obtained.
Yesterday the Prime Minister gave to the house a number of the decisions which have been reached by the government after consultation with the government of the United Kingdom in order to meet the urgent needs of the present situation. I wish first to comment briefly upon some of those decisions. Hon. members may recall that the Prime Minister intimated that the government have decided to advance the date of dispatch overseas of a second division of the Canadian Active Service Force, and also to advance the date of the dispatch of such further reinforcements of the first division as have not already proceeded overseas. I can tell the house that the United Kingdom government, having been advised of this decision on the part of the Canadian government, expressed its warm appreciation of it, and its readiness to facilitate as quickly as possible the movement of the second division to the United Kingdom. That does not mean, nor would I have it thought that it meant, that the second division will be able to proceed overseas immediately.
War Appropriation-Mr. Rogers

The transport problem is one of considerable difficulty. I simply tell the house that this decision has been received most warmly by the United Kingdom government. I also am in a position to announce that we have just received advice from the United Kingdom that a further contingent of Canadian troops has arrived in the British Isles. That contingent includes certain ancillary units and also further reinforcements of the first division.
The government have also decided to push forward the recruiting of reinforcements for the second division of the Canadian active service force, who will follow the first, division overseas at the earliest possible date. As far as recruiting for reinforcements is concerned, that type of enlistment is carried out through the depots of the various divisional units, and the men proceed from these depots t.o the training centres and thence to the holding units for the reinforcements in the United Kingdom.
The government have also decided to form a Canadian corps in the field in accordance with arrangements which have been discussed with the British war office. As stated by the Prime Minister, this corps will include, in addition to all divisions, their ancillary units and the necessary additional corps troops, which will involve the dispatch overseas of several thousand men beyond those already mentioned. Instructions were sent out from the Department of National Defence to-day, following immediately after the statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday, that recruiting should commence at once for those ancillary units which will be necessary in due course for the formation of a Canadian corps in the field. It was also intimated by the Prime Minister that the government have decided to undertake the raising of a third division to be available for such service as may be required in Canada or overseas.
May I say that our method of recruiting during the present war differs in a number of material respects from the method of recruiting which was followed in the last war. At that time, as hon. members are aware, units were authorized, and commanding officers appointed, and these commanding officers were frequently entrusted with the duty of recruiting their units up to strength. Under a system of that kind, in the very nature of things recruiting was in a sense competitive, and perhaps had a certain appeal to our people because it was of a competitive nature. There are few of us here who cannot remember the recruiting meetings, the marching bands and the recruiting sergeants seeking men to enlist in their units. There is no doubt that such a method of recruiting had a strong popular 
appeal. At the same time I must advise the house that it is not a method of recruiting that fitted into the scheme of mobilization which had been worked out carefully by officers of the Department of National Defence prior to the outbreak of the present war.
In the present war. as members of the house are aware, each division includes a number of selected non-permanent militia units. The divisions once authorized, the non-permanent militia units once selected, become themselves as it were the recruiting centres for further enlistment. That course was followed with respect to the first and second divisions, and the same course will be adopted with respect to recruitment for the third division. I am able to tell the house that the military members of the defence council have been giving immediate attention to the selection of non-permanent militia units which will comprise the third Canadian division. They will be announced as soon as possible, but before it is possible to announce completion of the entire third division we may be in a position progressively to begin recruiting for various units as those units are selected across the country. I say this to guard against any suggestion that recruiting can begin immediately for the third division right across the country. As I said a moment ago, with respect to ancillary units that can be done and has been done. With respect to the third Canadian division we shall lose no time that can be saved in selecting the units and authorizing recruiting in all the provinces of Canada.
Other decisions announced by the Prime Minister were as follows:	To assign at the
request of the United Kingdom government certain naval and military formations to active duty in the Caribbean and north Atlantic area. I doubt whether it would be prudent on my part to expand this statement at the present time. As expressed, I believe it indicates clearly to this house and to the country that this government with respect to its naval and military dispositions has been and is acting and will continue to act in the closest consultation with the government of the United Kingdom.
It is also announced that this government will dispatch overseas No. 112 army cooperation squadron as a reserve for No. 110 army cooperation squadron of the Royal Canadian Air Force now overseas. That indication of the intention of the Canadian government has also been received with warm appreciation by the government of the United Kingdom.

War Appropriation-Mr. Rogers
Finally it was indicated by the Prime Minister that the government are determined to adopt every feasible method of accelerating the output of pilots and air crews from Canada for service in the field at the earliest possible date. It was indicated by him that certain methods had already been formulated by the Canadian government both to accelerate and to supplement the joint air training plan in Canada in order that pilots, observers and air gunners might be made available more quickly for active service. Among these steps I should indicate particularly measures already taken to expedite the preparation of aerodromes and hangars in advance of the schedules which formed part of the British commonwealth air training scheme.
Before I leave this aspect of our war effort, and in particular before I pass from the extent of our military effort, I should like to place briefly before the house the actual number of men who have been enlisted in the Canadian active service force since the outbreak of war. The table from which I shall read is one which, with the consent of the house, I shall place upon Hansard. It indicates the expansion of our military effort from one period to another during the last nine months. First I come to the strength return as of September 6, 1939. If I remember correctly, this was four days before this government actually declared war, and while we were still in what might be termed the precautionary stage of mobilization. The first division and units mobilized therewith numbered 5.588, and the second division, 4.030. Manning coast defence and anti-aircraft defence were 7,605, and guarding vulnerable points, 5,655.


Richard Burpee Hanson: At this
moment?


Norman McLeod Rogers: As of September 6, actually before Canada had formally declared war. The total for this precautionary mobilization at that time was 22,878. I come next to September 24, 1939, two weeks after Canada had formally declared war. The first divisions and units mobilized therewith numbered 20,017. The second division totalled 19,176; manning coast defence and anti-aircraft defence, 10,650; guarding vulnerable points, 6,161; miscellaneous, 813, or a total of 56,817 troops mobilized in Canada and either on duty or in training two weeks after this country was at war. By November 1, 1939, the total in Canada had risen to 61,639. This was the date when recruiting was resumed in all arms. The first division was followed by certain ancillary troops which were chosen to proceed with that division. On January 15
of the present year, the date set for the opening of training centres, 4,728 reinforcements were ordered in for training, as a first quota. In this connection I should say to the house that it is customary to send first reinforcements forward with the division. Generally speaking, those first reinforcements amount to ten per cent of the numerical strength; and this ten per cent, which as I have said constitute the first reinforcements of the various units, commonly remains at the base until required for the purpose for which it was enlisted. The figure I have just given, however, refers to additional reinforcements for the first division, who were enlisted here and were to receive a certain amount of training here before proceeding to join the first division overseas.
Since January 15, 1940, in subsequent quotas according to wastage figures and necessary training periods, the following quotas have been ordered to report to training centres:
All ranks
February 1	 1,474
February 24	 1,575
March 22	 1,372
May 17	_ .. ..	1,809June 7 (ordered	for	1st Division) ..	1,730(ordered	for	2nd Division).	1,308
So the total number summoned for reinforcement purposes, chiefly for the first division but partly for the second division as well, is 14,016 at the present time. Therefore I do not think it can be suggested by any member of this house that the government has been at all negligent in providing reinforcements for our first division. As a matter of fact, while I was in England a short while ago I discussed this question of reinforcements and asked if the number we were sending forward appeared to be adequate for anticipated needs. I was assured that this was the belief of those who have the military responsibility in relation to the first Canadian overseas division. I need not assure the house that if at any time the numbers here indicated are proved to be inadequate we will at once take the necessary measures in order to enlist the additional reinforcements and send them forward without delay.
This means that the first division has had its replacements due to pre-battle wastage made up, and by the time the division is expected to strike battle casualties there will be, in addition to the first reinforcements with the division, three months' trained reinforcements available, with others doing the required four months' training. In addition to this, the second division reinforcements will start training on June 7, and will thus build up the required reserve as in the case of the first division.

War Appropriation-Mr. Rogers
Between November 1 and February 18 isolated units were formed and personnel brought into establishment as policy demanded. The strength on February 18-and I am speaking now of the Canadian active service force-was 63,518, excluding the reinforcements already mentioned. On this date recruiting was opened to tradesmen and key-men for the second division, and by March 18 the strength, less reinforcements, was 64,501. On March 18 recruiting was opened completely in the second division and certain other units dictated by policy, bringing the strength on May 20 to 72,013, exclusive of reinforcements. The grand total on May 20 was 83,394 all ranks, of whom first division and certain ancillary troops totalling 25,692 are overseas.
I said a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, that I would speak briefly of my recent visit to England and France. In doing so, of course, I must confine myself to those features of my visit which can be disclosed at the present time and which may be of some immediate interest to members of the house. I might say that my purpose in going to England at. this particular time was twofold. In part it was due to an invitation extended by General McNaughton, and a pledge given by mj'self that if at all possible I would visit the first Canadian division before it should proceed to active service in France. Apart from that, there were certain questions outstanding between this government, and, more particularly the Department of National Defence and the several defence ministries of the United Kingdom government. There appeared to be a distinct advantage in having certain of these questions discussed at close range, as it were, in order that we might come to final conclusions. There was also a natui'al desire on my part, having regard to my responsibility, to see with my own eyes how the machinery of cooperation was developing in the United Kingdom.
Those of us who are familiar with events of the last war will recall that at times there was serious and even dangerous friction between the various elements of the Canadian expeditionary force. I had no reason to believe that such friction had developed or could develop in the present instance, in view of the close relationship existing between the highest officers representing Canada in the United Kingdom. At the same time I felt it would be extremely useful if I could confer with those who were charged with varying degrees of responsibility, in order to see to it that they in their work were attaining that maximum of cooperation which we would desire.

In the course of my visit I was accompanied by Major General Elkins, Master General of the Ordnance, and by Major General Odium, who has recently been appointed as general officer commanding the second Canadian division. I cannot speak too highly of the services rendered during our mission by these officers. The Master General of the Ordnance had numerous conferences with the officials of the War Office and the Ministry of Supply. His assistance was also invaluable in the discussions between the United Kingdom government and myself in connection with the formation of a Canadian corps. I can also say to the house that his presence in England at this particular time has resulted in our receiving very full and detailed information on all questions of equipment and supply.
As hon. members are aware and as, no doubt, my colleague the Minister of Munitions and Supply will indicate at a later time, of necessity there has been continuous consultation between the Ministry of Supply of the United Kingdom and its Canadian and American agencies, and our own supply agencies in this country. From time to time we have made certain proposals to the government of the United Kingdom in the hope that some of our industrial capacity in Canada might be put to indefinite production of certain types of necessary equipment. Up to the time I left we had not succeeded entirely in obtaining that objective. We put forward the proposal, on what we felt was sound ground, that certain items of equipment for the first Canadian division were being supplied by British manufacturers-and necessarily so in some oases, having regard to the particular type of heavy equipment. We felt it only reasonable that we might be able to work out with them some kind of exchange basis whereby in return for these items of equipment supplied to us for our use we might supply items of equipment beyond the requirements of our own division, these to be taken in replacement for the equipment supplied to us overseas. I believe that as a result of our discussion a few weeks ago definite progress was made towards the kind of agreement we have contemplated. Having regard to events in recent days, one only wishes that such an agreement had been found possible of achievement some time before.
In addition to. attending many of the conferences, Major General Odium spent as much time as possible with the Canadian troops at Aldershot. In addition to that he proceeded to France and was in close touch there with the senior British officers on whom the responsibility of defending certain portions of the French frontiers have been placed. The

War Appropriation-Mr. Rogers
experience he gained in this way will be invaluable, I am sure, not only to himself, but to the Department of National Defence. It will also be of distinct advantage in training and organizing the second Canadian division. Although I would not for a moment seek to claim any foresight in the matter, in view of what has happened in recent weeks it is peculiarly fortunate that General Odium was able to visit Aldershot, to confer with General McNaughton, and to make certain preparatory arrangements for the reception of the second division there. It is fortunate that he has been able to see the conditions under which in due course the Canadian troops will be serving in France.
At this time I should like also to add some words of very sincere appreciation of the work being done by the officers and men of the first Canadian division, and ancillary troops, under the inspiring leadership of General McNaughton and members of his staff. I cannot use any other phrase which to me describes more aptly the influence which General McNaughton has exercised over the men of the first Canadian division. I would ask the house to remember that before the first division embarked it had been scattered across this country in separate units, as it were, and it did not have that opportunity of close association which builds up coherence and esprit de corps. General McNaughton actually served as inspector general of these various units in Canada, before they embarked for overseas. He did not assume his command until the division had actually been established at Aldershot in England. But from that time forward I know something of the tremendous energy and splendid vision he has put into the organization of this first Canadian division. I have felt that at the very first opportunity I should say to members of the house how greatly we are indebted to General McNaughton for the services which thus far he has rendered to this country.
I was fortunate in being able to visit Aider-shot on a number of occasions and to watch many of the units undergoing training. Ceremonial parades were reduced to a minimum, and inspections consisted very largely of visiting the training grounds in the Aldershot area, and seeing the units of various kinds undergoing active service training. Infantrymen were learning gas drill, bombing, wiring, trench digging, bayonet fighting and rifle and machine-gun practice. Signal units were seen carrying out field operations. It was the same with medical units, artillery units, army service corps units and engineering units. All were engaged in carrying out practice work of the kind which will be required of them later in the field.
I was impressed, as any hon. member would be impressed, by the keenness and intelligence of our officers and men, by the remarkably fine spirit which pervaded all our units and the vigorous determination with which they seemed to wish to train themselves for the task which lies ahead.
I should like at this point to refer also to an incident reported already in this country, but which I think has become of interest and significance at this time. I speak of the inspection of the first Canadian division, particularly the 48th Highlanders of Toronto, by the Earl of Athlone, the Governor General designate of Canada. I was in Aldershot on the occasion of that inspection and at the request of General McNaughton was able to receive him on behalf of the Canadian government. In view of the distinguished military service of the Earl of Athlone in the late war, it seemed to me that he could have had no more appropriate introduction to his official duties in Canada than the inspection of those who now represent Canada overseas in this struggle for freedom. I might say that at the close of the interview I received a letter from the Earl of Athlone in which he spoke in the very highest terms of the bearing, fitness and keenness of the Canadian soldiers of our first division and ancillary units.
Later I had the pleasure of visiting No. 110 army cooperation squadron of the Royal Canadian Air Force at its aerodrome in the west of England. As members of the house are aware, this is the first representative squadron of the Royal Canadian Air Force ever to go overseas. I had seen the squadron before its departure from Canada and there were no doubts in my mind as to how they would conduct themselves in England. However, it was a real satisfaction to hear from the lips of the commandant of the district that thLs squadron of the Royal Canadian Air Force had made an outstanding impression as the result of its training in the short period it had been overseas. Men from every province in Canada were to be found in the ranks of the squadron and they seemed to take pride in the fact that they were the first unit of the Royal Canadian Air Force ever to be in England. They are keenly anxious, as is this government, that they should be attached to the Canadian corps when it is formed.
T see no reason why I should not say to the house that during the course of my discussion at the air ministry I said that I felt sure it would be the wish of the Canadian government that this army cooperation squadron should cooperate whenever possible with the Canadian corps whenever such a corps should be formed in the theatre of war.
War Appropriation-Mr. Rogers

The air ministry gave me the assurance that whatever duties the army cooperation squadron of the Royal Canadian Air Force might perform meanwhile as part of the British air component in France, it would be transferred eventually to the Canadian corps. It is intended that this army cooperation squadron of the Royal Canadian Air Force shall serve in due course with our Canadian soldiers in the field.
Just before leaving, I also paid a visit to a squadron which is Canadian in the sense of origin but which is actually part of the organization of the Royal Air Force. Members of the house may recall that some time ago the air ministry decided that it would be of distinct advantage if Canadian personnel scattered through the various squadrons in the air force could be brought together to form a squadron which would be largely Canadian in its composition. That end has been achieved, and except for a few non-commissioned officers this particular fighter squadron of the Royal Air Force is made up of Canadians. The commanding officer, Squadron Leader Gobeil, is a native of Ottawa, and as 1 passed down the line and met other officers of that squadron I passed, as it were, across the Dominion of Canada from one province to another. The chief concern of the members of this fighter squadron was that they had not yet been called for duty in France. I remember that the last words of the adjutant to me were a request that I intercede with the air ministry to see that they were sent to France for active duty as soon as possible. I mention that simply as typical of the spirit of the men who represent Canada overseas at this time.
I have left the Royal Canadian Navy to the last because there were no elements of the Royal Canadian Navy in England when I was there. However, I should like to say that even in England I was made conscious of the splendid service that has been rendered by the Royal Canadian Navy since the outbreak of the war. This arm of the service has been more continuously engaged in arduous duty from the very beginning than has any other branch. I need hardly say that the work being done by our navy is absolutely essential to the allied cause. I wonder sometimes if we realize fully what it means to England and what it means to us on this side of the Atlantic to have the assurance of that life-line of commerce which has been made possible by the work of the Royal Navy and the cooperation of the Royal Canadian Navy.
There are those who sometimes are inclined to say that we put our complete dependence upon the Royal Navy. There was far more

truth in that statement in 1914 than there is to-day. At the Admiralty, from the chief of naval staff and from more than one of the members of the naval staff whom I met in the course of my visit, I received the highest tributes to the work which the Royal Canadian Navy has done, particularly in the organization of convoys across the Atlantic. That only confirmed testimony of a similar character which I had received from time to time from those who represented the British Admiralty in Canada. I say this because the work of the Royal Canadian Navy may at times seem monotonous and uninteresting to those who are engaged in its work, especially when they hear of the British navy performing deeds of valour in European waters. But I want the country to know that our navy is carrying out its wrork of patrol and convoy with the highest degree of efficiency and also with that high sense of duty which has been the mark of navy men throughout the centuries.
Before I leave this subject, I should like to place upon Hansard some evidence of the growth of the Royal Canadian Navy in the comparatively short period since the outbreak of the war. Personnel: total strength at the tenth of this month, 6,614 of all ranks. This is being increased from time to time and it is expected that the strength will approximate 10,000 by the end of the year. I ask the house to remember, when it is suggested from time to time that our war effort is insignificant when compared with that in the last war, that the Royal Canadian Navy in the number of its personnel is rapidly approaching the strength of an army division. The same is true of the Royal Canadian Air Force. When the air training programme is developed we shall have, not the strength of one army division, but probably of three army divisions before another year is passed.
Of ships now in commission there are ninety-four vessels of all kinds, including seven submarines. These include fifteen mine sweepers, anti-submarine vessels, fishermen's reserve and auxiliary vessels.
Ships under construction: There are ninety additional vessels under construction, including fifty-four patrol vessels and eighteen mine sweepers. Vessels are also being constructed for the Admiralty.
I see no reason why I should not tell the house that while I was in England I discussed with the Admiralty the terms under which two new Tribal class destroyers are being constructed for the Canadian government. The order for these destroyers has already been placed and a beginning has -been made upon their construction.

War Appropriation-Mr. Rogers
As to the duties of the Royal Canadian Navy, it undertakes patrol duty on our own Canadian coasts and it is actively cooperating also on coastal patrol and the defence of Newfoundland and also in certain operations in the Caribbean. I have also mentioned its splendid work in connection with the convoy system, and in that connection I would point out that the losses under the convoy system have been negligible and the work itself has gone forward without any interruption.
I should like to sajr just a word or two regarding the formation of the Canadian corps in the field. In the last war the Canadian corps was built up gradually in the field. We began first, as we must now, with one division in the field. We provided that division with ancillary units; in due course a second division joined the first division, and later a third division, and then finally the Canadian corps was established. When in the United Kingdom I discussed with the war office the conditions under which the Canadian corps might be established in the field. I say that in order that the house may know that the consideration of the formation of a Canadian corps was not prompted only by the events of recent weeks. We made, I should say, most satisfactory progress in our discussions with the war office touching the formation of a Canadian corps. These discussions related especially to particular units of an ancillary character, such as artillery, army service corps, engineering and mechanically equipped units, which would be supplied in the one case by Canada and in the other case by the United Kingdom as was done during the last war.
In these discussions I was assisted particularly by Major General Crerar, who has been appointed in command of Canadian military headquarters in London. He, too, like General McNaughton, has given of himself unreservedly to the task of maintaining a continuous and effective liaison with the war office, and Canada has profited greatly from his ability, even as it has already profited from the splendid impression which General McNaughton has made in the United Kingdom.
I may say that the duties of the officer in command of Canadian military headquarters in London are rather difficult to perform. He holds what might be termed a pivotal position. Negotiations pass through him and in particular are conducted by him. He has special command over certain administrative sections relating to our base establishments in the United Kingdom, and possibly will have similar duties in relation to base establishments in France. He also must be in continuous consultation with the High Commissioner for Canada in London, who also has
been performing his duties with efficiency and tireless energy in these recent months. I found no evidence of any friction in the working of our military machinery overseas. I think that reflects credit upon all of those particularly concerned, and I give that to the house not only as my own testimony but I am pleased to be able to say that from the highest staff officers in the war office I received nothing but the highest commendation of these men who are serving Canada in high military positions in England at the present time.
I said at the beginning that I would not detain the house at any great length. I come now to a matter on which I wish to speak with some care, namely, the campaign in Norway, and I am going to ask the indulgence of the house if in what I say regarding that campaign I follow my notes very carefully. I do not propose to discuss that campaign in detail, but I should like to make two introductory observations, followed by a brief statement of the part taken by Canadian troops in the early plans for the Trondheim operation.
My first observation is that this government has always felt that Canada's war effort must be fitted into the plans of the United Kingdom government. While Canadian troops may act in units or formations under the command of Canadian officers, the real strength of our assistance can be utilized only if those actions are properly related to the disposition of the British and allied armies. This constitutes no derogation from the undoubted right of this government to exercise final control over the employment of Canadian troops. That is our ultimate responsibility as a government. It is simply a matter of arriving at the best possible understanding and producing the most effective striking force.
The second remark that I wish to make relates to the supply of equipment. There may be certain operations of a specialized character wherein the full complement of heavy equipment is not only not needed but would be an actual encumbrance. In such operations much more depends on the ingenuity and initiative of the officers and on the intelligence and skill of the individual soldier. Rapidity of movement and control may be required rather than crushing weight of material. What has happened in France I suppose provides ample commentary on that statement. There the allied forces have had to move back before a crushing weight of material.
A plan was prepared by the British joint staffs for an operation in aid of the Norwegians at Trondheim. This consisted of two diversionary landings at Namsos and Andalsnes and for a direct landing in Trondheim fiord



War Appropriation

Mr. Rogers
of a force superior to that of the enemy which had seized the port. The forts at the entrance of the fiord and guns with which they were equipped would require to be attacked and overcome, and the navy were prepared to carry troops in through the fiord to effect a direct landing at the port.
The Canadians were asked to supply certain troops to assist in the Trondheim operation. Although the time was very limited, two battalions, a little short of strength because of certain details that were not required, and certain specialized units and details were selected, equipped and on their way to the port of embarkation within the allotted time. The two battalions thus selected, namely, the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry and the Edmonton regiment, each contained a number of men of Norwegian descent, some of whom spoke Norwegian.
Although this operation required only a part of the Canadian division, and although it was definitely limited in extent, Canada was ready to assume its share of the proposed operation. British authorities did not hesitate to say that there were nowhere available any troops who were so well fitted to carry out the. particular task. As time went on, the original plans were altered by the joint staff committee of the United Kingdom government in the light of changes in the military situation. The abandonment of the frontal attack on Trondheim was due solely to certain military considerations which were explained to the British House of Commons by Mr. Churchill on Wednesday, May 8, the day before I left London. Mr. Churchill, I might add, was then First Lord of the Admiralty.
Our Canadian soldiers were at a port in the north of Scotland ready to proceed to Norway when it was decided that the landing operation at Trondheim was not to take place. This did aWay with the necessity of attack on the guns against the fjord. Consequently our men were returned to their encampment at Aldershot. There was therefore no Canadian force which actually served in the operations in Norway. Opinions may vary as to the wisdom of the Norwegian campaign in whole or in part. It has been the subject of debate in parliament at London. I was able to hear a large part of that debate. In any event, it has been overshadowed bjr more recent events. The fact remains, however, and I can see no good reason why it should be concealed from this house and the Canadian people, that Canadian troops were ready when the call came. The military change of plans might easily have involved the cancellation of the use of other units. In fact, as is well known, the decision not to attack at Trondheim itself meant that other troops besides the
'Mr. Rogers.]
Canadians were not utilized. That does not detract from our readiness and willingness to serve when the request was made. The United Kingdom government, I should add, has signified, both in conversations I had with the Secretary of State for War and the Secretary of State for the Dominions, and by formal communication, its highest appreciation of the manner in which Canadian battalions were made available with the utmost speed to take part in this proposed operation.
Mr. Speaker, before I close I should like to emphasize once more as I did at the beginning that during the period when this resolution is before the committee there will be ample opportunity for members of the house to put particular questions regarding our war effort, which will be answered with the utmost dispatch. I felt I was interpreting the wishes of the house correctly in not attempting any extensive and detailed review of what has happened in the past. What concerns us most of all just now is what we can do in the immediate future to meet this crisis that is upon us. At the same time, I would not for a moment exclude any questions relating to our war effort. There may be questions which I may not be able to answer for prudential reasons, reasons which I am sure all members of the house will appreciate. If there are questions which I cannot answer I shall do my utmost to give sound reasons for taking that attitude, but in that I must put myself entirely in the judgment of the house. I should like it to be understood, however, that the government desires to have its war effort scrutinized in any detail. We desire it because we know at least something of the effort and the energy we have put into it. We desire it because we believe that when it is known in all its details, as these are presented from time to time, it will be accepted as a progressive developing effort entirely worthy of the people of this country.
Mr. Speaker, the allied nations to-day are confronted with a situation the gravity of which is understood by all members of this house. That gravity was emphasized particularly by the statement we heard from the Prime Minister at the opening of this sitting. It has been further accentuated by news which most of us have read in this evening's press. The German army has broken through the forward defences in France on a wide front. In a number of places its motorized columns are moving through the battlefields of a quarter of a century ago. Whether the objective is Paris or the channel ports, or both, the nazi machine has succeeded in sending forward masses of tanks aided by low flying aeroplanes which have penetrated

deep into French soil and these are being followed by motorized divisions of infantry and supporting troops. The Maginot line is intact, but the full force of the attack has been directed to the territory between the northern outpost of that line and the sea. In so far as this has resulted in German motorized units appearing behind the allied lines, so must the realization of danger increase. It would be a failure of duty to the Canadian people if I sought in any way to minimize the seriousness of the present situation.
Fortunately the story does not end there. The Germans have thrown the greater part of their mechanical equipment and their finest troops into the attack. There was probably every reason why they should do so if they hoped to gain, and indeed if they must, gain the victory this year, if at all. While our losses have not been light, theirs must have been much more severe. The French military genius is capable of adapting itself to a war of rapid movement without the defensive aid of concrete blockhouses and fixed emplacements. It has done it before. If our lines are threatened, so are theirs, and every mile of penetration extends their lines of communication and exposes them to the flank attacks of French troops and the telling blows of the bombers of the Royal Air Force. The men of that force have already proved themselves to be more than a match for those of the invaders, and the allied machines, I believe I can say, have proved to be in no way inferior to the German. Our great difficulty is that with respect to aircraft and highly mechanized heavy equipment we are battling against a very great preponderance on the side of the enemy.
Less than three weeks ago I was with the British troops in France and drove through some of the very areas that are now being threatened. I remember seeing children playing by the side of concrete pill-boxes in cities whose names appeared in the military communiques this afternoon. No one could make that trip to France and see the French people at their work and in their homes without gaining a sense of their great reserve of determination and fortitude; they are full of quiet courage-after all, they have been through it before-and unfailing confidence. They know and we must believe that the French army will re-form its front and meet the enemy with ultimate success. The spirit of Verdun cannot vanish from France.
The British troops in France were fully prepared and equally determined that they
95826-7J
21, 1940
War Appropriation-Mr. Rogers
would carry out whatever task was to be theirs in the same spirit of confidence. I saw something of their commanders, I saw something of the line of resistance they were building against the possibility of German attack. Plans were perfected from that line for rapid and effective cooperation with the French and Belgian armies. The British army was ready to move on a moment's notice, and as recent events have shown they have been engaged in heavy fighting along the lines laid down-in their previously prepared plan. The quiet effectiveness and calm determination of the British officers and men was most impressive.
The black-out-I do not think one can call it less than that-of German domination has descended on Czechoslovakia, on Poland, on Norway, on Denmark, on Holland, on Luxembourg and on Belgium. It means that loss of life and degradation and hunger have been inflicted on millions of civilians and innocent people. There seems little doubt that millions inoie are condemned to suffer before victory is won, as won it must be. The allied countries are shouldering the burden of mankind. There can be no mistake about that. There can be no question that we are approaching a great climacteric period in world history. When the story of these days is written I hope we may be able to remember with pride that from the comparative security of this continent, with no thought of gain or of aggrandizement, for we have no territorial objectives to achieve, with the conviction that the greatest struggle in history is upon us, Canadians have gone forward and will continue to go forward to share the allied burden and fight for the cause of freedom throughout the world. Mr. Speaker, I have no words of peroration except those which have comforted nations and men in many high moments of peril:
therefore tauc unto you the whole armour ot Grocl, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that I need tell the house how I feel the responsibility of addressing it in taking part in this debate. We are living in swiftly moving times. Indeed, what in the morning one would deem it appropriate to say seems out of place that same afternoon or evening. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), in speaking on the address in reply yesterday, assured' the house that this group was not unconcerned with the outcome of the struggle which is going on at the present time in Europe. As a matter of fact we are very deeply concerned, because if nazism succeeds in domin-

War Appropriation-Mr. Maclnnis
ating the world, then we and other groups which hold the same views as we do as to the society we hope to build will have to postpone the achievement of our objects for a long, long time. It was people such as belong to our group who were first in realizing the dangers of fascism and nazism, because it was against such philosophies as ours that these movements first directed their hatred.
It was the trade unions and the socialist party of Italy that first felt II Duce's oppressive hand. It was only a few years ago that the assassin of the socialists of Italy was feted in a city not 150 miles from this chamber.
It is to be regretted that the leaders ^ of democratic countries were so slow in realizing the implications of the nazi philosophy. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) yesterday spoke about a book by the recent British ambassador to Berlin, Sir Nevile Henderson, entitled "The Failure of a Mission," and I believe he recommended that book to the attention of members of this house. I have not read the whole book; I have read parts of it. In my opinion it is a tragedy that such a book should have been published at this time. The book has been circulated in neutral countries, in the United States for instance, and its circulation in that country is doing the allied cause no good; for Sir Nevile Henderson totally failed to understand the real nature of fascism, and its implications. On page 13 of that book we find this statement. When we read it we can understand why we have got into our present position. He says:
Nor are all dictatorships even if prolonged, reprehensible. [DOT] [DOT] [DOT] One cannot, just because he is a dictator, refuse to admit the great services which Signor Mussolini has rendered to Italy nor would the world have failed to acclaim Hitler as a great German if he had known when and where to stop; if for instance, after Munich and the Nuremberg decrees for the Jews.
Mr. Speaker, before that took place, Hitler had destroyed all freedom in Germany. Hitler had destroyed the trade union movement of Germany, without which democracy and freedom are impossible. Hitler had destroyed the German social democratic party that was trying to restore the country. Hitler had destroyed the cooperative movements of Germany. Hitler had destroyed every vestige of freedom; yet Sir Nevile Henderson said in his book that Hitler could have been acclaimed as a great man if he had stopped there-and I have not even referred to the horrible atrocities committed against the Jewish race. Not only were these sentiments expressed in this book; very similar sentiments were expressed in

this house by the former leader of the opposition on September 8 of last year. At page 14 of Hansard for the special session of last fall Mr. Manion said:
But, sir, Germany is controlled at the present time by an unscrupulous egoist. It is true he served Germany well, and had he stopped at a certain point he might well have gone down into history as a great German hero.
So we have these two statements that had Hitler stopped after he had destroyed everything in Germany that was of spiritual and social value, he might have gone down in history as a great German hero. Until we better understand ethics; until we have better moral perceptions than are indicated by those two statements, we cannot meet the situation that is confronting the world to-day.
However, Mr. Speaker, we are at war, and the specific resolution before us asks that we vote a certain sum of money to carry on our war effort. The group to which I belong, and I assume all other members of this house, are concerned with two things. First, we are concerned with how the money is to be spent and, second, with how the money is to be raised. The Canadian people are disturbed about our war expenditures. The hon. member for North Battleford (Mrs. Nielsen) said last night that the people of Canada are suspicious, and I believe that is true. In any event they are disturbed as to how the money raised for Canada's war effort is being spent. Neither they nor we have any information as to the terms on which war contracts are being let. Is there real competition? Has the government competent officers, engineers and experts, who are able and allowed to safeguard the interests of the Canadian people? On these matters the people of Canada and even the members of this house have only the most meagre information. There are reasons for this suspicion, this disturbed state of mind. A year or two ago a commission investigated a certain contract. As a result of that investigation certain recommendations were made to the government and a defence purchasing board was created under which a profit of I think five per cent was to be allowed on contracts. During the special session last fall we were told by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) that the government could not find tenderers for contracts while the profit was limited to five per cent. That being the situation, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me the solution is not to remove the limitation on profits but rather for the government itself to undertake the manufacture of essential war materials.


Mr. LACROIX (Beauce):: It would cost a hundred per cent more.

War Appropriation-Mr. Maclnnis


Angus MacInnis: Well, it might cost a hundred per cent more, but there is no reason why it should.


Édouard Lacroix: No reason; but it would.


Angus MacInnis: Then we need a different government to do it, and the people of Canada elected the wrong government. Surely there is enough honesty in the Canadian people, particularly at a time like this, to see that the means are provided to defend the liberties of the people of this country. But despite what we know-the little we know-the government is now asking for a grant of $700,000,000 more to carry on the war effort. Personally I am not opposing the granting of that money but, as I said before, I and those associated with me would like to know much more about how it is to be spent.
In the second place I said we were interested in how the money was to be raised. It seems to me the procedure followed in this resolution is rather unusual. In the same resolution asking for the appropriation of supply we have a section stating how that money is to be raised. It is our opinion that there should be two separate resolutions, one asking for the appropriation and the other stating how the government intend to raise the money. Some members might wish to vote the supply but might have other opinions as to how the money should be raised. As it stands, we cannot vote against the one part without voting against the whole resolution. I am not unmindful of the statement made this afternoon that although the resolution so stated, it was not the intention that this whole amount was to be raised by way of loan; but we are asked to pass a resolution raising by way of loan the sum of $700,000,000. If it is not the intention of the government to raise the money in that way, we should be told how they intend to raise it.
During the special session last September the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ilsley), who was then acting Minister of Finance, said that in carrying on the war the government hoped to follow a pay-as-you-go policy. I should like to quote very briefly from the minister's statement in order to show how far we have departed-at least so far as we know-from that policy of pay as you go in the resolution now before us. Referring to conditions during the last war he said this:
Prices and the cost of living rose more rapidly than wages and interest on old debts. Industrial profits and property incomes increased while the real income of wage earners and
individuals receiving interest payments at fixed rates declined or rose less rapidly. It was this reduction in the real income of one section of the community and the creation of large surpluses in the hands of other sections willing to lend to the government that in considerable part at least made possible Canada's remarkable record in mobilizing public savings through the various war and victory loan programmes. The decline in the relative standard of living suffered by certain groups, the rapid increase in savings and the postponement of needed capital facilities made possible the enormous volume of war loans and represented the sacrifices necessary for the conduct of the war.
Well, certainly those who at the expense of the rest of the community were becoming wealthy did not sacrifice anything when they subscribed to war loans at five and a half per cent. Financing the war in that way has had a very serious effect on the social progress of Canada since the war-Ever}' time we asked for legislation which would improve the social and economic conditions of our people we were met with the assertion that there was no money: "Where can we find the money?" But I have never heard a minister say from his place in the house that it was impossible to raise the money to pay the interest on war bonds. According to the Minister of National Revenue that interest was received by people who got an undue share of the national income, and who consequently did not make sacrifices during the last war.
If we are going to guard against that sort of thing we must guard against it now, and not wait until the next war begins. The minister went on to say that no country had the courage to finance the great war solely by resort to taxation and borrowing out of savings. The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation suggests that at the beginning of this war the government should have the courage to finance the war out of taxation, and that those who can afford it should be made to pay for the war. Others are fighting it for them.
Already we have floated one war loan. A Canadian Press dispatch which appeared in the Vancouver papers contained a report of the meeting held in Montreal at which the first war loan was launched, and the report stated that at that meeting were 200 people who represented one-half the total wealth of Canada. That would mean that if there are 11,000,200 people in Canada, one-half of the wealth is held by 11,000.000 of them and the other half by 200. When we consider the millions of people who represent nothing at all, so far as financial standing is concerned, we can understand how very few people control the wealth of Canada.

War Appropriation

Mr. Maclnnis
The government should have the courage to make those people pay for the war. We insist that some means other than borrowing must be found if we are not going further to depress the standard of living of people who are now sorely pressed. Already many homes are feeling the pinch of rising food prices. The unemployed, the lower-paid wage-earners, the majority of farmers, people living on small pensions, such as our old-age pensioners, are all feeling the pinch of intensified poverty, and yet at the same time we are allowing a few to make undue profits and to increase their riches out of the nation's distress-indeed, out of the distress of humanity as a whole.
We cannot allay the suspicion and distrust of the Canadian people so long as we allow that sort of thing to continue. As I said before the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation believes that the cost of financing the war should be placed on the shoulders best able to bear it. To this end we propose increased and steeply graded taxes on incomes, and on corporations, and we say that the excess profits tax should be made a real excess profits tax, and not what it is to-day. On the other hand taxes on the necessities of life, taxes which tend to increase the cost of living of those on low incomes should be removed. In lieu of these, taxes should be imposed on stock speculations. Further revenues could be raised by the imposition of federal succession duties. Revenues should be raised in this way not only for war purposes, but also for social services. The government should take the national wealth to meet the national need, and not try to postpone payment and thereby place the burden of debt on the shoulders of those who are to follow us. Whatever may be our responsibilities in the circumstances leading to this war, certainly posterity cannot be blamed for the present state of affairs, and for that reason should not be asked to pay for it.
In view of the fact that the government has already been compelled to institute economic controls in many directions, in an endeavour to increase efficiency and to prevent profiteering, it would seem proper that such controls should be extended, not as a matter of expediency when a difficulty arises but rather as a carefully thought out programme of planned action in the interests of all the people of Canada, and not in the interests of a few.
In our opinion there is only one way in which profiteering can be eliminated. As I said before, it can be done only by the socialization of essential war industries.

In conclusion I should like to comment briefly upon a statement made yesterday evening by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). From page 49 of Hansard I read:
I know that the government can rely upon the support of all sides of this house as long as it does all that is humanly possible to carry out its duty to the people of Canada.
I do not believe that this government can carry out its duty to the people of Canada if it continues to follow 'the line it has been following up to the present time. The Prime Minister then went on to say:
To assist us we shall need and, I believe, we shall receive the unwavering resolution and the full cooperation of every true man and woman in this country. If this war is lost, and tyranny triumphs, our world with its gift of freedom, and its promise of happiness for all men and women, will be lost in utter darkness. No sacrifice is too great to prevent that calamity.
I should think that if the Prime Minister were a little closer to the people he would realize that all they have had of freedom these many years was simply a promise. During the last eight or nine months I have been appalled at the number of people who have come to me with stories of distress. One old gentleman, almost seventy years of age, came to me not so very long ago in my own city. His wife had reached eighty years of age, being an invalid in receipt of an old age pension. He had been granted a municipal pension of $21.65 a month and immediately his wife's old age pension was stopped. There can be no freedom for a man living under those conditions except the freedom of slow starvation.
The members of this house owe a duty to the underprivileged people of this country and that duty should be fulfilled. They should see that these people receive a better living out of the national income of this dominion. If we do that, then there will be no doubt of the loyal support this government will receive in fighting aggression and building freedom in this country.
As I said, I think this resolution should be divided so that we could discuss the ways in which this money is to be raised and possibly vote against certain ways of raising the money without having to vote against the appropriation itself. Speaking yesterday evening, the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) said that his group, with the possible exception of one or two Liberals, were the only ones who were advocating new ways of raising revenue. I do not think he is quite correct.


John Horne Blackmore: Without interest.

War Appropriation-Mr. Stirling


Angus MacInnis: Without interest; that is true. We have not advocated the raising of money without interest, but we have advocated other ways of raising money. We believe our ways are feasible, while the other ways suggested are not. But the hon. member's group and this group and every other group in the house ought to have an opportunity of opposing the ways proposed to raise this money without having to vote against the appropriation. In order that they may be able to do that, I move:
That the final paragraph of the resolution, beginning with the words "with provision also" and ending with the words "consolidated revenue fund" be deleted and brought forward as a separate resolution.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I refer the hon. member to standing order 48, which reads:
When a question is under debate no motion is received unless to amend it; to postpone it to a day certain; for the previous question; for reading the orders of the day; for proceeding to another order; to adjourn the debate; or for the adjournment of the house.
I refer also to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, paragraph 397, which reads:
An amendment must not raise any question which by the rules of the house, can only be raised by a distinct motion after notice.
In my opinion this amendment raises such a question and, therefore, I must declare it to be out of order.


Grote Stirling: Mr. Speaker, I have no set speech to deliver, neither do I desire to take part in this debate for the purpose of making a set speech. However, I want to give voice to certain thoughts which have been passing through my mind for a considerable length of time in regard to these solemn matters which are before the house. Canada is a leading member of a great partnership, the partnership of the British empire, and that partnership with all its forces and all its resources, concerting with her noble ally, France, is fighting a battle for freedom and liberty. It is just as much our fight in Canada as though these ruthless hordes were advancing up the St. Lawrence river. This is brought home to us every time we read of the terrible, bloody destruction which has taken place in one great country after another. We then realize that this is our fight and that we must play our part to the very best of our ability.
It is true that Canada has come into this fight, but unfortunately, to my mind, the Canadian people have been extremely lacking in information with regard to what has been accomplished heretofore, what is being planned now and what the future may disclose. We
came here in January intent upon receiving detailed information on these matters, but we did not receive it. We came here again on May 16 to receive this information, and so far we have had the all too meagre statement which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) made yesterday, augmented by the statement to-day of the minister. Whereas the debate on the address was cut off, perhaps rightly so, an opportunity is now given to us to discuss this matter on the resolution of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ralston); and it appears to me that the sooner we get down to a discussion of that resolution itself in committee, the more likely are we to get the answers to questions which are thronging our minds and perhaps be able to pass on to the Canadian people a better understanding and a fuller explanation of what Canada is doing.
In connection with the whole war one question which in the west has caused a great deal of, shall I say, misunderstanding, is in regard to the method of recruiting. Recruiting started; recruiting stopped; men who had been recruited and had been sent off to do certain tasks came back in some instances to find their jobs filled, filled because it was necessary for those jobs to be undertaken, and they found themselves on relief. It is connected with that, it appears to me, that a difficulty arose with regard to our militia forces.
I suppose everybody knows that the land forces in Canada consist of a militia which is divided into two parts-the permanent force, which is largely an instructional force, and the non-permanent active militia. If I have understood the plans of the past in connection with the formation of an active service force, or mobilization, if you will, in case of war, it has been that the skeleton, the non-permanent active militia, should be expanded by the taking of certain units, which should be kept up by recruiting, whose reinforcements should be provided by recruiting, and whose divisions should be so formed. So far as I have been able to follow the Prime Minister's speech, that seems to have been departed from, and certainly seems to have been departed from in this way, that units were incorporated in the first division, and when reinforcements were required for the units it appears to me that officers and men belonging to other units have been permitted or have been asked to come forward in enlistment as reinforcements for the units of the first division. Whether or not I understand that aright, whether that be a good plan or not, it is most unfortunate that the members of the non-permanent active militia

War Appropriation-Mr. Stirling
units have not received any detailed explanation that such- is the case. Before I started on my journey of three thousand miles to arrive in Ottawa there was a great deal of misunderstanding and unrest not only in the minds of members of the non-permanent active militia units but also in the mind of that general public which looks on at the non-permanent active militia units with some pride. That is a matter which I trust will be further explained, and I shall expect to take a further opportunity to speak of it in the discussion which ensues when we get into the committee stage.
There are two things I want to say now. One is that having occupied for a short time the position which the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Rogers) now holds, I have some realization of the load which he is carrying. But it should not be forgotten that we on the opposition side of this house have very grave duties to carry out. We look upon them in all seriousness, and one of the matters which has caused me more concern than another has been the gauge with which I am to measure the criticism which I can properly use. It is not my intention to say one word which can needlessly embarrass the administration, and it is not my intention to leave one word unsaid which will be of any assistance in pressing Canada's effort forward to exactly what it should amount to.
There is another thought. We are faced with these ruthless aggressors. If we do not bend every effort and strain every sinew we shall be recreant in our task and our names will go down in obloquy to those who come after us. We shall be recreant in our task; for there are things which Canada can do, and perhaps should be doing in greater volume than she is doing now, and it is pressing forward to these tasks which, in my opinion, is the obvious duty of every member of this house at the present time.


Mr. VICTOR QUELCH (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, if I understood the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ralston) correctly this afternoon, he used words to this effect, that the government would not allow financial restrictions to hamper Canada's war effort and that the only limitations would be Canada's ability to produce. With those sentiments we in this corner are heartily in accord. We only regret that has not been the policy of this government and of the governments of the allies in the past. Had it been so, I do not think we would be in the same critical position in which we find ourselves to-day.
On the other hand we in this corner are definitely opposed to the method proposed in
rMr. Stirling.]
the last paragraph of the bill, where the minister proposes raising money by way of loan. During the past five years we have frequently criticized the government's procedure of raising funds on the ground that it has built up a great interest-bearing debt that can never be repaid and one that is wrecking the economic life of this country. In tracing the growth of debt we have stressed the fact that during normal times industry is not self-liquidating; that is, industry is not able to create an effective demand for its own production except in times of abnormal capital goods production, and as a consequence industry is not maintained at its maximum level or at a level sufficiently high to guarantee the people a decent standard of living. Unemployment increases, and there is a further decrease of purchasing power. That is why in this house and outside of it we have continually urged upon the government the need for monetary expansion to the degree necessary to provide full employment, capacity production, and a higher standard of living. But strangely enough we had to wait until the declaration of war to receive from this government what I would term its first really sane statement on monetary policy, and that was the statement made by the acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) in September last, which can be found at page 140 of Hansard. It reads:
All this is not to say that a small and carefully regulated amount of credit expansion may not be desirable in the early stages of the war in order to assist the increase of production and employment. ... If at the beginning of the war there are unemployed resources, some credit expansion may give an impetus to their prompt utilization. If it is carefully controlled, the expansion of production may prevent any abnormal rise in prices, confidence may be maintained and the initial impetus may be carried on and accelerated by the insistent demand that exists for supplies. . . . With an economy at full production and employment, the only result of expanding money and credit is to raise prices without increasing production. At such a point commences the cumulative spiral of inflation with all its deadly consequences to the economy.
He stresses there that monetary expansion may be desirable for the purpose of providing full employment and production. He also stresses the fact that there need not be any fear of inflation until we have acquired full production. I think we will all agree that we are a long way from reaching maximum production to-day. In the last edition but one of the Financial Post the fact is emphasized that the production of Canada can be increased by many billions of dollars.
To come back to the question of monetary expansion, did not the minister's statement apply equally as well during the years from

War Appropriation-Mr. Quelch
1935 to 1939? Did we not have a large number of unemployed? Did we not have a large number of idle and semi-idle factories and thousands of people in dire need of the goods that could have been produced? Apparently at that time the government were not interested in the demands of the home market; they were more interested, it seemed, in the demands of foreign markets even though it entailed perhaps the selling of war materials to our potential enemies. They were more interested in maintaining a large favourable balance of trade, and of course the orthodox way of doing that is to maintain a low standard of living in the country so as to decrease the demand for imports and to make a greater amount of goods available for export.
During the budget debate at (the last special session it was declared most emphatically that the government would insist upon equality of sacrifice and that as far as possible a policy of pay as you go would be adopted. Judging by subsequent events, it would appear that the government have already forgotten about that declaration. I suppose it has been shelved with that famous statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) that currency and credit would be made available in terms of public need to meet the domestic and social requirements of the Canadian people. I challenge even the most rabid Liberal to suggest that that has been done in the last five years. The government appear ito be following a policy similar to that which has obtained in the past, the policy of borrowing vast sums of money instead of utilizing the services of the Bank of Canada.
We maintain that the establishment of a national credit account with the Bank of Canada for meeting war expenditures would represent a real pay-as-you-go policy, and provided a judicious use were made of price control and an equitable form of taxation employed, there would be no danger of real inflation. If necessary, the cash requirements of the Canadian banks could be increased. I make that statement in view of the fact that the former Minister of Finance in this house was always warning us of the danger, if money were issued by the government, of its increasing the cash reserves of the chartered banks and so enabling them to expand loans on that basis. That danger could easily be overcome by compelling the chartered banks to increase their cash reserves. If that is not considered wise, if people do maintain that as a result of that action the banks could not operate, then the only other solution would be to nationalize the whole banking system; and of the two I admit that I am strongly in favour of nationalizing the chartered banks along with
the other financial institutions and putting into operation an investment board for the purpose of directing the investments of the country. Instead of carrying out a pay-as-you-go policy the government prefers to continue a policy that results in one of the most vile forms of inflation possible, that is, inflation of profits and savings.
First of all, we borrow $200,000,000 from the chartered banks; that is, we hire the chartered banks to create $200,000,000. That is utilized to meet war expenditures and there is an expansion of profits and savings. Then we exchange interest-bearing bonds for some of these savings and profits. Not content with helping to create these large profits and savings, we take steps to fasten them as a perpetual debt round the necks of the ratepayers at an annual levy of three and a quarter per cent. I can appreciate the reason why this government appears to favour the idea of an increase in the national debt in view of the fact that the financial adviser to the government, Mr. Towers, stated definitely before the banking committee that in his opinion there was no reason why we should try to pay off the national debt. Perhaps it is not fair to refer to him without quoting his exact words. At page 80 of the evidence there appears a question which was put to him by Mr. McGeer. I quote:
Mr. McGeer: Is it possible for you to imagine any way by which we are ever going to pay the debt we have got?
Mr. Towers: As the debts of the government are an asset of the Canadian people, I do not see much point in the thing.
He adds, except in so far as there is a maldistribution.
But the national debt is not an asset of the Canadian people; it is merely an asset of a few privileged individuals, comparatively speaking, whilst on the other hand it is a liability of	the	whole	nation.	As aresult of this policy, therefore, we make a levy upon all	the	people	of Canada inorder to pay tribute to a few; and then we are told that the government insists upon equality of sacrifice. I have always maintained that this kind of racket is bad enough in time of peace, but it is more contemptible in time of war. Mr. F. Fairer Smith, in his book on War Finance,	puts it	quite
clearly when he says:
What it all amounts to is this. In the dark ages your acknowledged enemy levied present tribute on you at his peril, for you were at liberty to strike	him	down	if you	could.
Nowadays it is a certain number of your fellow countrymen who levy a continuous tribute on you and they are protected in their depredations by your own government.

War Appropriation-Mr. Quelch

Let us get the matter of war costs absolutely straight. The only materials available to us with which to wage war are those that have been produced in the past and those that are or can be produced at the present time- perhaps I should say current production. We cannot borrow guns or ammunition from future generations. Borrowing money internally will not increase the amount of goods in the country by a single item. This war will be fought with current production. Surely therefore, if we are to adopt a pay-as-you-go policy, when we consume goods in the prosecution of the war the claims against those goods should be destroyed at the same time. What right have we to say that we will consume a certain proportion of goods for war purposes but will leave a demand on future generations to pay for them? Have we their permission? Of course not. It is a straight case of misappropriation of funds of future generations. It is not only a dishonest policy but one that is absolutely impossible of accomplishment. Industry through current production cannot pay out more in salaries and wages and dividends than it is going to recover through prices of the product. As a matter of fact we as social crediters maintain that industry does not pay out enough in wages, salaries and dividends to buy back its own production. However, not even the most orthodox economist would claim that industry can pay out more than the aggregate prices of the goods it has to sell. That being the case-and it cannot be challenged-how will it be possible in the future for industry to distribute sufficient money to pay for its own production and, in addition, pay for the goods that we are consuming to-day? Of course it cannot be done, but the hoax is kept up by borrowing. Therefore we are most emphatically opposed to the money for this expenditure being borrowed. We feel that the services of the Bank of Canada should be utilized and a true pay-as-you-go policy adopted.


Mr. ALAN COCKERAM (York South):: First let me say, Mr. Speaker, that this is the first time I have ever spoken in an assembly such as this, and if I transgress any of the rules of this house I trust you will forgive me.
As a soldier of the last war I pay tribute, with the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Rogers), to the spirit that animates those of our soldiers who are overseas. I believe they will be every bit as good as our men who served twenty-five years ago. But what surprised me in the minister's statement was that he made no reference to how he proposes to equip the second and third divisions or

how he proposes to issue uniforms to those of us who belong to the non-permanent active militia at this time. Hon. members may not know that the non-permanent active militia is training in civilian clothing.
During the course of the recent general election many things were said regarding equipment and many assurances were given to the public that our troops had gone overseas properly equipped in every way. I believe I can state with confidence that the assurances given to the people of this country by members of the government are not borne out by the facts. Everything that has taken place up to the present time tends to confirm the doubt with which a great many people received those assurances. It is a well known fact, the assurances of the Minister of National Defence and other members of the government to the contrary, that the first Canadian division went overseas totally unequipped for modern warfare. The government's evasions with respect to this matter are to be condemned. And our information about the second Canadian division is that it is not up to strength at the present time. I trust that in voting this money one thing this house will be doing will be assuring the people of this country that our troops will not be sent to France unequipped to meet the conditions of modern warfare. After eight months of comparative calm the full storm has broken. It is to be hoped that the events of the past week have aroused the government from its lethargy. I believe they have, but I believe it is too late. Hitherto its ears have been so firmly attuned to the ground to catch the rumblings of future political emergencies that it has been rendered incapable of grasping the deadly nature of the dangers that threaten us. Our feet are set on two roads, which lead to two destinations only; one to victory, the other to annihilation.
Now that the war has commenced in earnest, the casualties will equal or exceed those of the last war. But in Canada recruiting is at a standstill. Recruiting should be carried on continuously in this country until there is a minimum of four hundred thousand men under arms. Those of us who served overseas in the last war and who know something about action know that you can go into a show one morning at nine o'clock and come out next morning with only a handful of men. Reserves must be on hand. Neither the first nor the second division should be allowed to enter any zone of battle until the Canadian people and the Department of National Defence are satisfied that sufficient trained reserves are on hand to reinforce them.

War Appropriation-Mr. Cockeram
We in Canada should contrast the efforts of our government with those of Australia, which to-day has two divisions in Egypt or en route there and five further divisions training.


James Layton Ralston: Will my friend permit me? I think his information is not correct.


Alan Cockeram: The information I have is just such information as is available to the people of this country.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend perhaps does not know that the Australians had five divisions in the last war, and they began numbering their divisions in this war at six, and they have now the sixth and seventh Australian divisions. I think that is perhaps where my friend is mistaken.


Alan Cockeram: Is it not true that they have 75,000 men under arms in Australia training?


James Layton Ralston: I did not understand my friend to say 75,000 men.


Alan Cockeram: Well, that is approximately five divisions.


James Layton Ralston: Here I think we will have 100,000. I only wanted to point out that when my friend speaks of five divisions I think he is wrong.


Alan Cockeram: The Australian air force we are given to understand is seven times as strong as it was in 1939.
It has been said all over Canada that the answer of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the answer of members of the government to any word of criticism has been that they are in constant contact with the British government and that the government of Canada has done everything that has been asked of it. What the people of Canada would like to know is what this government spontaneously offered to the mother country at the outbreak of the war. It is well understood that the British government made no demands for assistance; that is not its policy.
An uneasy feeling prevails, that the policy of the Prime Minister and of his colleagues, is one of so conducting the war effort that, no matter what the results of the conflict, this country will emerge from it with a balance on the right side of the ledger. If that is so, let me tell the Prime Minister that he is not pursuing that policy with the endorsement of the Canadian people. No red-blooded Canadian wishes to profit at the expense of the lives of his fellow-citizens in other parts of the empire.
The Prime Minister has never taken the public into his confidence until yesterday; they have therefore failed to realize the gravity
95826-8i
of the situation. Events of the past week have brought it home to them. Still, during these fateful days until yesterday the Prime Minister's lips have remained sealed. And now what do we find? We find the Prime Minister telling this house and the country that he will expedite our war effort to the maximum. In other words, he is telling us that he is going to do now what we had been told he has done ever since this war started.
Perhaps the most serious condition that exists in this country to-day is what is known as the fifth column. Many members of the house will have seen in the press an account of a meeting of the Canadian legion in Vancouver, at which a resolution was passed, a copy of which I understand was forwarded to the Prime Minister. That resolution was to the effect that in the city of Vancouver there were 5,000 active enemy aliens, and, requesting that in the interests of public safety, steps be taken immediately to place those individuals in concentration camps. It may surprise hon. members to learn that the number of enemy aliens at Petawawa camp at the present time is less than 300, and I do not suppose anyone in this house will believe that there were not a greater number of dangerous enemy aliens foot-loose in eastern Canada. I have not checked this up with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), but I am informed that a number of the prisoners who have been interned from time to time have been able to obtain their release through political interference. I say that any member of this house who uses his office to bring about the release of any prisoner who has been interned is a traitor to his country. Every enemy alien in Canada should be ferreted out and placed under restriction.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend has made quite a serious charge in regard to the release of an enemy alien through political pressure. Would he furnish the Minister of Justice, in confidence, with the name of this person or any particulars of the case?


Alan Cockeram: I think I can do that.
I do not know how they get out, but they do.


James Layton Ralston: That is quite different. I thought my hon. friend said it was from political pressure.


Alan Cockeram: I understand that was it. The returned soldiers of Canada have stated that they will be glad to assist the government in these efforts.
I believe the government would be well advised to turn its attention to the activities of communists and other subversive elements as well. There is need for action along this line, but I am doubtful if the Prime Minister
108	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Mr. Cockeram
will do very much to encourage that action, in view of the fact that yesterday afternoon he asked us not to get panicky over this situation.
I was elected to this house, Mr. Speaker, to make every effort of which I am capable, to further the prosecution of this war. That I intend to do, disregarding any political consequences to myself. I do not intend to say or do anything obstructive merely for the sake of being destructive, but where criticism is necessary I shall criticize freely. The other day the Prime Minister expressed the pious hope that during this session there might be no recriminations. Doubtless recriminations are distasteful to him, but he can hardly expect not to be called to account for his past actions, now that the results of his folly and his persistent refusal to face realities are apparent to everyone. "As a man sows so shall he also reap." It is well_ to let bygones be bygones only when there is a real change apparent.
Surely it must be dawning upon the Prime Minister that his popularity has been on the wane since March 26 and that he no longer enjoys the confidence of the people of this country. If he doubts it, let him read and digest what is being said in the daily press from coast to coast. I am sorry the Prime Minister is not in the house to hear this.


Mr. POWER:: He is not missing anything.


Alan Cockeram: The Prime Minister is full of words, but he has shown himself quite incapable of action. The record of the government since the outbreak of war is one of ineptitude and frustration. For that record he must take the responsibility. A strong feeling prevails that as long as he remains Prime Minister of this country there will be no change in the situation. There must be a change. Every man and every dollar must be mobilized immediately. Every wheel in every factory throughout Canada must turn with a single purpose in view: victory. Furthermore, no brakes must be placed upon the wheels of industry by political patronage.
What I am going to say now will, no doubt, be in the nature of a bombshell to hon. members of this house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Alan Cockeram: Wait till I am through before you laugh. Bombs are falling thickly in other countries and countless thousands of men and women are being killed. I do not desire to offend the Prime Minister, but I believe what I am about to say is in the interests of our country, and it is being said without malice. In this dreadful hour of crisis, when the very existence of everything

we hold dear, hangs by a thread, I solemnly implore the Prime Minister, for the good of his country, to emulate the example of Mr. Chamberlain, who, with much less reason to do so than he has, resigned his office in the interest of sustaining public confidence in the ability and determination of the government to carry the war to a successful conclusion.
I make this plea under the firm conviction that such action on his part is necessary in the interests of the national safety of Canada. The tragedy of the moment is the fact that the country has been given no effective leadership, though people have anxiously awaited it. The result has been public apathy, and the events of the past week have left the people fearful. The Prime Minister has among his followers others better fitted to lead than he is, and better able to inspire public confidence. Let him play the man and the patriot, and sacrifice his personal ambitions for the good of his country.


Denton Massey: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take a very brief part in this debate I am fully conscious of the fact that these are days when it is expected of us in this house that we should give action and leadership, not merely words. Therefore it is not my purpose to detain the house at any length, but what I am about to say is being said with the greatest sincerity and earnestness of purpose of which I am capable.
To-night I listened w'ith the closest attention to the speech of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Rogers). I am sure all hon. members were impressed by his earnestness as well as by the fact that he rightfully referred in glowing terms to the calibre of the Canadian soldier, sailor and airman. The minister referred also to the personnel who are at this moment charged with the responsiblity of discharging the duties of chief of staff and supporting officers, as well as to the men themselves. I have not heard it said in Canada at any time that there is or has been any doubt in the minds of the Canadian people as to the calibre of their own sons. I have not heard anyone at any time-and I make this statement broadly and as I feel it-question General McNaughton or those who are associated with him. Canada has reason to be proud of General McNaughton, and I mention him only as one of the men to whom the minister referred to-night.
No one doubts the Canadian soldier, sailor and airman, Mr. Speaker, but I feel that there is not a member of this house worthy to be a member but who at least to-night is charged with his responsibility as such in relation to the present crisis with which not only this dominion but the whole world is faced.

War Appropriation-Mr. Massey
There has not been a day in the history of what, for lack of a better name, we call civilization when all that we regard as most precious to us has been so severely threatened as it is at this very hour.
At this moment we are not concerned with bickering about what has been. We could spend hours in this chamber discussing what should have been done, perhaps by Great Britain, perhaps by Canada, perhaps by some other country, but at the moment what we want is action, no.t words, not a discussion of what has been and what has not been. We are looking ahead, not back. We have a job of work to do, and we are charged with that job. As we sit here in this chamber to-night in-and I quote the words of the minister-"the comparative security of Canada,"-can we help feeling that there is another country which gave us birth and has given us continued life, but which sits to-night in insecurity. I wonder what it would feel like to be in England to-night. What must it mean to those who live in the United Kingdom and at this very hour to know that the most ruthless enemy of modern or medieval times, for that matter, is separated from one's home by only a few miles of water?
Mr. Speaker, we cannot consider too seriously what faces them and us. I am sure that I speak for every hon. member when I say that party differences fade into puny insignificance. We do not meet here to-night as Liberals, Conservatives, or members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation or Social Credit groups. No, we meet here tonight as Canadians. There is but one thought in our minds; there must be but one thought in our minds, and that is the course of action which we perforce must take if we are to preserve this dominion and this empire. Party politics, I say, fade into insignificance. Those hon. members of our party who have spoken as well as myself, speak from that point of view.
It is not unpatriotic to disagree with the course the government has taken or to feel earnestly and sincerely that the government can make mistakes. It is our duty as members of an opposition out of our sincerity as Canadians to point out to the government where we feel their action can be bettered and speeded up. That is our duty as Canadians, and the government of Canada should welcome constructive criticism.
Again I quote from the speech delivered to-night by the minister. He spoke of the comparative safety of Canada-yes, the "comparative" security of Canada; the adjective is important. That safety, that security is only comparative. How long will it remain
so? I had the privilege of sitting in this chamber as a member of the last parliament between 1935 and 1940, and I can recall speeches in regard to the defence of Canada to which some members replied, asking, "Who are the enemy against whom we are defending ourselves?" That question can no longer be m our minds. The decent people of this world have a common enemy who stands grimly apparent at this very moment. For a thousand years it has been inconceivable to us to consider an invasion of the British Isles. And yet to-night we must contemplate that as a possibility. It is inconceivable to us to think that any nation could be strong enough to wrest from the empire the mother country.. And yet we must face that possibility. There' can be no thought more staggering to Canadians than the fall of the United Kingdom and! the subsequent invasion of Canada.
What are we doing in this chamber if we fail to concentrate on that point, and that point only? Not for a moment am I neglecting the fact that Canada has peaee-time problems which carry forward into war time Hon. members who sat in the last parliament must know that I spent the greater part of my time dealing with problems of unemployment relief, agricultural distress and youth reestablishment. I am not neglecting those problems as I speak to-night, nor am I nest ecting the fact that there has been tabled m the house the report of a commission which sat arduously not only for months but for years, dealing with matters pertaining to the relationship which exists between the provinces of this dominion. The other day I read an editorial which it seems to me summed up the situation concisely when it asked this question: What will be the problems between the provinces if we lose this war? In that event there would be no problem between provinces.
Mr. Speaker, not unmindful of nor neglecting our major domestic problems, there can be but one problem primarily before us in this session of parliament, and that is: What can we do to speed up the war effort of Canada so that we may achieve the full defensive power of which this country is capable, and so that a Canadian may feel in his own heart that he has done his fullest and best, regardless of the outcome. There can be no satisfaction in our own minds if we as the people of a great dominion are not confident that we are giving all we have to give.
Unfortunately I could not be in the chamber, for very obvious reasons, on the day my hon. house leader assumed his high and important

War Appropriation-Mr. Massey
office. But I have read his words as they are reported in Hansard, and I find that he said this:
Canada's participation in this conflict, which,
I fear may grow successively worse instead of better should be bound only by our limitations in men, in treasure and in concentrated efforts. That in my opinion should be our one and undivided aim in the course of this, perhaps the most important session of parliament in the history of our dominion. [DOT]
That is my point of view. We must think not only in terms of conflict in Europe but must realize that a conflict in Europe which has an adverse result means of course that which we cannot comprehend at the present time, namely that the north American continent is placed in an entirely new and unique position. The defence of Canada, as we have conceived it in the past, is the defence of this country against some hypothetical enemy who had to cross a wide ocean in order to reach our shores, and who could not cross that wide ocean as long as there was a British navy. That has been the fundamental basis of the defence of the shores of Canada for many years-and in that statement I refer not only to the last five years.
That conception must change. Reference has been made in this chamber on more than one occasion to fifth column activity-I believe that is the new expression for it. We have not only enemies without but also enemies within. Not only have we enemies to deal with in Europe, but we have them to deal with at home. And if this conflict in Europe follows the course which, as I have said, we cannot conceive of its following, but which it may follow, then a new problem confronts us. Are we going to be caught asleep again? What would it have meant if in the last few years our preparation had been carried forward in equal proportions with those of Germany? I speak not only of Canada. In what position would the war be to-night? Surely we must face stark and absolute reality. Seven hundreds of millions of dollars-a staggering sum for this dominion! We all caught our breaths when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) used the astronomical figure of $1,100,000,000. But can we put a price on liberty and freedom? We have before us a task which must know no limitations, one which must know no handicaps. Not only must we take our part in this conflict to the fullest of our ability, but we must prepare now for the emergency which may arise-and pray God that it may never arise-and that is the defence of the very shores of Canada against an aggressor nation.
Mr. Speaker, my earnest plea, as I take my seat, is that the government give release at once, to the virtually unlimited potential
IMr. Massey.]
power-men, material, and money-of the Canadian people, in defence of Canada, the mother country and all for which she stands.
We have only to look to the south of us to realize the fear, if you will, which has gripped the hearts and minds of the people of the United States; we have only to read of the programme which is being put forward to-day by the government of President Roosevelt to know at once that the United States is not insensible to the danger in which we are on this continent. Therefore, I urge, not only upon the Prime Minister, not only upon the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Rogers), but upon the proposed Minister of National Defence for Air, that they not only conduct Canada's participation in this war to the full but also give consideration to the defence of Canada as a nation. We have a task before us, and I can only urge upon the government with all the earnestness of which I am capable that any differences in party politics and any divisions, regardless of how important they may seem in times of peace, be cast aside and that the utmost in leadership be given to the people of Canada in this hour of need, not only of the mother country but of Canada herself.


Mr. A. M. NICHOLSON (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, although every member of this house is greatly concerned over the trend of events in the world to-day, I am sure that we should not lose sight of the problems that exist in our own country. Seven hundred million dollars is a very large sum of money, and I am sure that all the members of this house are anxious that this appropriation be spent in the best interests of the Canadian people, at this critical time.
Rising for the first time in this house, I do so to plead for more adequate assistance for agriculture under the clause providing for the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada, than has hitherto been provided by this parliament.
In making our greatest contribution towards the successful prosecution of the war, the producing of foodstuffs will play an important role. It seems certain that those engaged in the manufacture of armaments will be assured of their costs and profits. I ask that the farmer be given assurance that the return he receives for his produce will enable him to pay his taxes, his store bills fend provide a decent livelihood for his family. In war or peace, during my lifetime at least, the farmer has not received for his products a return which would enable him to live as other groups in society have been living.
The impression was created in this house a year ago by the Minister of Agriculture

War Appropriation-Mr. Nicholson
(Mr. Gardiner) that wheat could be produced at from thirty to forty cents a bushel, and legislation was passed to guarantee the farmer a return in that price range. It is true that farmers have been continuing to produce wheat at these low prices, but what has been happening during the process? Western members at least are familiar with the problems that exist throughout the wheat belt, of mortgaged farms, of farm buildings and country schoolhouses in a dilapidated condition, of undernourished children, of poorly paid school teachers, and a whole host of other problems.
Recently I had sent to me some forty-four communications from my constituency reporting on a variety of conditions in the different parts of 'that riding. I might mention that this riding is a large one, being 104 miles east and west and 621 miles north and south. I should like to give the house the findings contained in four of these reports. Two of them were received from one of Saskatchewan's best wheat producing areas, a place where crop failures are unknown. The others were received from northern settlers who are trying to reestablish themselves on the heavily wooded land of northern Saskatchewan. One report comes from an Icelandic settler, another from an American, another from a Canadian from the time of the United Empire Loyalists and another from a Ukrainian. These men are representatives of four racial groups which are making a splendid contribution toward the building of a better Canada.
The man of Icelandic extraction has been on his farm since 1904, a matter of thirty-six years. He reports that during that period he has paid $50,000 in interest and principal and that the value of his farm is now $8,000, but he still owes $4,200. He reports that during 1939 he spent $100 for hospital and medical services; for dental services, $40; for books, $4; for newspapers, $10; for travelling for pleasure, $25; for recreation, $30; for groceries, $300, and for clothing, $200. He states that approximately 35 per cent of the people in that farming community have furnaces in their farm homes, that five per cent have electricity, that 75 per cent have radios, while 40 per cent have pianos. He reports that no home in the community has running water.
I might say that this man is considered to be a well-to-do farmer.
The next report comes from another good farming district. This man has been on his farm since 1903, or for thirty-seven years. He has paid $25,000 in interest and principal. He values his farm at $11,000 but he still owes $12,000. During the year he paid out nothing for dental services, and nothing for books. For medical and hospital
services he paid out $35, and for newspapers, $18. He reports that in his community there are no farmers with running water in their homes, that one per cent have furnaces, one per cent, electric lights; 75 per cent have radios and two per cent have pianos.
The Ukrainian farmer reports that he has been twenty-one years in the north country trying to become a self-supporting Canadian on a bush homestead. He has paid out only S150 in interest and principal, and he values his farm at $900, with $734.75 still owing. He values his house at $50 and his furniture at $25. During the last year he spent one dollar for dental services and one dollar for books. He spent $2.50 for newspapers and nothing for travel for pleasure or recreation. For groceries for himself and his wife he spent approximately $50. He is twenty-two miles from the nearest doctor and fifty-five miles from the nearest hospital. In his community there is not a single home with running water, with a furnace, with electric lights, or with a piano.
Another settler in the new north is a man who with his wife has spent the best part of a lifetime in large cities. They went north when the depression set in some ten years ago, having left one of our western cities rather than face the humiliation of going on relief. The wife is a trained nurse, a woman who would be a real asset to any community and who is a real asset in this community. Their place is worth, according to the assessment roll, $1,060. They owe $600. They value their house at $250, and their furniture at $275, because most of their furniture has been brought north as a reminder of better days gone by. During the past_ year they spent for medical and hospital services, $19, although this trained nurse is in need of a major surgical operation. They spent for dental services nothing; for books, nothing; for newspapers, $2; for travel and pleasure, nothing, for recreation, nothing, and for groceries, $150. In their community, no homes have running water, or furnaces or electric lights. Fifty per cent of the homes have a radio and one per cent, a piano.
Summarizing the information contained in these forty-four reports, I find that the average is as follows:
Value of house	$510	83Value of furniture	
190	49
Amount spent in 1939 for medical
and hospital services	
31	75Books	
2	72Newspapers	
3	67
Although in my constituency, with over 28.000 electors, we have twenty-six towns with sufficient business to warrant the rail-

War Appropriation-Mr. Nicholson
way companies locating station agents there, we have in the constituency only sixteen medical doctors, five hospitals, six dentists and only seven banks. My only reason for mentioning the banks is that in the early years of settlement nearly every small town had its local bank, but as the effects of the depression were felt, together with the results of producing wheat and other farm products at less than the cost of production, bank after bank closed their branches until to-day we have only seven chartered banks in the constituency. I place this information before the house in order that hon. members may realize the necessity of dealing with the urgent problems confronting agriculture, particularly in western Canada.
With respect to proposals for giving the farmer a better deal I wish to make two recommendations. Mention has already been made by several speakers in this house of the election on March 26. Our province has sent a large number of government supporters to this house, and one of the important factors in the election in Saskatchewan was the assurance given by the hon. Minister of Agriculture that the wheat producers would receive an interim payment on the 1939 wheat crop. I quote from the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix.


Mr. GARDINER:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, in reply to what the hon. gentleman has just said, at no time during the campaign did I say that an interim payment would be made ,and any reports to that effect are not in accordance with what I said.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I was merely going to read the report which appeared in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, containing the statement which to my knowledge was not denied by the Minister of Agriculture while the election was on.


James Garfield Gardiner: It was not only denied while the election was on, but a correct report appeared in the paper following every other
meeting I addressed. I made the same statement at W'ilkie which I made at every other meeting and not the statement which was read here yesterday.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: There was no statement made here yesterday as to what the minister said at Wilkie. I was going to read what the minister said as reported in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, the statement which was used in the campaign. I should like to read it, Mr. Speaker.


Georges Parent: The minister states that the statement is not in accordance with the facts.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: He has not heard it yet.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. gentleman said what was in the statement, and I said that on no occasion did I make the statement or make a promise that an interim payment would be made.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Until I read what the minister is reported by the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix to have said I think he is not in order in denying it. But, Mr. Speaker, I shall be very glad to accept his denial.


Georges Parent: I understand that the hon. member accepts the denial of the minister.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: But I have not read the statement yet, Mr. Speaker.


Georges Parent: The hon. member has indicated the contents of the newspaper report, and the minister has declared that it is incorrect. His statement will have to be accepted.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Do I understand that the Minister of Agriculture is denying the accuracy of the statement appearing in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of March 21 reporting his speech at Wilkie?


Georges Parent: I understood the minister to say that he denied the statement, the contents of which the hon. member had indicated.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I should like to read what the newspaper says, Mr. Speaker.


Georges Parent: I am afraid that cannot be allowed.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I understand that I am not permitted to quote the exact words?


Mr. COLD WELL:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the minister does not yet know what the newspaper report contains. The member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) is asking the minister if he denies the report to which he refers of a speech made at Wilkie on March 21. Will you give your ruling, sir?


Georges Parent: I understood the hon. member to make a statement indicating the contents of the article he was about to read, and the minister thereupon rose in his place and denied having made any such statement. His denial must be accepted, and I so rule.


Major James William Coldwell: On the point of order, do we understand that the minister denies the accuracy of the report?'


Georges Parent: There is no point of order before the house just now. A denial has been made by the minister of the statement attributed to him by the hon. member, and his denial must be accepted.

Questions


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am pleased to bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker.
In view of the constantly rising costs of production I submit that the government should lose no time in implementing the assurance given by the minister, as reported by the press, at the meeting at Wilkie that there would be an interim payment made on the 1939 wheat crop.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not like to interrupt my hon. friend, but would he before eleven o'clock tell us how what he is now saying bears on the resolution before the house? We should keep to the resolution.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Paragraph (a) of the resolution deals with the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada, and I submit that a further payment to the farmers on the 1939 wheat crop is of urgent importance to the welfare of Canada.


Georges Parent: It is eleven o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, May 22, 1940