1940-12-05

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

Mr. HANSELL:: 1.	Has the oil controller for Canada prohibited the erection or establishment of bulk storage tanks in Canada?
2.	If so, were the provincial governments consulted as to this action?
3.	Has the oil controller for Canada prohibited the erection or establishment of oil and gas stations in Canada?

4.	If so, were the provincial governments consulted before this action was taken?


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: 1.	The	oil	controller	has	prohibited the
erection or establishment of new bulk storage stations used for the purpose of supplying retail vendors of gasoline and petroleum products for the use of vehicles driven by gasoline engines, including aircraft. This prohibition does not extend to the erection of additional tanks at existing stations.
2.	The provincial governments were not
consulted	as	such prior	to	the making of
orders numbered 001 and 001-A.
3.	The	oil	controller	has	prohibited the
erection or establishment of new service stations in Canada.
4.	The provincial governments were not
consulted	as	such prior	to	the making of
orders numbered 001 and 001-A.
The oil controller has had the fullest cooperation from the proper officials of the provinces of Canada relative to the orders mentioned.


FOREIGN EXCHANGE USED TO PAY FOR UNITED STATES MAGAZINES
Mr. NICHOLSON:: What was the amount of United States exchange used during the last fiscal year in payment of United States magazines brought into Canada?


Mr. CRERAR:: Imports from United States of magazines and periodicals, fiscal year ended March 31, 1940: $6,633,677.


DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS CONFERENCE
Mr. HANSELL:: 1.	Will the sessions of the coming dominion-provincial conference on the Sirois report be open to the public?
2.	Will the conference be open to any or all members of the Canadian parliament and provincial legislatures?
3.	Will the proceedings of the conference be reported verbatim and published?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: The question of the publicity to be given meetings and proceedings of the conference will not be decided until the conference itself meets.


NAVAL STORES-PAYMENT TO CLARKE STEAMSHIP COMPANY
Mr. STOKES:: What commodities make up the item- "Naval Stores, Montreal, Quebec, Clarke Steamship Company, Limited, $19,412.10"-as mentioned in press release from the office of director of public information, dated August 2, 1940?


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: Approximately 1,200 commodities, including stocks

Questions
of rope, various sizes, paint, kitchen supplies, tools, greases, ship hardware, mill-wright supplies, canvas, batteries, rockets, flares, drugs, engine-room supplies, pipes and fittings, electrical supplies, instruments, packings, medical supplies.


FREE TRANSPORTATION TO SOLDIERS ON LEAVE
Mr. ROSS (Calgary East):: 1.	What does the government estimate would be the cost of granting free transportation to his home to the average member of the troops in Canada when proceeding on the one leave known as "embarkation leave"?
2.	Is the answer to question No. 1 based on the price of a one-way ticket?
3.	How is the estimate arrived at?
4.	Is the estimate based on first, second or third class fares?


Mr. POWER:: 1.	No definite figure can be given in reply to this question. It will be recognized that large formations of troops may be stationed within a few miles from their homes, or at a much greater distance. Due to the exigencies of war, it is not possible to predict for any time in advance where future troop concentrations may be required. It follows that this factor of distance is such a variable one, that no proper estimate can be made of the cost that would be entailed in paying the average soldier's fare to his home. Any figure that might be given would in all probability be not only quite inaccurate but might be misleading as to the cost in actual practice.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.
4.	Answered by No. 1.


UNITED STATES MAGAZINES AND PERIODICALS
Mr. DESMOND:: 1.	What is the total value of United States' magazines and periodicals imported into Canada in each fiscal year since 1930?
2.	What amounts of duty and taxes were paid on these importations in each fiscal year since 1930?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Imports from the United
States of magazines and periodicals:
Fiscal year	Value	Duty collected*1930.. ..	.. .. $4,140,690	Free1931.. ..	.. .. 4,116,620	Free1932.. ..	.. .. 3,639,820	$317,8291933.. ..	.. .. 2,683,191	600,7001934.. ..	.. .. 2,469.629	444,9481935.. ..	.. .. 2,539,724	461,9251936.. ..	.. .. 2,927,171	355,9201937.. ..	. . .. 4,507,233	Free1938.. ..	.. .. 6,261,241	Free1939.. ..	.. .. 6,427,149	Free1940.. ..	.. .. 6,633,677	Free*No record	of excise taxes.


JAMES F. SMELLIE, K.C.
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	What superannuation or other allowance is being paid to James P. Smellie, K.C., recently retired from the position of registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada?
2.	What salary was he receiving prior to his retirement?
3.	Who was appointed in his place?
4.	What salary is he being paid?


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: 1.	Superannuation allowance, $1,200 per annum.
2.	$6,000 per annum.
3.	Hon. Paul Leduc, K.C.
4.	$7,500 per annum.


RECOGNITION OF PROVISIONAL FRENCH GOVERNMENT-FRENCH LEGATION IN OTTAWA
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Does the government recognize the provisional French government of General De Gaulle?
2.	Is there now any government regulation for inspection of the Vichy embassy in Ottawa, and, if so, by whom?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	General de Gaulle and his associates who are continuing to fight against the enemy do not constitute a provisional French government. They have not been so recognized either by the government of the United Kingdom or by the government of Canada.
2.	The government is satisfied that no actions are being taken by the French legation in Ottawa contrary to the interests of Canada or her allies.


ASSISTANCE TO COVENTRY
Mr. CHURCH:: Will the government give consideration to making a contribution of food, clothing or other form of needed assistance or a grant to the mayor and corporation of Coventry, England, for relief and urgent general purposes?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: While fully aware of the damage inflicted on Coventry and other cities in the United Kingdom by ruthless night bombing attacks, the government do not propose to make contributions to any specific city. The immediate requirements of such cities are being met by the national and local authorities in the United Kingdom itself. It appears advisable that any supplementary aid from Canada should be afforded by private funds and relief agencies, federal government funds being directed to more immediate war requirements.
Questions


CASUALTIES TO MILITARY FORCES IN TRAINING IN CANADA
Thomas Langton Church: X. Have pensions been refused by the pension commission to widows and dependents of members of Canada's military forces killed in Canada while in training?
2.	Has a ruling been given that they were not on military service when away from a camp on a pass and were killed in highway accidents through no fault of their own?
3.	If so, how many cases have been considered or are pending before the board or commission?


Mr. POWER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No, but the Canadian pension commission has ruled, in some cases, that deaths were not attributable to military service as such.
3.	Number of cases which have been considered-22.	Number of cases which are
pending-15. Number of cases which have
Item-
Apples	
Apricots, quinces, passion fruit and nectarines.
Bananas	
Cherries	
Cranberries	
Grape fruit	
Grapes	
Guavas, mangoes, plantains and pomegranates
Lemons	
Limes	
Musk melons and cantaloupes	
Melons, n.o.p	
Oranges, mandarines and tangerines	
Peaches	
Pears	
Pineapples	
Plums or prunes	
Raspberries, loganberries and berries, edible,
n.o.p	
Strawberries	
Presh fruits, n.o.p	
2.	Imports from the United States of fresh during the period from January 1 to September
Item-
Asparagus	
Beans, green	
Beets, n.o.p	
Cabbage	

not been considered as there are no known persons who were dependent on the member of the forces at the time of death-22.


FRUIT AND VEGETABLE IMPORTS FROM UNITED STATES
Mr. ROSS (Calgary East):: 1.	Of the fresh fruits of all kinds imported from the United States from January 1, to November 1, 1910, what quantity and value are of a kind grown (a) in Canada, and (b) not grown in Canada?
2.	Of the vegetables of all kinds imported from the United States from January 1 to November 1, 1910, what quantity and value are of a kind grown (a) in Canada, and (b) not grown in Canada?


Mr. CRERAR:: 1.	Imports from the United States of fresh fruits entered for consumption in Canada during the period from January 1 to September 30, 1940:
Unit	Quantity	ValueBrl.	26,104	$ 132,941Lb.	2,730,297	93,112Stem.	1,121,835	2,375,353Lb.	703,887	86,963Lb.	88,384	9,812Lb.	39,187,688	901,735Lb.	17,112,611	581,639$	908Box	313,028	1,041,488Box.	2,114	4,007Lb.	6,716,485	191,095No.	710,226	136,033Cu. ft.	4,553,058	5,268,358Lb.	7,498,139	222,787Lb.	10,101,284	319,207Crate	150,254	319,923Lb.	8,564,038	316,739Lb.	21,328	1,045Lb.	4,636,363	442,926$	16,062vegetables entered for consumption 30, 1940.	in CanadaUnit	Quantity	ValueLb.	2,021,812	$ 139,517Lb.	3,383,058	208,046Lb.	2,560,369	64,056Lb.	27,489,824	419,915
Questions
2.	Importe from the United States of fresh vegetables entered for consumption in Canada luring the period from January 1 to September 30, 1940-Concluded
Item-	Unit	Quantity	Value
Carrots	
Cauliflower	
Celery	
Cucumbers	
Lettuce	
Mushrooms and truffles, n.o.p,
Onions	
Peas, green	
Potatoes, sweet	
Potatoes, n.o.p	
Spinach	
Tomatoes	
Vegetables, n.o.p


BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT-PROCEDURE UNDER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 56
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	In accordance with the British North America Act, 1867, section 56-1. Whose duty is it (a) to certify as authentic a copy of any act mentioned in the third line of said section, and (b) to deliver same to His Excellency the Governor General?
2.	To which one of his majesty's principal secretaries of state referred to therein is same act sent by His Excellency the Governor General ?
3.	Is the procedure described by the first four lines of the above mentioned section still in force?
4.	If not, (a) what are the exceptions, if any, and (b) when, by whom, and why was such procedure repealed, amended or changed, and in the latter case, what was the change, if any ?
5.	Was the procedure mentioned in Nos. 1, 2 and 3 followed for the nine acts assented to by his majesty on May 19, 1939 (3 George VI, chap. 27 to 35 inclusive) ?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: ,	1. (a) The clerk of the parliaments certifies
a bound copy of the statutes of each session of parliament for the purposes of section 56 of the British North America Act, 1867. This duty is imposed upon him by section 6 of the Publication of Statutes Act (Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, chapter 2). It is not the practice to certify each statute separately.
(b) The existing practice is that the clerk of the parliaments sends the certified copy of the statutes to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who sends it to the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs. On July 1, 1927, the Governor General ceased to be the channel of communication between the government of Canada and the government
Lb.	22,235,820	470,100Lb.	5,862,246	111,648Lb.	20,492,535	688,102Lb.	1,283,005	74,875Lb.	30,790,380	753,581Lb.	28,397	3,569Lb.	4,512,630	140,302Lb.	1,946,345	95,658Cwt.	38,308	105,414Cwt.	503,356	700,840Lb.	5,991,835	163,841Lb.	21,499,697	759,746Lb.	5,158,580	213,668
of the United Kingdom, this change in procedure having been arranged at the Imperial Conference in 1926.
2.	The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs. However, as stated in 1 (b), the copy of the statutes is now sent to him by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
3.	No.
4.	(a) The existing practice is that the copy of the statutes is sent, not by the Governor General, but by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
(b) This change in the procedure was made on July 1, 1927, by the government of Canada, for the reason given in 1 (b).
5.	No. These nine acts were included in the bound volume of statutes passed at the fourth session of the eighteenth parliament. A certified copy of this volume was sent to the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS CONFERENCE
Mr. POULIOT:: In view of the coming interprovincial conference of January next, did the government send to each provincial government copies of the 1935 report of the special committee of the House of Commons on the British North America Act, 1867, and of the 1939 report of the Senate of Canada on the said act?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government has not sent to the provincial governments any reports other than that of the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations.


LEAGUE OF NATIONS-CANADA'S EXPENSES
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	What amount of No. 48 estimates for fiscal year ending March 31, 1941, for "the expenses
Questions

of the league of nations for 1940, including secretariat, international labour organization and permanent court of international justice, $150,410" has been spent up to November 27 of this year?
2.	What is the amount of unpaid accounts up to that last mentioned date, if any?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	No amount had been paid out of the vote up to November 27th of this year.
2.	The full amount of the appropriation, which is due in the current calendar year was paid on December 2nd.


RAILWAYS-PASSES TO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
Thomas Langton Church: Are any free return trip passes given government officials, civil servants or railway employees of all kinds in receipt of full civilian pay once a year over the railway systems of Canada?


Mr. CARDIN:: Passes are issued only in accordance with the railway act.


JOINT DEFENCE BOARD-PUBLIC STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF CANADIAN SECTION
Thomas Langton Church: Were all interviews and speeches of the members of the Canadian section of the joint defence board first submitted to and approved of by the government, and do they state government policy?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No member of the Canadian section of the permanent joint board on defence has given any statement to press or made any announcement of government policy in regard to problems of joint defence.


SHIPMENT OF SASKATCHEWAN LUMBER TO GREAT BRITAIN VIA HUDSON BAY
Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Has the government considered the feasibility of cutting lumber this winter in northern Saskatchewan to be shipped to Great Britain via Churchill and the Hudson bay route?


Mr. HOWE:: No. All Canadian lumber required by the British government in Great Britain is purchased by the British timber controller without direction by the Canadian government.


RATE OF PAYMENT FOR ROAD WORK BY RECIPIENTS OF RELIEF IN SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. NICHOLSON:: 1.	Has the federal government information that relief recipients living on farms in northern Saskatchewan have been required to work at the rate of 25 cents per hour for a ten-hour day on roads in order to qualify for relief?
2.	Has this rate of pay been approved by the dominion Department of Labour?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: No information.
[Mr. Pouliot.l


DELIVERIES OF WHEAT TO ELEVATORS
Mr. PERLEY:: How many bushels of wheat were delivered to elevators in the western division from August 1, 1940, to November 15, 1940, on which the initial price of seventy cents was paid on each of the following grades: No. 1 northern; No. 2 northern; No. 3 northern; No. 4; rejected No. 2 northern; rejected No. 3
northern and rejected No. 4?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Bushels
No. 1	Northern	
115,760,783-45No. 2	Northern	
67,381,423-20No. 3	Northern	
18,484,411-50No. 4	Northern	
1,745,490-00Rejected	2	Northern	
182,900-25Rejected	3	Northern	
25,790-10Rejected	4	Northern	
1,973-00
203,582,772-30


SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY BOARD
Mr. REID:: 1.	Who is the designated secretary of the treasury board, and (a) how long has he held such a position?
2.	What salary does this official receive?
3.	How long has he been in the employ of the government, and (a) what is the date of his first entry into the service, (b) in what department and (c) in what capacity?
4.	Does this official have authority to handle reports, recommendations or other documents and to sign any of the same for or on behalf of the treasury board?
5.	Are statements, recommendations or reports affecting the staff of the various departments handled by this official before presentation to the treasury board?
6.	What other matters are handled by this official?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	W. C. Clark; since November 4, 1932. (Under section 11 of the Department of Finance and Treasury Board Act, R.S.C. 23, the Deputy Minister of Finance is designated as ex-officio the secretary of the treasury board.)
2.	Under Order-in-Council, P.C. 2361, dated October 24, 1932, Mr. Clark was appointed "deputy minister of finance and receiver general, with salary at the rate of $12,000 per annum, including the salary as ex-officio secretary of the treasury board."
3.	Since November 4, 1932, when he entered the service of the government as deputy minister of the Department of Finance.
4.	As secretary of the board, he has authority to sign reports as to the decisions reached by the board, to maintain the records of the board, and to carry out such other duties as the board may direct. The Department of Finance and Treasury Board Act authorizes

Questions
the board to communicate through the secretary with any public department, office or other person.
5.	Statements, recommendations or reports received from the various departments for consideration by the board are handled and prepared by the secretary and the treasury board staff for submission to the board.
6.	All the duties associated with the position of deputy minister in the Department of Finance.


NATIONAL RESOURCES MOBILIZATION-NUMBER FAILING TO REPORT FOR DUTY
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	How many men, to whom notice was given of a call for training under the National Resources Mobilization Act, failed to report for duty, (a) in the dominion as a whole;
(b) by provinces?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1. (a) 169.
(b) British Columbia	 7
Alberta	 11
Saskatchewan	 6
Manitoba	 1
Ontario	 39
Quebec	 94
New Brunswick	 11
Nova Scotia	 0
Prince Edward Island	 0


AVAR MATERIALS-EXPENDITURES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA AND PRAIRIE PROVINCES
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: What is the total expenditure made by the government since September, 1939, in each of the provinces of British Columbia, Manitoba, Alberta, and Saskatchewan, for (a) building and construction; (b) munitions; (c) manufactured war supplies (other than munitions and food)?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Refer to published " Record of contracts awarded." Refer also to page 262 of Hansard, showing money value breakdown for provinces. Refer also to the minister's reference to blanket questions, page 462 of Hansard.


COMMONWEALTH AIR TRAINING
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	What is the total expenditure to date for the establishment of the air training scheme at Saskatoon, in Saskatchewan?
2.	What are the particulars of the tenders for construction therefor that were submitted?
3.	Did the plans include a heating plant?
4.	If not, has a heating plant been installed, and, if so, at what cost?


Mr. POWER:: 1.	The total expenditure to date for the construction of the hangars, buildings, roads, sewer system, water sunply and delivery
system, parade ground, walks and heating systems	is	$1,032,107.92. An	additional
expenditure for $4,173 was made at the relief field, Vanscoy, and $2,000 at the relief field at Osier.
2.	Plans and specifications of the requested
buildings were submitted to the Department of Munitions and Supply. Tenders were called by the above department; all quotations received were reviewed, and a recommendation made by the director of works and buildings	of	the Department	of	NationalDefence	for	Air. The lowest	tender wasaccepted,	and	funds were raised	to	cover the
cost. Tenders for the services such as roads, sewers, water supply, etc., were called locally by the local representative of the Department of Munitions and Supply. All quotations received were forwarded to Ottawa for approval, and for letting of the contract.
3.	Yes.
4.	See No. 1 above.


GASPE COUNTY, QUE., OIL DEPOSITS
Mr. ROY:: _ 1. Is it true that prospecting for oil deposits in the York river basin, Gaspe county, which was under the supervision of the government of the province of Quebec, has been suspended indefinitely?
2.	If so, were measures taken to (a) open up oil deposits, and (b) develop them for national defence purposes?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: With respect to the first part of the question may I say that we have no information on that point. We do not know what Quebec has done in that respect. Part 2 of the question is answered in the same way.


ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE-CASUALTIES IN CANADA
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Was any civilian inquest or military court
of inquiry held into the deaths of members of the Royal Canadian Air Force killed in accidents as follows:	(a) at St. Catharines,
Saturday, November 23, two instructors killed; (b) near Ottawa, Friday, November 22, two killed; (c) at Camp Borden, November 19, two killed; (d) while on guard duty at R.C.A.F. huts at foot of Yonge street, Toronto, a resident of New Westminster British Columbia?
2.	Did any federal authority request civilian inquests to be suspended in these and other similar cases by municipal or provincial authority?


Mr. POWER:: 1.	(a) Yes.
(b)	Yes.
(c)	Yes.
(d)	Investigation by local police resulted in the arrest of one man, who is now facing a charge of manslaughter as a result of this accident.
2.	No.

Questions


WAR MATERIALS
Mr. DESMOND:: 1.	What is the total value of the contracts awarded by the Department of Munitions and Supply and its predecessor purchasing bodies from September 1, 1939, to date, for caps and helmets?
2.	What are the names of the persons or companies to whom such contracts have been awarded?
3.	On what date was each such contract awarded ?
4.	What was the type of cap or helmet specified in each contract?
5.	What was the total amount of each contract, and what was the unit price?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Refer to published "Record of Contracts Awarded". Refer also to pages 265 and 266 of Hansard. Refer also to the minister's speech, page 462, regarding blanket questions.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-SAINT JOHN, N.B. WAREHOUSE SPACE
Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	Did the Department of National Defence rent a warehouse, or space in the warehouse, on Union street, Saint John, New Brunswick?
2.	If so, what rental was paid for the warehouse, or the space in the warehouse?
3.	What use was made of this space?
4.	For what period of time was the warehouse, or space in the warehouse, rented?
5.	To whom was the rental paid?
6.	Is the warehouse, or the space in the warehouse, still under rental?


Mr. POWER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	$200 per month.
3.	As offices, accommodation for personnel, and garaging of vehicles, No. 7 detachment, Royal Canadian Army Service Corps, Saint John, N.B.
4.	Lease for one year, commencing 17th November, 1939, and thereafter on a monthly basis as long as required by the crown.
5.	To the lessor, Mr. C. J. Wilson.
6.	Yes.


MILITARY CAMPS-SENTRY BOXES FOR WINTER USE
Thomas Langton Church: Will the government, in view of the many military camps for the training of Canada's military forces all across Canada, give consideration to the making of a better type of open wooden hut for soldiers on guard duty?


Mr. POWER:: The present standard type of sentry box is intended only to give some measure of protection from the elements in very inclement weather as sentries normally have to patrol their beat. Sentries are relieved every two hours but in very bad weather they can be relieved at the discretion of the commanding officer, i.e., they may be relieved every 15 minutes, if necessary.


*ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE-PAY AND ALLOWANCES OF OFFICERS
Mr. MacKENZIE (Lambton-Kent):: What is the pay or the schedule of pay and allowances of all officers commissioned or noncommissioned in the Royal Canadian Air Force?


Charles Gavan Power: There is a very thick volume which contains the record of the pay and allowances for commissioned and non-commissioned officers in the Royal Canadian Air Force. If my hon. friend would like me to file this volume he could probably get the answer he requires. I do not know in what other way I could answer his question.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. COLDWELL:: 1.	How many men, not claiming to be conscientious objectors, have refused, to date, to report for training under the National Resources Mobilization Act?
2.	How many men were affected by factories, or one factory in particular, which objected to send any men to camp?
3.	What action has the government taken, or proposes to take, in regard to men, not claiming to be conscientious objectors, who refuse to report for training?
4.	What action has the government taken, or proposes to take, in regard to factories which object to allow their employees to report for training?


Mr. GARDINER:: I think I should answer parts 1 and 3 orally at the moment, and then I would ask the hon. member to permit this to be made an order for return, now tabled, in order that the answers may be fully explained in connection with the other two questions.
As to the first question, the number of men unaccounted for is 169. I should explain that this is not necessarily a case of refusing to report, because in many instances the notices did not reach the men.
The third question asks what action the government has taken, or proposes to take, in regard to men, not claiming to be conscientious objectors, who refuse to report for training. The answer is that all cases have been or will be referred to the police for necessary action. Reports to date indicate that an appreciable number of men notified to report at training centres had enlisted in the armed forces or were students taking their training at universities. Others had

Questions as Orders for Returns
previous military training, and some were ill. That accounts for practically all the cases which have been checked up to date.
I would suggest that the answer to the question put by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), which I am tabling to-day-it has to do with the same matter- be read together with the answers to this question, which I suggest be made an order for return, now tabled.
Note: The question of the hon. member for Lake Centre above referred to appears at page 673 of this issue.



PROFESSIONAL MEN IN CANADIAN FORCES CARRYING ON PRIVATE PRACTICE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. McGregor :
Are there any regulations of the Department of National Defence which prevent professional men, lawyers, physicians, architects, etc., who are officers in Canadian forces, from carrying on private practice?
Charles Gavan Power: Now tabled as far as army and air are concerned.



VOLUNTARY SERVICE REGISTRATION BUREAU

Mr. NEILL:: 1.	When did the voluntary service registration bureau start operations?
2.	How many people are now engaged in the service of the bureau?
3.	How many applications for employment have been received by the bureau?
4.	How many people have received employment through the bureau?


Pierre-François Casgrain: Return tabled.



DARTMOUTH, N.S., AIRPORT

Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	To what company was the contract for the excavation and grading work at the Eastern Passage airport at Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, awarded?
2.	On what date was it awarded?
3.	Who are the directors of the contracting company?
4.	What was the total amount of the contract?
5.	Did the company perform the contract itself, or was it sublet?
6.	If sublet, to whom was it sublet and at what price?
7.	Is this work now completed?
8.	What amount has been paid to the contractor?
9.	What amount remains to be paid?
10.	Was any amount claimed by the contractor and disallowed by the government?
11.	If so, what was the nature of such claim or claims, and what was the amount claimed?
12.	Were any amounts paid to the said contractor without an engineer's certificate?
13.	If so, on what dates and what amounts were so paid?
14.	Was there an extension of the original
contract?
15.	If so, for what quantities and periods was the contract extended?
16.	What is the total cost to date of all works undertaken at the Eastern Passage airport?
17.	What is the estimated cost completed of all works undertaken or required to be undertaken at the Eastern Passage airport?


Charles Gavan Power: I am very anxious to have this question answered, but it involves research in the Department of National Defence, the Department of Munitions and Supply and the Department of National Defence for Air, so that I think it should be made an order for return. As soon as it is possible for me to get the replies I shall be glad to forward them to my hon. friend.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: That will be during the adjournment?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes, if I can get the information.


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: I thank the minister. I want to point out that this matter has created considerable interest in Nova Scotia, in this city and in other parts of Canada, and I think we should have the information as soon as possible.


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	Was a cost-plus contract awarded for grading and surfacing runways for the Eastern Passage airport at Dartmouth, Nova Scotia? If so, to whom?
2.	What was the departmental estimate of the cost of performing this work?
3.	Did the company perform the contract itself, or was it sublet?
4.	If sublet, to whom was it sublet and at what price?
5.	Is this work now completed?
6.	What amount has been paid to the contractor?
7.	What amount remains to be paid?
8.	Was any amount claimed by the contractor and disallowed by the government?
9.	If so, what was the nature of such claim or claims, and what was the amount claimed?,
10.	Were any amounts paid to the said contractor without an engineer's certificate?
11.	If so, on what dates and what amounts were so paid?
12.	Was a supplementary contract awarded?
13.	If so, what was the nature of the work to be performed under the supplementary contract?
14.	What was the contract price provided for in the supplementary contract?
15.	What amount has been paid to the contractor in respect of the supplementary contract ?
16.	What amount remains to be paid? [DOT]
17.	Who are the directors of the contracting company?

Questions as Orders for Returns



CARPENTERS EMPLOYED AT MILITARY CAMPS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaCROIX (Quebec-Montmorency):
1.	What rate is paid to carpenters employed on national defence works at Yalcartier military camp, Quebec?
2.	What rate is paid to carpenters employed on national defence works at Camp Borden, Ontario ?
Charles Gavan Power: Return tabled.



CONSOLIDATED MINING AND SMELTING COMPANY

Mr. MacINNIS:: 

CANADIAN HOSPITAL ACCOMMODATION FOR MILITARY FORCES

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Is the hospital accommodation for Canada's military forces adequate in the various military districts of Canada for those in training, or is there a shortage of accommodation?
2.	At what distances from the various camps established under the present system, are there civilian hospitals, and have these all adequate equipment to take care of any cases that occur that cannot be dealt with at the various camps?
3.	What hospital accommodation in the various military districts of Canada has been or is to be established by the government to take care of those now overseas if sick or wounded when they return home to Canada?
4.	Has any hospital accommodation survey been made?


Charles Gavan Power: Order for return, tabled on behalf of army, air and pensions.



CHRISTMAS LEAVE TO MILITARY AND AIR FORCES AND GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	On whose recommendation was Christmas leave limited to six days for Canada's army?
2.	Is that the limit of time allowed for those who wish to come from the maritimes and the west, or the Pacific coast, to central Canada, on leave at their own expense?
3.	On whose recommendation was leave at Christmas refused officers and men of the Royal Canadian Air Force?
4.	What Christmas leave or holidays have members of the civil service not of Canada's military forces, or any employees of Canada's outside commissions?
[Mr P. C. Black.]


Charles Gavan Power: Mr. Speaker, this is an
order for return, now tabled. But if the house would permit I should like to add a verbal statement with respect to this general question, either now or later. Possibly I could do it now.
On November 11 last my colleague, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), issued a statement to the press in regard to the proposed Christmas and New Year's leave arrangements for members of the Canadian Army on active service in Canada. In the house on November 28, and in reply to the question from the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lockhart), I again gave information in regard to the arrangements for leave for the army, and also at that time pointed out the impossibility of making any special holiday leave arrangements for the Royal Canadian Air Force. I would like, at this time, to amplify these statements.
In the first place, may I say that the guiding factor in the consideration of leave privileges to men on active service must be the defence and safety of the country and the obligations we are under by way of our war commitments. Under routine orders for the Canadian active service force, the members of the Canadian Army may be granted leave not exceeding fourteen days with pay upon completion of six months' continuous service with the Canadian active service force, and a further fourteen days' leave upon the completion of each subsequent period of twelve months. The six days' leave at Christmas or the New Year, which has already been announced, is in addition to these regular periods, and while it is hoped that the maximum number possible can avail themselves of the privilege, it is limited to the conditions that not more than fifty per cent of the unit may be absent at one time, and, furthermore, that the commanding officer must take into consideration the nature of the service being undertaken by the man concerned, and the necessity of having certain types of training completed speedily.
I realize that in cases where men are far distant from their homes a total absence of six days from their unit will not permit them to spend any time with their families. In such cases special arrangements are authorized in that where a man has not used up his regular fourteen days' leave, there may, with the permission of his commanding officer, be added to his six days' leave such number of days as he has available in order to enable him to carry out a lengthy journey.
In so far as the Royal Canadian Air Force is concerned, however, the situation is not by any means parallel. The entire personnel of the force is engaged either upon important

Questions as Orders jor Returns
defensive operations or on the intensive programme of training flying personnel so urgently required for service overseas.
Under normal conditions personnel engaged in active and continuous flying are granted, as far as possible, twelve days' leave every three months, and fourteen days' leave every six months is granted to non-flying personnel. It will be readily realized, however, by hon. members that at no one time can any substantial percentage of the operational defence force be spared from their immediate duties.
The joint air training plan is engaged upon a programme of extreme importance and urgency. The courses are intensive, and continuous, and any interruption occasioned by the release for a period either of the pupils or the instructional and administrative personnel causes serious delay in the output of trained pilots, observers, air gunners, and wireless operators. I cannot feel that under the present circumstances any special grant of holiday leave can be justified. Under present arrangements pupils in the flying schools are treated as liberally as possible in* the provision of forty-eight-hour passes when their commanding officers feel that this can be done without interruption of their training. At the conclusion of their course it is the practice of the force to grant adequate leave to enable them to visit their families before embarking for an active theatre of war or proceeding on other duties. Beyond this I do not feel I can at present go.
Before leaving this question I would make emphatic reference again to the practice common to all the defence services of endeavouring to ensure an adequate period of embarkation leave for all members of the forces before they leave their training stations either for defensive positions in Canada or for overseas. In all cases where units are now garrisoning vulnerable areas or are en route overseas, opportunity has already been afforded to the personnel to see their homes and families before leaving.
Many representations have been made both in the public press and directly to my colleagues and myself on the question of the provision of free transportation for members of the forces proceeding on leave. I feel that many of those who make these representations do not realize the magnitude of the question.
I have made careful inquiry into the practice during the last war and I find that in Canada free transportation was never provided for troops proceeding on ordinary leave. In certain cases men returning invalided from overseas, when their condition permitted it, were given free transportation to proceed on leave to their homes, and
return transportation to the hospital where their medical treatment was to be continued. In 1915-16, when the gathering of the harvest was considered to be a work of national importance, free transportation to a maximum distance of 300 miles was provided for those proceeding on harvest leave.
In the present war the scale of pay and dependents' allowance is considerably in excess of that paid during the war of 1914-18. Members of the forces proceeding on ordinary leave are entitled to return tickets at single fare rates. My colleagues and I are agreed that any further financial concessions cannot be made under the present circumstances.
I do not wish hon. members to think that I am not without the greatest sympathy for families who are widely separated on account of the fact that their sons and husbands are on active service, particularly at the Christmas and New Year festival, but I must remind them that at the present time we must all, perforce, subordinate our natural desires and inclinations to the exigencies of war service.



EXCHEQUER COURT-CASES HELD UNDER ADVISEMENT

Mr. BLACK (Chateauguay-Huntingdon):: 1.	Are there any rules governing the time within which courts of federal jurisdiction must deliver judgment after taking a case under advisement? If so, what is that time?
2.	If not, is the Minister of Justice contemplating introducing legislation to determine a period of that nature?
3.	What is the number of cases presently under advisement by the Exchequer Court of Canada, showing cases (a) before the president of the court, (b) before the associate judge?
4.	How many cases have been kept under advisement, by each judge, within the last twelve months, (a) for more than sixty days; (b) for more than four months; (c) for more than six months; (d) for more than twelve months; (e) for more than eighteen months; (f) for more than two years?
5.	For what reasons is a case held under advisement for more than ninety days?
6.	Is the Department of Justice keeping a record of judgments under advisement for more than ninety days?
7.	Is the business of the exchequer court such as to warrant the appointment of an additional judge?



PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION-SASKATCHEWAN

Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	How many small projects, dams and dug-outs, constructed under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, in the province of Saskatchewan, were accepted, approved of and the government committed to pay for in each of the years 1939 and 1940?
2.	What amount was paid by the government on this account in each of the years 1939 and 1940, in the constituencies of Yorkton, Melville, Lake Centre, Moose Jaw, Weyburn, Assiniboia and Qu'Appele?
3.	Which of the above were constructed by (a) contractors, and (b) individual farmers?
Motions for Papers



CANADIAN SHIPPING BOARD

[Stage Direction]
Mr. McGregor :
1.	What are the names of the members of the Canadian shipping board?
2.	What is the racial origin of each?
Thomas Alexander Crerar: Return tabled.



NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	How many contracts have been awarded to the National Construction Company Limited with head office at Prince Albert, Saskatchewan?
2.	What are the amounts thereof?
3.	When was this company incorporated?
4.	Who are the directors thereof?
5.	What is its total capitalization, and, of said amount, how much has been subscribed?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. MARSHALL:: For a copy of the report of investigation made by responsible officials of the department of the auditor general or of the Department of Agriculture into serious irregularities revealed in the accounts of the Winnipeg laboratory.



ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY

Mr. CASSELMAN (Grenville-Dundas):: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the governments of Canada, United States and the province of Ontario or between any officials of the said governments from January 1, 1935, to the present time, referring to:	(a) a double-stage development of the
international section of the St. Lawrence; (b) a single-stage development of the international section of the St. Lawrence.



MIGRATORY BIRDS CONVENTION ACT-APPLICATION TO YUKON TERRITORY

Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, communications and other documents passing between the Controller of Yukon Territory and any minister of the crown and any employee of the government of Canada concerning the application of the Migratory Birds Convention Act to Yukon Territory and the game ordinance of Yukon since 1935.



AIYANSH, B.C., PUBLIC WORKS

Mr. MacINNIS:: For a return showing: The amount of money expended by the federal government for works of any kind at Aiyansh on the Naas river, British Columbia, for the period September 1, 1938, to August 31, 1940, together with (a) the number of persons employed on such works, (b) the length of time employed, (c) the hourly or daily rate of pay, and (d) the amount received by each person during said period.
(Mr. Perley.J



MILITARY FORCES-FREE RAILWAY TRANSPORTATION AND SYSTEM OF INSURANCE

Thomas Langton Church: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents from any organization or any other person or persons urging (1) free fares on railways for the military forces of Canada, and (2) for a system of insurance for our military forces.


Charles Gavan Power: I would ask the hon. member to name a specific date with respect to the second part of the motion. The hon. member asks for all correspondence, et cetera, from any organization urging a system of insurance for our military forces. My recollection is that that was a debatable question during the last war. I hope the hon. member does not wish me to go back to 1914-18.


Thomas Langton Church: I would like to have letters from municipalities in Canada, and from other public bodies asking for this legislation.


Charles Gavan Power: Since when?
f Mr. CHURCH: I cannot give the date. The papers have been received by the government. One of the organizations is the Toronto city council; another is the East York township council, and there are many other municipalities.


Charles Gavan Power: Does the hon. member wish me to go back five years?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Since the declaration of war will be good enough.


Thomas Langton Church: Since the war started.



MIGRATORY BIRDS CONVENTION ACT-APPLICATION TO YUKON TERRITORY

George Black: For a copy of all regulations now in force affecting Yukon Territory made by the governor in council under the provisions of the Migratory Birds' Convention Act.



FORT OSBORNE BARRACKS, TUXEDO, MAN.- EMPLOYMENT OF F. WINCH

Mr MAYBANK:: For a copy of all papers, letters, telegrams, memoranda and other documents passing between the department of defence and the civil service commission and between the said department and the treasury board and between the civil service commission and the treasury board relating to one F. Winch, an employee as a fireman (or any other capacity) at Fort Osborne barracks, Tuxedo, Manitoba, and his employment in such capacity and his rate of pay from and including June, 1938, to date, and also for a copy of all such papers, letters, telegrams, memoranda, and other documents, passing between any individual or individuals and any department of government including civil service commission and treasury board over the same period and relating to the same subject matter. ,

Motions jor Papers


Mr. ILSLEY:: Documents and communications passing between departments of government or branches of the service, such as are called for by this motion, have been regarded as not properly producible by motion of this kind. They are interdepartmental communications, and I therefore believe that this motion should not carry. It should be dropped.
Motion dropped.



DARTMOUTH, N.S., AIRPORT

Percy Chapman Black: For a copy of all contracts executed since October 23, 1935, relating to (a) excavation, (b) grading and surfacing, (e) any other work undertaken, at the Eastern Passage airport at Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, and also a copy of all letters, telegrams, estimates, accounts, engineers' certificates, audit reports, memoranda and any other documents or papers referring to the said contracts.


Charles Gavan Power: It would be easier if my hon. friend would limit the order to a time since 1938.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It goes
back a little farther than that.


Charles Gavan Power: All right.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It all
belongs to one series of contracts.



JOINT DEFENCE BOARD-MATERIAL GIVEN TO THE PRESS FOR PUBLICATION

Thomas Langton Church: For a copy of all addresses, correspondence, interviews, press conferences and all other facts published and given by the chairmen of the Canada and United States sections of the joint defence board or other members or officials, at Halifax, Vancouver and other cities in Canada and in the United States, respecting the joint defences of Canada and the United States, as given to the press for publication in both countries.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Order granted, and return now tabled.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does that contain all the twilight twitterings?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.



WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government, or any department thereof, and any railway companies regarding the marked weight of cars of coal and the inspection of the same, and also a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents regarding the complaints received concerning the weights to retail dealers of coal, from January 1, 1935, to date.



GOVERNOR OF THE BANK OF CANADA

Mr. QUELCH:: For a copy of the order in council appointing and fixing the salary of the governor of the Bank of Canada, and also a copy of all subsequent orders in council in connection therewith.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Return tabled.



RENT CONTROL BOARD-PETITION THAT CALGARY BE DECLARED A CONTROLLED AREA

Mr. COLDWELL:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, resolutions and other documents in the possession of the government relating to a petition requesting a hearing by the rent control board in Calgary, Alberta, in order that said city be declared a controlled area.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE-SUPERINTENDENT'S OFFICE IN REGINA

Ernest Edward Perley: For a return showing:-
1.	The names of all persons employed in the superintendent's office under the provisions of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act in the province of Saskatchewan at any time during the year 1940;
2.	The dates of employment of each individual, the position held by and the salary and expenses paid to each such individual;
3.	The premises leased under the provisions of the said act in the city of Regina, from whom leased, the area of floor space, the rentals paid and the sum expended on alterations, repairs, furniture and equipment;
4.	Whether the employees were employed through the civil service commission, or on whose recommendation.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS-CORRESPONDENCE WITH MANITOBA AND SASKATCHEWAN

Joseph Sasseville Roy: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, memoranda and other documents exchanged between the dominion government and the governments of Manitoba and Saskatchewan since January 1, 1939, to the present time with reference to the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That when this house adjourns immediately after parliament has disposed of the financial legislation thus far submitted for its consideration, it stand adjourned until Monday, February
680	COMMONS
Long Adjournment-Sessional Employees
17, 1911, at 3 o'clock, p.m., provided always that if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with His Majesty's government, that the public interest requires that the house should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the house shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, before this motion is put I should like to suggest to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and to you, as Speaker, that some consideration be given to the members of the sessional staff of the house. During the past fifteen or sixteen months the house has met infrequently, and to my mind we are in danger of losing the services of some of the experienced help we now have. We may have to content ourselves with inexperienced help in the future unless something is done. I do not know what the government has in mind, but from conversations which I have had with hon. members on all sides I know there is a feeling that some consideration should be given at this time to the sessional staff. I hold the view that the government ought to be something in the nature of a model employer. We have often criticized corporations which from time to time have taken on people for a short while and then laid them off and allowed them to enter the ranks of the unemployed. I ask the government to consider this matter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Some days ago the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Mac-Nicol) wrote me about the matter to which my hon. friend has just referred. I replied that I felt that the interests of the members of the service would be better served if the matter were left to the government rather than having it brought up in parliament at this time. The matter has since been considered by the internal economy commission, and I think the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) has the views of the commission on the matter. Perhaps he will state them to the house.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The internal economy commission met to consider the question of the payment of the sessional staff between this part of the session and the next part after we meet in February. It has been found that the payment of the sessional staff during the two months' adjournment, over December and January, would involve the expenditure of SI,276.83 per day, or a total of $79,163.46.
There are 260 sessional clerks and employees. For example, there are 130 stenographers who receive $5 per day, which totals $650 per

day. It will be realized that the rate of pay for stenographers on the sessional staff is much higher than the rate of pay prevailing in the service. This higher rate is paid because it is thoroughly understood that they must take the chance of the session being irregular and accept the possibility of being laid off between sessions. The sessional staff is not employed on the same conditions as permanent civil servants. It is paid by the day and its members are liable to be laid off when there is not sufficient work to justify their employment. Salaries are higher than in the government departments, but these employees must take the risk of being left unemployed during long adjournments or when a session is of short duration. They were not paid during the three-month adjournment from August 7 to November 5, 1940.
The matter of travelling expenses may possibly be raised, but the payment of such expenses to these employees is prohibited under the terms of standing order 89, which reads:
No allowance shall in future be made to any person in the employ of this house who may not reside at the scene of government, for travelling expenses in coming to attend his duties.
The members of the internal economy commission were unanimously of the opinion that whatever the house might do, certainly the country would not approve under present-day conditions of an expenditure of nearly $80,000 which is not authorized and which has not been contemplated.


Thomas Miller Bell: Just a word of explanation. I did not intend to suggest that the government should pay full salaries. I did think that the government might be able to do something to aid the situation, since we have had some quite long adjournments. Perhaps some of the members of this staff might be used in connection with the conference in January.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That can be considered.


Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, it was my intention to ask this question to-day, but the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) got in just one jump ahead of me. I realize the position of some of the members of this staff-


Mr. SPEAKER:: I must point out that
this matter cannot be the subject of debate. A question was asked by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar and it has been replied to by the Minister of Finance. I have already read the motion which is before the house.


Robert Fair: I am speaking to that motion, and I believe it is debatable. I do not think it is fair that-

Long Adjournment-Sessional Employees


Georges Parent: Order. The motion with respect to the adjournment of the house has been put, and a question has been asked by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar and has been answered by the minister. There can be no further debate on the question.


Thomas Langton Church: May I ask the Prime Minister a question about the adjournment?


Georges Parent: I must insist that there can be no further debate on that question. A question has been asked, and in plain terms, and the minister has replied, also in very plain terms, and that is the end of it.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister for information. If it should become necessary to call the house together at an earlier date than that indicated in the motion, would the Prime Minister be kind enough to give instructions that those members who live a long distance from Ottawa shall be notified by air mail or wire? They can send my wire collect, if they like. I am making the suggestion because when a previous hurried session opened I got here two days late, and two days after that I got my formal notice of the opening of the house. I think that out of consideration for hon. members some steps should be taken to notify them promptly by air mail or telegraph in order that they may get here in time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I regret that my hon. friend did not get his notice promptly as to the time of meeting. The date was broadcast by radio, I know, and my hon. friend might have got the information in that way. However, I agree that members should get a specific notice by telegraph, and I shall give special instructions that any message that is sent to my hon. friend be prepaid.


Robert Fair: Mr. Speaker-


Georges Parent: Do I understand that the hon. member is addressing himself to the question before the house?


Robert Fair: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This is not the ordinary motion to adjourn, and because of that fact and because we may reconvene before the date set out in the motion, I think the payment of our sessional staff during the adjournment should be carefully considered.
The house will remember that in January last we had a very short session, and I know several members of the staff who did not .make their expenses. Again this session members of the staff have come here from outside Ottawa, and if we are to adjourn over a long period it is unfair to ask them to pay their railway fares, which I understand
cannot be allowed them because of some order that is made by the house. If that be the only objection, the house is still in session and we have power to change that order, and I think we should do so.
Several members of the staff have not had an opportunity to earn their travelling and living expenses while in the city, and something should be done for them by the government. Either allow them full pay, or at least part of their salaries, during the adjournment until February 17. I hope the government will seriously consider my suggestion.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, may I voice a protest, which is only my own but which may be shared by other members of the house, against this way of dealing with adjournments. We have examples that we should follow. We have one example in particular that is very good, and much better than any suggestions that may be offered by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson). It is the example of the province of Quebec. The premier of the province will attend the dominion-provincial conference in the middle of January notwithstanding the fact that the Quebec legislature is meeting on January 7. It will adjourn for a week and then resume its proceedings afterwards. That is the first thing -an example that we might well follow; an example from the good old Liberal party of the province of Quebec.
There is a second matter which is of great importance. Our first duty here is not to make speeches but to enact legislation. We have been sitting here for a month and no legislation has been submitted to the house except by private members.
There is another thing, Mr. Speaker, and this is a very deep grievance which I lay before you and the government. It is that members are not well informed of the legislation that has been passed by parliament until they receive the statute book in bound form. In the province of Quebec there is another example-I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to tell the leader of the opposition to keep silent when any hon. member is addressing the house. I do not appreciate those manners of his, and I am sure he was brought up very differently as a young boy. The sound of his voice annoys me. Therefore I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to be kind enough to keep order when the member for Temiscouata is speaking so that he can be heard. The sound comes through the leader of the opposition's nose and not from his mouth.


Mr. HOMUTH:: Your voice is no violin.

682	COMMONS
Long Adjournment-Sessional Employees


Georges Parent: I do not think the hon. member should address these remarks to the leader of the opposition, and I wish he would withdraw them.


Jean-François Pouliot: I shall be glad to withdraw the remarks, Mr. Speaker.
I was saying that in the province of Quebec there is another example set by the good old Liberal party in the province, which I think we should follow. Every piece of legislation that is passed by the Quebec legislature is printed in the Quebec official gazette within a week after it has been passed by the legislature and assented to by the lieutenant-governor. But here we have to wait for months before we get our statute book. It was absurd that this session should start without members having available to them the statute book of the previous session.
This is one of the main objections that I have to the procedure that has been followed, and when this session ends I hope parliament will prorogue instead of adjourning to an indefinite date. I have, sir, made two suggestions; I made them very clearly, and I shall not repeat them for the benefit of those who do not understand what is stated in plain English.
You, Mr. Speaker, who are more familiar with British traditions than anyone else in this house, know that in Great Britain only a few days intervene between the prorogation of parliament and the opening of a new session. It is on account of the privilege that members of parliament have enjoyed for so long, of immunity from arrest over a certain period after the close of one session and before the opening of the next. Nobody has mentioned that here as an argument for the long adjournment of last session.
We can very easily be summoned to meet here at any time by notice in the official gazette. I will tell my revered leader the Prime Minister of a letter that I saw yesterday in my files. It was a notice sent by Sir Wilfrid Laurier in August, 1896, to every Liberal member,, telling him it was his duty to attend the opening of the first session after the general election; and I assume that that practice was followed for some years afterwards. This year we met without notice to any individual member. Members were notified by an announcement in the press. I do not think that is the right way to deal with members of parliament. When we adjourn and go home I think we should be summoned here on some other authority than that of the press. We should be notified, either by you, Mr. Speaker, or by the Prime Minister, to come here and attend the sittings of parliament, and I assume that when this fMr. Homuth.]
period of adjournment is over, whether we meet on the date which is mentioned, February 17, or are called before that time, or the sitting is postponed until some time afterwards, we as members of parliament will be officially notified that parliament will resume at that time.
There is another thing that I would mention. It is that we come here and find that nothing is ready. The Prime Minister told us that the government would have a fortnight to make preparation, in the month of February, after the sittings of the conference. But what sound legislation can be prepared in a fortnight? At any time sessions are opened, governments should be ready to submit a sound legislative programme.


Georges Parent: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I see the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) and his satellites laughing heartily and making gestures.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Not with the hon. member, but at him.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am speaking of the importance of legislation. He seems not to realize what we are here for. I am not here to listen to him, I am here to see that sound legislation is enacted for everyone in the land. And, sir, I regret to have to reiterate that nothing is ready. It will all be provided in thirteen days. It is like a quick lunch; we shall have to digest the indigestible. I hope that when we meet it will be, not to pass hasty legislation, but to scrutinize the estimates, and then we shall fulfil our duty to those who have elected us.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before the question is put, I might be allowed to speak of one or two matters which have been referred to.
First of all, may I say to my hon. friend (Mr. Pouliot) who has just taken his seat that I have tried at all times as far as I could to be courteous towards hon. members with respect to matters pertaining to the sessions of parliament, as well as all else. I do not know whether that courtesy should be expected to go to the length of obliging me to write a personal letter to each hon. member in order to tell him that it is his duty to be in the house at the first meeting of a session.
My hon. friend referred to a letter which Sir Wilfrid Laurier wrote in 1896 to members of parliament. I believe I have seen a copy of that letter, and I think I know its purpose. Sir Wilfrid Laurier had just been returned to power. His government had come into office and was about to meet parliament for the first time, and Sir Wilfrid was anxious

Long Adjournment-Sessional Employees
to have all members of his party present so as to confer with them at the beginning of a new parliament, just as, I think, my hon. friend opposite did this year at the beginning of the present session; he had a party caucus at the beginning of the session with a view of greeting and meeting the members of his party. I do not believe that the letter of Sir Wilfrid Laurier was ever intended by him as an official notice of the obligation upon members to attend the sittings of parliament. The official notice is given by proclamation. I should feel that I was belittling the intelligence of hon. members were I to take it upon myself to send to each of them a letter indicating what their duty was in the matter of attendance. I make that clear because I should not like to have it thought that I was discourteous, least of all to my hon. friend, because I know what would follow if I were.
May I say to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), who has spoken about the sessional employees, that, while my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) has given the house the information which it was necessary to give, the government naturally will wish, for example, as he suggested, in connection with the dominion-provincial conference, to make use of some of those who would not be employed at the time in the work of the Commons, and who might be of service when the conference is held. More than that I do not think I can say as to the position of the sessional staff.
I might mention, however, what I said to the hon. member for Davenport when he took up this matter with me privately. All over this country to-day are persons who are pressing to get any kind of government appointment, even for a few weeks. There is something of security-and that not any false sense of security-which belongs to those who were taken on at the beginning of the session and have been given to understand that they will be reappointed when the session continues. They are in a rather privileged position as matters stand at the present time.
My hon friend the member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) has spoken about sessions of parliament being for the purpose not of making speeches but of enacting legislation. I agree with him that the purpose is not that of making speeches, particularly speeches which have nothing to do with our war effort. I believe that is an aspect with respect to speeches which we should keep very much in mind at the present time, if we do not, I am inclined to believe that the public will judge us critically. No one can realize how very serious the situation of the world is to-day and not feel that everything else is comparatively
14873-44 j
irrelevant: I say "comparatively", in relation to the importance of this House of Commons and this parliament concentrating thought and effort upon matters relating to the war. I am not stating anything which is not wholly obvious when I venture to say, it is not the quantity of talk, it is the quality of the decisions reached which counts in all that parliament does. I do not think it is a sign of high intelligence that a long time is needed in discussion in order to reach a decision. It seems to me that most persons who are able to reach decisions promptly do so usually because they have already become pretty fully informed upon the subject matter with which they are dealing. One does not need to restrict, one's opportunity to parliament in order to become informed with regard to most matters which are discussed here.
While I am speaking I should like to say a word about the view which has been so frequently expressed, that parliament should be continuously in session during the period of the war. I suppose every hon. member will agree that the parliament of the United Kingdom has a very much larger obligation, in matters of legislation, of war effort, and all else, than has this parliament of Canada. It has to legislate with respect not only to matters pertaining to the United Kingdom but also to those which relate to the large colonial empire and the empire of India. In addition it has the obligation of considering and deciding upon those classes of questions which in our country are considered by the nine provincial governments as well as the federal government. I mention these things because I believe it is helpful to have a true sense of proportion when we estimate the length of time necessary for discussion in the house as compared with such time as may be needed by the executive in order to carry out the policies which are decided upon here and the enactments that are passed.
I have had an estimate made of the length of time that the House of Commons in the United Kingdom parliament has sat since the beginning of the war. The period I have taken is the first year of war, that is to say, from the 1st of September, 1939, until August 31, 1940. I find that the sittings of the commons amount to 149 days. That represents 30 weeks of five days a week. It represents the entire period in number of days during which the commons have been in session in the British parliament in that period of time.
May I point out something else the significance of which I would ask hon. members to note. In the British House of Commons, in order that the ministers may be able
684	COMMONS
Long Adjournment-Sessional Employees
to discharge the heavy obligations that rest upon them at this time of war, parliament for the most part sits only three days in the week, not as we do, from Monday to Friday. The custom has been for the Prime Minister to indicate the days on which parliament shall sit, and after a careful survey of the British Hansard I find that both the late Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Churchill, while they did not make a definite rule-because sometimes they might wish to meet on Monday and at other times on Friday-generally moved that, when the house adjourned on Thursday night, it should stand adjourned until the following Tuesday. That obviously would not be workable in Canada where hon. members have to travel such great distances. What I do wish to point out, however, is that the British parliament, with all its heavy obligations, has found it possible to limit the time of its sittings as indicated, and also has found it necessary to follow the practice I have indicated because of the exceptional burden which of necessity is thrown upon a ministry during a time of war.
I would point out further that so far as the government of the United Kingdom is concerned, as hon. members are aware, the cabinet is only a part of the ministry. The ministry itself is a much larger body and it has supporting it many of the most highly trained minds of the United Kingdom, a very large staff of exceptionally well-informed experts. In our public service we are fortunate in many of our departments in having officials who are well qualified to give the very best expert advice, but for ministers to have a chance even to confer with the members of their staffs at a time like this, and to do so in any careful detail, requires time and opportunity. If parliament, when we resume, is to go on sitting from Monday to Friday, I think we shall have seriously to consider at that time how we can make a division of labour which will at least afford more opportunity than has thus far been available, to enable the ministry in this time of war to deal with the pressing problems which arise not only from day to day but from hour to hour, and to have longer periods of time for cabinet consultation and conference.
While I am on this subject, may I remind hon. members of the difference between our system of government and that of the United States. Every now and then one hears it said that President Roosevelt is able to do this and that, that he is able to broadcast, to travel, and so on. He and his ministers are able to do this, it is said; why, therefore cannot the same be done in Canada? Well, under the constitution of the United States the ministers have no immediate obligation

to congress. The president and his ministers, the secretaries of state, give their whole time to executive work and to submission of recommendations to congress. But so far as what would correspond to our parliament is concerned, either in the senate or in the house of representatives, they have no obligations beyond that of the president to appear occasionally before congress and the secretaries of state at particular times before committees.
I mention these facts only in order to help to make clear, not only to hon. members of this house but to the country generally, the position as it is in reality. If we consider the length of time necessarily spent by the ministry in Canada in dealing with questions of legislation and matters pertaining to their executive duties, and compare the position here with what it is either in the United States or in Great Britain, I think we shall find the comparison, from the point of view of the length of time accorded the ministry to fulfil its administrative obligations, more favourable to the executive in the United Kingdom and in the United States than it is in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. FLEMING (Humboldt); I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). What arrangements are being made to speed up payments under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act?
James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member was kind
enough to give me a copy of the question before I came in, and I have had the following answer prepared:
Regulations under order in council P.C. 3887, dated August 13, 1940, provided that applications for assistance under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act be submitted prior to the fifteenth of September and be supported by such information with respect to the average yield of wheat in the township or other area as may be available.
Applications were received from a large number of municipalities for all three provinces, and, of the townships for which applications were received, 1,950 were found to have a yield of thirteen bushels or less according to standing crop and stook-thresher estimates made by field inspectors.
These 1,950 townships were again visited by field inspectors to check acreage reports submitted by farmers, to determine farms on which the average yield of wheat is in excess of eight bushels per acre and on which the

Nickel and Scrap Iron
production of wheat is in excess of three thousand bushels and to obtain complete information with respect to township yields and farmers' status for the board of review.
The board of review began the examination of reports on November 4 and dealt with two-thirds of the applications received. Complete information was not available for the other townships; further reports have since been received and the board reconvened on December 2.
An emergency year was declared by order in council P.C. 6650 on November 20, 1940.
Because of delays in a number of townships for which complete information is still not available and difficulties in transportation conditions, it has not yet been possible to determine the exact number of townships which may be included in the crop failure category but it is expected that this can be done within the next few days.
Many applications have been received since September 15 for both township assistance and area substitution. It may be possible to deal with some of these under the regulations, but others will have to be rejected.
A large number of schedules for different townships have been completed and it is expected that the issuing and mailing of cheques will commence within the next few days.
It should be possible to have cheques for first payments under the act mailed to the great majority of those who will be eligible to receive them during December but it is not believed that this can be done in all cases.



NICKEL AND SCRAP IRON


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the statement made by Doctor Robert McClure, International Red Cross Director for China, speaking in Toronto last night, to the effect that " only last week a shipment of nickel was sent to Japan and will soon be found in the bodies of British soldiers," will the Prime Minister tell the house whether or not nickel is still being shipped to Japan, and secondly will he give some assurance to the house that this shameful traffic will be stopped?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend was kind enough to give me notice of his question, and the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) also came around with a similar notice with respect to this matter.
Let me say at once that no nickel has been shipped to Japan, as far as the government is aware, since the beginning of this year. My hon. friend speaks of an assurance. That assurance was given at the beginning of this session; not in the words which have been used by the hon. member, regarding a " shameful traffic," but an assurance that no permits would be granted for the export of nickel to Japan at this time, for reasons which were made quite clear in the statement.
I should like to take advantage of the question which my hon. friend has asked to read to the house the full report of what was said last night by the gentleman to whom the hon. member has referred, and I would ask hon. members to consider while I am reading it whether they feel that any responsibility is to be attached to utterances which are expressed in language such as appears in this speech, and also whether or not utterances of the kind are not very dangerous at a time like the present.
The dispatch which appeared in this morning's Ottawa Citizen, and I assume in the other newspapers as well, is dated Toronto, December 4, and is as follows:
Dr. Robert McClure, International Red Cross director for China, said in an address here to-night that Canadian nickel was being shipped to Japan as recently as last week "and I expect some one will soon be digging it out of British bodies."
He said the reason is that "Canadian merchants want the profit."
"For three years I have been digging Canadian scrap iron out of Chinese bodies and I expect someone will soon be digging it out of British bodies, for Japan is now ready to attack Singapore. That is all her build-up in French Indo-China means. ..."
I want to repudiate a statement of that kind just as strongly as it is possible to do so. 1 cannot understand how anyone holding any kind of responsible position could allow himself to use words of the kind in regard to a situation so delicate as is the present international situation.
I saw this report this morning. A telegram was sent immediately to Doctor McClure by the under-secretary of state for external affairs. When a reply is received I shall be pleased to give it either to the house or to the press. The telegram was as follows:
Canadian Press despatch in this morning's Ottawa Citizen quotes you as saying in an address in Toronto that Canadian nickel was being shipped to Japan as recently as last week. No nickel can be exported from Canada without a permit, and no permit has been granted for export to Japan since January 2nd, 1940. If you have any evidence of specific illegal shipment please communicate it at once so that the government may institute necessary investigations with view to prosecution. If you have not please correct Canadian Press report for publication.
Trade Agreements-Bacon

Perhaps I might be permitted to add a word in reference to the export of scrap iron, since scrap iron was also mentioned by Doctor McClure. I stated to the house at the beginning of the session, and I repeat now, that no permits have been issued for the export of scrap iron to Japan since the autumn of last year.



TRADE AGREEMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ernest Edward Perley: On
Monday last in reply to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson), with respect to the tabling of the bacon agreements, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) made this statement:
There are some features of the agreement which have yet to be discussed with the other parties concerned before it can be brought down. As soon as that is done, both agreements will be brought down.
Would the minister state to the house how this discussion is progressing; whether it is by correspondence, verbally or by cable; with whom it is being conducted, and if there is any possibility of the agreements being tabled before the house adjourns. I think the minister knows that at this season of the year it is important that the farmers should have some definite information in this regard.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think the discussions were to
start this morning; the board was to reconvene in this city. I am not certain that the members have arrived and are carrying on the discussions, but just as soon as I have information from them the agreements will be tabled. If there are any parts of the agreement that cannot be tabled for the time being, I will bring down all that can be tabled.



WAR BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, December 4, consideration of the motion of Hon. J. L. Ilsley (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Coldwell.
Thomas Langton Church: ing and for all orders in council on soldier matters. Apparently we are carrying on a Liberal war, because no return was ever made; apparently some official stopped it. We now have this budget which provides funds, first, for conscription for home defence and, second, in order to protect the neutrality of the United States. All the money collected by this new budget should be spent upon the battle of Britain and the battle of the Mediterranean before it is too late. We have been too late in everything.
I should like to say to the Prime Minister, who is not in the chamber at the moment, that I challenge every statement he made in this house the day before yesterday about our war effort and about things looking brighter. I make the same challenge as was made in New Zealand and Australia when recruiting was stepped up. The money raised by this budget should be spent for war purposes and the taxpayers of this country should not be taxed the way they are for non-essentials and so-called luxuries. Our primary object should be to help the mother country. As I said before, this budget is of more importance than the main budget which will be brought down next year. It contains two cardinal principles. First, the government wants to increase all production and, second, the government wants to restrict consumption, both private and public, as much as possible.
The man on the street wants to know about this budget and the debates in this house. He does not object to paying taxes if they are used for the defence of civilization, freedom and religion, in the battle of Britain, but he does object to paying taxes for things that are of secondary importance, such as home defence, and many other useless expenditures, for example, on the old league; a new one, pan-Americanism; collective security and pacifist doctrines. The House of Commons is the only forum where a person can have his grievances dealt with and learn the facts. The man on the street does object to his grievances not being ventilated, and he does object to the press not giving some report of what goes on in the House of Commons, because he desires to learn what the ^ policy of the government is, what a minister proposes, and what is proposed by the official opposition and by the hon. gentlemen of the two groups to my left on the other side of the budget debate.
I have no bouquets to throw at the government, because I am greatly dissatisfied with the war effort of the government, both before and since the war started. Down to the hour of the outbreak of war they had done nothing but support neutrality and disarmament. For four or five years in this house I have been

urging rearmament. I did not wait for the war to start to urge that a rearmament budget be brought down. For the past five years I have forgotten politics and have worked in and out of the house to arouse the country from its apathy to the proper need for security and preparation. I have not made speeches as far apart and different as the poles and a right-about face. I have been a consistent supporter of the rearmament policy of the government since they started to take up this work.
One of the main things to which I object in this budget-and this is the second we have had; the minister should be able to combine them in one-is that we have nothing to relieve real estate or the municipalities, whose revenues have been taken away. Instead, the government is making up its budget with an income tax, an excess profits tax, and all these federal burdens which are placed upon the municipalities, with resulting overgovernment and overtaxation, and appropriating municipal revenues such as income tax and other taxes. We have no redress in this respect. Another thing I object to is the unfair way in which, in connection with the Municipal Assistance Act, the money provided for relief and relief works has been distributed. Ontario got nothing.
After the collapse of France, Mr. Churchill said, regarding the budget, that members of parliament should " search their own consciences, as I frequently search mine," because everybody has made mistakes. It seems to me, in looking at both the amendment and the subamendment, that the only use in recriminating about the past is to enforce effective action at the present. We seem to have done everything too late. As I see it, panic has stimulated the government to action. Britain and France learned to their sorrow from bitter experience that constructive criticism prevents governments from reacting into blunders which are nothing but suicide. So long as criticism is honest, founded on facts and not inspired by any ulterior political motive, it is more helpful, urgent and necessary in war time than in peace.
With reference to this particular debate on the budget and what it is for, and the conduct of the war, we seem to be too late in everything. We were too late in getting this long deferred relief to the mother country and helping her to bear the burden. Nine times out of ten we have been too late-too late in recruiting; too late in our operations respecting the Bren gun and bombing planes; too late in the commonwealth air training scheme; too late in respect of clothing, boots and equipment; too late in furnishing money for

War Budget-Mr. Church
dependents; too late in supplying big guns, mine sweepers, bombers, real tanks, Bren guns, and modern rifles and munitions; too late in dealing with the fifth column; too late getting a survey of industrial and economic power; too late in organizing large and small plants for the manufacture of munitions, torpedo boats, and aircraft such as Spitfires; too late in preventing the menace which arises from magazines printed in the United States, which have exhibited Anglo-phobia for years, and from United States radio programmes which are sent into Canada every day to destroy the morale of the Canadian people. Help Britain now; argue about it afterwards. It is now or never, now and forever in this hour of need.
In connection with this ways and means committee, I would say to the government, and particularly to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), who has recently returned from England, that I am glad to see the government has given, by way of reduced rates, a small concession to the mother country, situated as she is; but if it had been done in 1938 or 1939 it would have been much better. Away back in 1938 I urged upon the Minister of Agriculture that he should establish food reservoirs over in England, that he should send the exportable surplus of grain to be stored over there, in addition to bacon, canned goods and other foodstuffs, because of grave submarine menace, such as we experienced in the last war.
When we saw the disaster coming, I put forward the constructive suggestion that Canada should find a way of making possible the impossible. In other words, where there were no barracks or implements of war we should do as we did before, namely, take other public buildings. I said, if men have no uniforms, let them train without uniforms. If they have no rifles, machine guns or other modern implements of warfare, let them do as had been done in France and Great Britain, namely, use dummies until the real weapons can be obtained. Instead of allowing these men to drift round with nothing to do, they should be given the proper training immediately. Canada misjudged the whole situation. I said in 1938 it would take two years to train men and two years to get any real munitions.
If the government needs money it must, no doubt, go the easiest way to secure it in order to finance the war, but what I object to is the way they are doing it. In my opinion the government should charge seventy per cent of this war expenditure, if of primary importance, not secondary, to capital, and about thirty per cent to income. Industry
cannot continue any longer to carry the burdens, restraints and all these artificial barriers which are placed upon it by a score of boards. I do not know how businessmen are going to conduct their operations or businesses, with all the boards which have been appointed in this country. We are simply being headed for state socialism all along the line, and the rank of a totalitarian state, and nobody will want to conduct a business or have one, with the artificial barriers and burdens which are being imposed and the attitude expressed by the leader of the group on my left, with regard to conscription of industry and all wealth. The municipalities are starved by federal and provincial powers grabbing their revenues, and the time is coming when they will have no money with which to carry out some of their functions, with those imposed by Ottawa on them. There was established by the British North America Act in this country overgovernment and overtaxation by a duplicate municipal system, resulting in a triple-header system of taxation, with dominion, provincial and municipal budgets, so much so, with the increased income tax and the added sales tax on civic utilities and all this kind of thing, that the time has come when the minister should consider more carefully my proposal to assess two-thirds of the amount in the ways and means resolution to capital, and the balance to revenue.
Hon. gentlemen of the social credit party believe that the way to raise this money is not by taxes and borrowing, but by inflation, namely, to start the printing-press, create paper money by a gamble, and let the government use it for war purposes. We are told that the amount required next war year will be about a billion dollars. But now the social credit party abandon all that and their principles and support the amendment moved by the leader of the other group.
The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation amendment goes further than the social credit proposals. If we accept the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation proposal to reconstruct industry, trade and commerce and our financial institutions in war time and conscript industry and wealth, we are going to kill all our war effort, supported by the majority of the people of the industrial provinces, who pay eighty per cent of the taxes under this budget. I believe the sense of the people of the two central provinces is opposed to any such drastic change at the present time as unwise and uneconomic. It would dislocate industry, which is already severely handicapped by these artificial barriers and burdens, and crushing loads which
War Budget-Mr, Church

are placed on business to-day. We are fast approaching a totalitarian state, with these numerous excursions into state socialism, with the main budget and this baby budget, as it is called, with sickness and unemployment insurance-which I have supported.
What have we to-day? The business man is so taxed that he is taxed to death. One of the glories of the Victorian era was that the people kept the state. Now the state keeps the people, and we are squandering our resources in the directions indicated by such an amendment as is proposed here, many of them with regard to non-essentials. In England the Socialist party, as I pointed out the other day, did everything they could before the war to defeat the government in any plan for rearmament. The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, in this amendment, do not attack sound money as a principle; but, as far as I can see, claim that the whole organization of industry is on a wrong basis and that all war production should be on a socialistic basis.
To beat Hitler, the minister says, we shall have to increase our production by greater efficiency. I believe the time is coming when we should, in this budget, cut out the nonessentials, such as roads to Alaska, uneconomic duplication in roads, legations, league votes and so forth. We are collecting too much money from the people for purposes which are of no value in the prosecution of this war.
Britain has always been able to protect Canada and has never failed us. We owe to her our peace here, free from invasion. There is a great deal of talk about Canada and the joint defence board. There are too many speeches for which Hitler cares nothing. Canada cannot be talked out of the British empire by those who want a political union, and pacifists and pan-Americans. The defence board is all board and no defence so far, from what I see of it, and if it is for this that we are taxing the people in this budget we could use the money better elsewhere, because the battle of Britain is primary and this is secondary. Canada is not going to be talked out of the British empire. Canada will have to be fought out of the British empire. If Canada could have been talked out of the British empire, it would have been talked out of it long ago by some of the theories which have been proposed in and out of this house.
Canada was not ready when this war came. For four years the government had been listening to the babble of the pacifists and isolationists, and we had a foreign policy based on complacency. The government refused to see the handwriting on the wall and did nothing. They misjudged the whole European situation.

I come now to the celebrated victory loan of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), and I should like to have his attention for a moment, also that of the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Hoblitzell), who is at present sitting beside him. I am one of the constituents of the hon. member for Eglinton. He is a great sportsman and all that, but I think he would do well to hearken to his constituents for whom I have been speaking this afternoon. I have referred to the working classes that live there. Many of them come from various parts of Ontario, and very few of them, on account of the taxes and burdens on real estate, could subscribe to the victory loan. The brass-band method was used to raise this last loan, but the people were scared off it by all this talk about belt-tightening and heavy taxes to come, and this talk of a joint defence board, and that we should pay attention only to home defence, when the people knew well that Britain had been left to fight the battle of civilization all by herself, without any allies, and that it was to her we owed our freedom. Is it any wonder that the victory loan did not go over well, because it was ill-timed, when the people were burdened with all the taxes I have mentioned, when there is confiscation of property in many cities and even in the riding of Eglinton owing to federal and provincial authorities having refused to lighten the burden on real estate, with all these federal taxes, which amount to nearly five or six mills on the dollar in Toronto and other municipal tax rates. Many of the people of Eglinton riding and of all Toronto industrial ridings generally are losing their property because of the heavy taxation, federal and provincial, placed on municipal institutions, and this parliament and the Minister of Finance hold out no hope of relief. Yet the minister tells the real estate people to tighten their belts and continue to pay for relief works and many other duplicate forms of taxation.
The second victory loan was put on at the wrong time. It was poorly advertised. The government paid 1| to li points too much for this loan last September, and that is going to be reflected in the country's tax rate. I have had some experience with large loans, with the $32,000,000 deal, for instance, to take over the power companies in the Niagara Falls district, also, while I was in office, for almost seven years, in connection with the $200,000,000 bond transaction re municipal utilities when we took over the Toronto Street Railway and harbour, and power and light matters. I can tell you this, that if we had adopted the methods used by the government in the first and second victory loans we would never have been able to pay the rates, or to have paid what was asked in 1913 for some of these prop-

War Budget-Mr. Church
erties. See what happens next year! Notwithstanding all the taxes in this special budget and the taxes that will be brought down in the budget next spring, the minister now announces a new victory loan for next summer, and frightens the people with a scarecrow programme, because that is all it is. He is going to scare off all the investors by all this belt-tightening talk. Belt-tightening on what? Is it to be belt-tightening of the kind urged by the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, the conscription of the money that a man has left in his pocket? All these taxes, the income tax, excess profits tax, foreign exchange tax and all the rest, loading up real estate with a burden that it cannot carry, are bound to have an effect when we go to the country for another loan next summer with all this overgovemment and overtaxation.
I	congratulate the	leader of	this	party(Mr. Hanson)	upon	the speech	he	madein	the house	yesterday. He,	has	neverfaltered in his love of Britain despite the attacks which have been made upon him for his speech at Charlottetown. What he	said there	was	quite correct.	The
Ogdensburg agreement has been referred to by other speakers. It was a talk, not an agreement, all right in its way as it is of tremendous importance to have the United States with us, but that talk was exactly the same as the government's 1938-39 defence policy, of home defence, and the second cardinal principle is to protect our neutrality if the United States is attacked. There was much ado about nothing over that Ogdensburg agreement, but Canada's defence policy had the same cardinal principles. I agree with what the leader of this party said yesterday on our tariff policy and the need of protecting Canadian industry and agriculture.
This government changed the Ottawa agreements, and all hon. members know what happened. This government gave the United States almost the same advantages that we enjoy in the Ottawa agreements. We had a 6 cent preference in the British market on grain carried in British ships, and generally the Ottawa agreements were the backbone of the prosperity that we had before the war on bacon and other products. Our trade with Britain increased by 44 per cent and Britain's trade with us by 42 per cent under them. The resolutions now before us to aid Britain were a wise gesture. Britain is protecting our shores, and if the government will only consult with industry, labour and agriculture I believe that we can reduce import duties against Britain 50 per cent more on some goods in certain items and 100 per cent more in other lines. That is, if those reductions
can be made without hurting labour and industry in Canada. The British fleet and the Royal Air Force are the real Monroe doctrine and not a mythical Monroe doctrine as expressed in a joint defence board, which without Britain is a myth. The Monroe doctrine for the United States and us is the British fleet and the Royal Air Force, and that is why at Christmas our country and the United States will not be invaded, for which the United States should give thanks by aiding Britain. I hope that conferences will be held by the government with industry, labour and agriculture to see if our imports from Great Britain cannot be extended all along the line in order to help out the mother country when she has so few friends, and has lost most of her export trade, if Canada is not injured in doing what I suggest.
I believe there should be an exemption granted with respect to some of the provisions relating to exchange. Why should United States citizens and British subjects have to go to all this trouble to send some poor relative a present of $25 or $50? Why should a man who wants to send $10 or $15 to a relative in the United States who may need it to pay a hospital bill have to go through all this red tape and formula of the foreign exchange control board with all its standing army of officials? From 1921 to 1930, under our pan-American tariff 600,000 of our citizens left Canada to go to the United States to look for a job, and many of them were soldiers who fought in the great war, and some of them are fighting in this war, at great hazard to their lives. Why should they be hampered up to the amount I name, by the foreign exchange control board when they had to leave this country to look for jobs betwen 1921 and 1930?
Another thing is the passport plague. Is this the Monroe doctrine in action? Also, cannot it be amended before Christmas, and what is being done? Neither country benefits from such drastic measures.
I would also repeal a lot of this Canada-United States trade agreement. It was for three years, and expires in 1940. It was to the disadvantage of Britain and Canada, and my hon. leader gave many illustrations of that yesterday. How can we compete with these people with such adverse trade treaties against agriculture and industry in Canada? They are our friends and kinsmen and it is of the greatest importance that we should try to maintain most warm and amicable relations with them forever. No one has ever suggested anything else. They are our friends to-day, and long may they continue to be. But business is business. If it is looked upon as a matter of pure business in dealing with the mother
War Budget-Mr. Church

country that we should consider ourselves in trade, why should it not be business when we are dealing with another competing country? Why should we give away our market, taking work away from our own workmen and giving it to our competitors across the border, and our own markets with exchange as it is?
A few years ago I brought up the question of a national coal supply for Canada. The minister could conserve a great deal of exchange by adopting a national coal supply policy such as was urged in 1922 and 1923. The importation of bituminous coal free of duty may not be detrimental to Canada as a whole but it may be to Nova Scotia. It was the coal from the maritime provinces and Alberta and Wales that I had in view when I proposed a national, all-British coal supply policy in 1922, and it took ten years to get it recognized. If the maritime provinces suffer by the new free British duties here, they should be given increased protection by way of bonuses, subventions and subsidies so that the interests of those provinces should not be injured.
As regards cotton, woollens and fabrics of all kinds, I submit that the government ought to confer with industry and labour to see if something cannot be done to lighten the burden on the mother country, especially when she has lost her export trade. For fifteen years I have been asking this question: Why are there so many Washington-made tariffs? Largely as a result of the abrogation of the Ottawa agreement, Washington has become the economic capital of the British empire. There is a right and a wrong way of securing concessions from the United States. If they were convinced that we were losing all this money, I believe they would be the first to take steps to bring about some change in our favour with regard to tariff reform.
I am opposed to the price-fixing theory. As regards railway fares, it is all right for the railways to get out hand-bills quoting fares of $30, $35 and $40 from Halifax to Toronto, but as a matter of fact we find very low excursion rates. For instance, there was an excursion on November 28, the fare being $17.50 to Truro. Other figures to points in the maritime provinces were $16.25, $15, $17 and $18. Yet, when the poor soldiers want transportation they cannot get it and are refused a $20 return rate from Truro. We have spent millions of dollars on the Canadian National railway, and this will have to be taken into account in the budget, because the taxpayers will have to pay the deficit on our railways. Yet they cannot carry soldiers free. But although the railways can give all kinds of excursion rates every week to civilians, when it comes to railway fares for our soldiers in 
Ontario they quote higher, fabulous rates to maritime places.
The government has done nothing about insurance for soldiers. I have asked about four or five times what it intends to do in this regard. The minister said that the superintendent of insurance had written a letter. He did in the session of 1939 and that was the last I heard from him.
Again, the government should bring down a policy with regard to grain. The people of the industrial provinces can no longer pay such extended annual bonuses, subventions and the cost of pegging grain. They cannot afford the measures brought down almost at every session. The industrial workers and the farmers of the three central provinces and of the maritimes get little or nothing in return in bonuses and subventions. It is of the utmost importance that the grain industry should be on a good basis and receive all due assistance, but there has been a serious want of judgment in marketing the crop in war time. The government misjudged the markets. They failed to establish English reservoirs; they failed to cooperate with the department of agriculture at Washington on the question of the wider marketing of grain during the war, with the loss of ships which we are sustaining at the present time.
I am opposed to any new pan-American league of nations of north and south America because I believe it will lead to the same state of affairs as has developed in Europe, and to more strife than peace. I am opposed to any proposal to link up this country with any more such pan-American alliances over the head of this parliament, and without our knowledge, and I suggest to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) that in the recess he should find out all the circumstances relating to the disaster that has overtaken seventeen of our merchant ships off the west coast of Ireland on the way to England from Canada. The cost of that disaster will be reflected in the coming budget next spring and in lost trade, lives, and goods. Will the government make an inquiry into this matter? Will the Prime Minister find out whether these neutral ports and inlets are being used against Canada and Canadian trade, and whether they shelter German submarines? Many businessmen are losing consignments on these ships and they will be without any compensation and will want a show-down. I urge, therefore, that during the recess the government take steps to ascertain what is being done to protect Canadian interests in relation to the question of neutrality in this area. I raised this question on July 10 last.
Parliament is going to have a holiday for more than two months. We are going to take

War Budget-Mr. Pouliot
a holiday until February 17, and yet the government cannot give a brief holiday to our soldiers, or even a day to the men in our air force. These men are fighting for civilization, for religion, for Christianity; and yet on the greatest of religious holidays, Christmas day, Canadian soldiers of the Royal Canadian Air Force are to be denied leave to visit their parents and friends. I suggest to the government that if they want to hurt recruiting they should continue as they are doing in this respect, in not aiding to the utmost our soldiers who risk their all for the country.
Mr. JEAN -FRAN QOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): One of the best speeches I have ever heard in this house was delivered by a former member of the Liberal party on March 15. 1938. It reads-I am quoting from pages 1376 and 1377 of Hansard of that year:
Concessions were made by reducing the tariff on their raw materials; I have no objection to that. Why were they so successful in the two years following the reduction? It is easy to see why. It was for the simple reason that prices went down and people bought automobiles more freely, and although the manufacturers had to accept a smaller profit on each automobile, their aggregate profits at the end of the year showed a large increase. After all, what is the secret of success in any line of merchandising? Is it to sell one article a day and make fifty cents profit on the sale, or is it to sell ten articles a day and make ten cents profit on each article? The more goods you sell the more profit you make and the more service you can give.
Here may I quote, with approval, the statement made by the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Deachman): "There has never in Canadian history been a tariff reduction which did not benefit Canadian manufacturers, but they fear it." Ah! Fear! Fear! That is it. Fear, which at one time was no doubt the natural and normal reaction of man in his primitive state and was intended as a necessary shield for his self-preservation, has to-day become a heavy and burdensome armour, impeding him in his upward march towards a higher civilization. That fear which in those days was a physical, bodily fear, and quite normal, has to-day become simply an atavic, mental and moral fear-the curse of humanity, and man's greatest enemy.
If I were-I was going to say if I were king, but I will put it in a more modern way- if I were the dictator of Canada, do you know what I would do, Mr. Speaker? I would issue a decree to take effect to-morrow morning, establishing absolute free trade in this country.
Some hon. Members: Oh.
Mr. Louis Robichaud, K.C., was a member for Kent, one of the New Brunswick constituencies,
I may surprise some hon. members since I am not resident of the west or a farmer, when I proclaim myself a one-hundred per cent unadulterated free trader. But someone will say: "If you do that, you will flood the country with foreign goods." I say then, and in the spirit in which the apostle of the gentiles uttered his famous exclamation, "0 felix culpa".
Happy flood, blessed flood! The flood would continue only so long as we were able to pay for the goods, and so long as we were able to pay for them we would be prosperous indeed.
That is worthy of Cobden in his best moments. As the first sentence of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to use four Latin words: suaviter in modo, fortiter in re-"mild in expression, strong in belief."
I desire to make two points, to show what has been the tariff under the Bennett administration from 1930 to 1935 and under Mr. Dunning from 1935 to 1939. In the first place we must not forget that trade is the lifeblood of the country. That is very well understood in England, where as their motto they have these three words, "Business as usual." They mean business as usual in peace time as well as in time of war. Mr. Bennett came to power in July, 1930, and a special session was called in September of that year, at which he advanced the idea that by raising the tariff he would decrease the number of unemployed in the country. What astounded me was the fact that his proposals met with a sort of indifference on the part of our party. I hold in my hand an extract from an article by Mr. Benoit, who later became president of the press gallery, which appeared in Le Devoir on September 10. The translation is as follows:
The address in reply to the speech from the throne has been voted rather unanimously. There was only one dissident voice, that of the member for Temiscouata, Jean-Frangois Pouliot.
According to sessional paper No. 290C, reference No. 250, tabled by Mr. Cahan on June 5, 1935, at that special session 152 items of the customs tariff were increased, while 11 were decreased. It is interesting to see how Mr. Bennett dealt with the tariff. At that time he was assuming the duties of Minister of Finance and Minister of Labour in the house, which is why I told him it was the first time in the history of this country that the same minister represented capital and labour. The total number of tariff items, as of August 1, 1930, was 1,100; as of June 5, 1935. it was 1,280. The items increased were as follows:
	By	By order
	parliament	in council
1931			 128	2
1932			1
1933	
8	nil1934	
18	i1935	
13	nilThe decreases	were as follows:	1931	
55	71932	
144	71933	. . . . 42	61934	.... 57	71935	.... 57	1
War Budget-Mr. Pouliot

The next question I asked was how many customs tariff items had been left untouched since August 1, 1930, and still in force. The answer was 643. In other words about half the tariff items had been changed by Mr. Bennett during the five years he was in power. Then I asked whether any of the customs tariff items had been changed more than once, either by parliament or by orders in council, since August 1, 1930. The reply was yes in both cases, and the numbers: by parliament, 101; by order in council, 1. There, Mr. Speaker, you see the disorder that was created in Canadian business by tariff changes. Mr. Bennett not only desired to change an item once; he changed some items several times. His first idea was that Canada could be self-sufficient; he went to London in 1930 and made such a good impression on the British government that Mr. Thomas called him a humbug. Then he returned, and realized that it would be quite difficult for Canada to become self-sufficient. Therefore he raised the tariff, according to the figures I have just quoted.
Later, in 1931, Mr. Bennett thought Canada should stand alone and be absolutely independent; the tariff was raised and raised again. Then in 1932 he saw that this policy was impracticable. He tried to bring in a new sort of tariff, just for the British empire, and the tariff items were changed accordingly. We had the Ottawa agreements; and then in 1933 he realized that this was not enough. He began to ask for world trade, and all countries were invited to the London conference, which met with complete failure. The member for Temiscouata is reported at page 1421 of Hansard as having spoken on November 22, 1932, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege in connection with an absurd newspaper item published on the front page of I'Action Catholique of Thursday, November 17, 1932. The heading reads as follows: "J. F. Pouliot endorses the tariff changes-statement made by the hon. member for Temiscouata, yesterday, in the House of Commons." What has actually happened is that this newspaper attributes to me a speech delivered by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). You are, sir,

I was then addressing the Speaker.
-better aware than anyone that I have never lost an opportunity to strenuously and energetically protest against these evil omen agreements.
I could not vote against them because I was paired with the late Herb Lennox; we had a gentleman's agreement; nevertheless I expressed my disagreement with that sort of tariff.
The Ottawa agreements worked badly. They were passed in midsummer, and on Decem-
ber 15, 1932, I read this article in the Montreal Gazette:
Return to Barter in International Trade Suggested.
Clearing houses to provide exchange machinery, idea of London chamber. Scheme studied here. "Better to have some trade than none at all pending complete reform of monetary system."
Then, on January 25, 1933, we find the following front-page news item in the Montreal
Gazette:
Leadership being tested, Borden says. Former premier urges freer world trade. Speaks in Toronto. British empire leads way with conference pacts, he declares.
Those Ottawa agreements did not work out successfully. They were an impediment to world trade. In fact, they were the reason for the failure of the world economic conference of 1933. After that time the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) became Minister of Trade and Commerce. I had an opportunity to write him a letter setting out my views respecting the management and the policy of his department. I sent a copy of that letter to the late Hon. Norman Rogers, and since the reply from Mr. Rogers is not personal I intend at this time to read it. It is dated at Queen's university, Kingston, March 8, 1935, and is in the following terms:
Jean-Francois Pouliot, Esq., M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ont..
Mon eher ami:-
I want to thank you for your kindness in sending me a copy of the return made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce to your inquiry regarding British trade in relation to world trade during successive years since September 1, 1929. Your own letter to Mr. Hanson in reference to this return is most illuminating. I have had a suspicion that the recent statistical barrage on the Ottawa agreements contained some misleading figures. In fact, it seenns to be possible to support quite different propositions on the basis of figures supplied by the Department of Trade and Commerce and the bureau of statistics. I take it that Mr. Hanson has not made a correction of his statement in accordance with the suggestion contained in your letter. No doubt he will do so in due course, if you exhibit the same perseverance as you did in relation to the station at Riviere du Loup.
Thank you also for your kind note ox congratulation and good wishes.
Yours sincerely,
Norman McL. Rogers.
In 1935 the Bennett government was defeated at the polls. After that time we were faced with the necessity of solving a tariff problem, if we were to improve our trade throughout the world. The Dunning budget of 1930 did not receive a fair deal, and during the election campaign was represented in only some of its aspects. Since the people did not

War Budget-Mr. Pouliot
have an opportunity to consider it from all angles, I thought it proper to suggest that the Ottawa agreements should be replaced by the Dunning budget, so that it might be given a fair trial.
Turning to page 920 of Hansard for March 10, 1936, I find the following:
United Kingdom Trade Agreement.
Proposed Revocation of Legislation Instituting Agreement.
Mr. Jean-Fran^ois Pouliot (Temdseouata) moved:
" That in the opinion of this house, chapter 2 of 23-24 George V (1033) should be repealed;
That the trade agreement entered into between representatives of His Majesty's government in Canada and of His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom, copy of which is set forth in the schedule of the above mentioned act, should be revoked;
And that chapter 13 of 20-21 George V (1930), an act to amend the customs tariff, should be substituted thereto."
Hon. Charles A. Dunning (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, much as I appreciate the compliment contained in the last paragraph of the motion, I think I must call your attention to the faot that this resolution is entirely out of order.
Mr. Pouliot: Then a pious wish is out of order.
Mr. Speaker: I will reserve my judgment until another day.
Motion stands.
On motion of Mr. Dunning the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
If Mr. Dunning was sincere when he introduced his budget of 1930, I was giving him the opportunity to give it a fair trial, and to see what it would produce. The idea behind that budget was sound and good. At that time England was importing wheat from the Argentine, for reasons well known to my western friends, and there was a decrease in our trade with England only in respect of wheat. With regard to all other commodities the trading situation was good. Of course the discussion developed into a debate respecting butter, and all the rest was forgotten. The people became crazy, and thought that R. B. Bennett was the saviour of the land.
It was interesting to note, sir, that Mr. Dunning was objecting to my motion. I wanted to see the extent of his sincerity in bringing in the budget of 1930. In my humble view it was a very good budget; but he made the objection to which I have referred, and did not give me an opportunity to discuss the whole matter on a point of order. The funny part of it is that he himself objected to it.
Then, on April 6, 1936, I addressed Mr. Speaker as follows, as reported at page 1815 of Hansard for that year:
Mr. Speaker, I respectfully draw your attention to Hansard of March 9, page 920. Would
you be kind enough to give your ruling on the point of order radsied by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) on that resolution?
As I stated earlier, he never understood the rules of the house-I do not mean Mr. Speaker;
I was referring to Mr. Dunning-and he was objecting to my point of order, stating that it was not well taken. I do not know why a decision was not rendered.
On April 27 1 wrote the Clerk of the House, Doctor Beauchesne, asking him to get in touch with Mr. Speaker, so that a decision might be given. His answer to me was that it would be given later on. I have in my hand a letter dated April 28, 1936, asking Doctor Beauchesne if Mr. Speaker would give his decision after the roar of the gun-prorogation. No decision was given on the motion.
What happened in 1937 was most strange. I wanted to show my good-will-I wanted to show what my chief calls good-will and cooperation. I said I had not the time to read the tariffs, and to make comparisons between the tariff of 1937 and that of 1932. I believe the tariff of 1937, as approved by the party to which I belong, was all right. But I have before me what Mr. Bennett had to say, as reported at page 1398 of Hansard for March 7, 1937. He gave the names of those members who had voted against the second and third readings of the Ottawa agreements, and then continued as follows:
Those were the immortal forty-two. They voted against the United Kingdom agreement, an agreement which now in terms they ask this bouse to adopt. In brder that there may be no question on that point I propose to put the deadly parallel upon Hansard', I propose to compare the paragraphs from the agreement of 1932 and the paragraphs from the agreement of to-day, to show that they are the same: the same in principle and almost identical in words. But in order to endeavour to save their faces they make some Change in the relation of the words one to the other, though the principles have not changed and cannot change. I doubt whether, in the long history of our institutions, we have ever seen the spectacle of a government asking within the short period of loss than five years the acquiescence and approval of members of the house to a document that was in terms similar in every principle to a document they had voted against just a few years before.
I am rather fearful of the results of these tariff changes because of the words that were uttered yesterday by the leader of the opposition. As reported on page 647 of Hansard, he had this to say about the foreign exchange control board:
It is with some degree of pride that I call attention to the fact that under a government which was not (supposed to be strongly characterized by foresight or to have much knowledge of business the foundation was laid for the functioning of this important body. It is
War Budget-Mr. Pouliot

a matter to which I think I should refer, especially since the man who conceived and promulgated the idea has been so often traduced, as he has been even during the present session, by certain hon. gentlemen in this house. I am sure the Minister of Finance would be the last to deny that had it not been for the vision of that man and his knowledge of finance and monetary problems, we should not have been so well equipped as we are to-day to deal with what to me is an abstruse and technical matter.
I will admit that the former leader of the Conservative party had something like vision, but it was more than that, he had visions. We may differ sometimes, but we are still patriotic. Our diuty is not to follow blindly the lead of the government in this matter, our duty is to warn the government against the danger of certain tariff policies in order that the people of Canada may not suffer either in the near future or later on. No one should be depressed at the present time; we should ail have courage; we should have what Mr. Bennett called "fortitude," during this present war.
We should endeavour to pass legislation which will not prove a handicap to Canadian business during the war and afterwards. Tariff changes are very delicate matters. It would be easy for one of these clever boys who act as pages here to go through the Canadian tariff with a blue pencil and strike out certain items and change others, and then present them as a budget. We should not forget that many people are employed by the importers of Canada. If we destroy the import trade, these importers will be put completely out of business. If the mission of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) to south America is a wise move, as I think it is, then we should not isolate ourselves with high tariffs. Not only did I fight this type of legislation when Mr. Bennett was leading the government, I tried to do what I could to prevent it from being put into force when our own party was in power.
I was much concerned over the fact that those who had been the advisers of Mr. Bennett were also acting as advisers to the then Minister of Finance. They were considered as experts and their word was powerful. But I did something else. I was concerned over the financial disaster which had been brought about by the brain trust in the United States, and therefore the member for Temis-couata moved to introduce a bill to repeal the act which had established an economic council. The first reading of this bill was on February 24, 1936, at which time I said1, as reported on page 437 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, it is very easy to explain the purpose of this bill. It is to put the axe of parliamentary control to a dry branch of the dead tree of so-called social legislation.

I had quite strong support in introducing that bill. A few days later, when the second reading was up on February 27, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said, as reported at page 578 of Hansard:
Mr. Mackenzie King: The measure comes under the Prime Minister. The act provides for the appointment of an economic council to advise the Prime Minister. I am quite satisfied with my own council; I do not think I need an economic council to tell the present government what is necessary in the way of legislation. The government at all times is in a position to command the services .of any members of the public service. It seems to me wholly superfluous to have on the statute book a law which obligates the government to bring together a number of the members of the public service and constitute them into an advisory council, when members of _ the public service have enough to do in their own departments if they are doing their work properly.
That was very well said.
It is prodigal to add to public expenditures to the extent necessitated by this act. I think the government made its attitude toward the legislation clear when we did not place in the estimates an appropriation for the legislation, and I do not think it is necessary for us to say anything more about it. It is superfluous legislation, and our attitude towards it when the late government introduced the measure was that it was superfluous. However, being a part of the new deal which was being tried out it was allowed to pass. The public has since expressed its view with respect to much of the late government's legislation and made clear its attitude towards some of these measures. The present government does not feel it in the public interest to continue the legislation.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill repented.
Mr. Pouliot moved the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
The bill was passed in less than five minutes. My idea in sponsoring that legislation was to get rid of Bennett's brain trust. That has been a curse to the country since it was established. I have nothing against these fellows. The government may pay them any amount they wish in the way of salaries provided these men do not give any advice. It would pay the country to pay Mr. Graham Towers $100,000 a year provided he stayed home and did not get in touch with the government. It would pay the country to pay the same salary to Mr. Clark, the deputy minister of finance-
James Lorimer Ilsley: I listened to similar remarks the other day and did not say anything, but I think I ought to make it clear to the house that I have the utmost confidence in both Mr. Towers and Mr. Clark. I appeal to my hon. friend to desist from these personal attacks on civil servants who are recognized as being eminent. These men are giving

War Budget-Mr. Pouliot
faithful service and I do not think they should be attacked in this way in the House of Commons.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have great personal
regard for the minister, but I ask him to read one letter which is published in Hansard at the end of the speech which I made in 1939 on the mortgage bank legislation. When that matter was before the house I quoted a letter which I had written to the Prime Minister. This was acknowledged by him but never answered. My ideas as to ministerial responsibility are contained in that letter. If we cannot offer a word of criticism of those who receive high salaries, then it is no use our rising in this house and the country is doomed to ruin and complete failure. Criticism is necessary, it shows that members of parliament are watchful of the expenditure of public money and want to know what is going on. I do not intend to repeat what I have written already; it is all there. I have not changed my view, and nobody has asked me to change my view, nor has anybody contradicted what I said then.


Georges Parent: The only thing I would point out to the hon. member is that when an attack is made on a civil servant, the civil servant is in no position to defend himself. He cannot get up on a public platform or rise here as a member of parliament does to defend himself, and for that reason an attack on civil servants should certainly be accompanied by specific charges respecting particular cases, and not simply be a general charge against civil service administration. Such does not add to the strength of an argument, and it is not conducive to the good of the civil service to make such attacks. I would ask the hon. member to desist.


Jean-François Pouliot: I shall not insist, Mr. Speaker, and I shall say nothing of anybody in particular. It has been said that these people are not in the house, and that is true, and for a veTy good reason. They receive emoluments from the crown, and therefore they are barred from sitting as members of parliament. But on the other hand they are represented in the house by the minister, and the place for me to inform the minister is the House of Commons. If the minister is acting on their advice, and action is taken in consequence which I cannot support, it is the duty of the minister to defend the civil servants concerned in the house.
But I do not see why members of parliament cannot express their views on civil servants. We vote their salaries and have a perfect right to express what we think of them. I regret to differ from your opinion on this
point, Mr. Speaker, although I regard your opinion highly and shall abide by it. But if it is impossible for a member of parliament to inform the minister of what is going on which he sincerely believes should not go on, what is the use of our sitting here?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Would the hon. gentleman permit me? I think it is legitimate for a member of parliament to attack the quality of the advice or of the service that a civil servant gives a minister, if the member is specific in his complaints. I also think it is legitimate for him to attack the minister for what he does on that advice. That is the proper point of attack. That is one of the main things ministers are for. But what I object to is a general attack of a very extreme type on civil servants, and then to have it repeated. The other day the hon. gentleman made his position quite clear.
I did not know whether I should take exception to his remarks at that time or not, but I would ask him now if he does not think he should desist from repetition of such a general attack, simply personal attack, as distinguished from an attack on anything that civil servants may have done.


Jean-François Pouliot: When I wanted to bring up what they had done I was stopped by Mr. Dunning and by the Prime Minister. Afterwards I answered the Prime Minister and I had an acknowledgment from him, and I have put the letter on Hansard. What strikes me is that the support of these people comes from Conservative members all the time, and these people continue to give Conservative advice to the government. That is against my personal conviction. I do not agree with that advice. I do not say that there is graft but I do say that their advice is all wrong, and if I have not the right to speak in this house when a civil servant or an official, whoever he may be, is all wrong, I do not see what is the use of sitting in this house. I have no grudge against these civil servants. I suggest that they be paid more provided we get rid of them. But I shall not insist, Mr. Speaker. I simply want to show that I am being logical with myself.
I opposed the Bennett policy at the request of the party and because I believed it unsound, and afterwards I opposed the Dunning policy. I voted for one of Mr. Dunning's treaties but I could not vote for some of his other treaties, and I felt miserable because I knew that it was the same policy that was being carried out. I could not change the policy so I tried to change the people who were advising that policy. I was successful in having my bill adopted by the house, and it passed the senate and became the law of
War Budget-Mr. Pouliot

the land. It is chapter 5 of the statutes of 1936. Notwithstanding that, Ottawa is filled to-day with boards, experts and brain trusters to a number that is incredible. As one brain trust was not good in 1936, I do not see how scores and scores of brain trusts can be good now. I fear for the future of this country if all these people are giving advice to the government. The country is going to the dogs on their advice, and I shall not let that happen if in my humble capacity I can do anything to save our country.
Mr. PERCY C. BLACK (Cumberland): Mr. Speaker, all the people of Canada are interested in the resolutions submitted to this house by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley). Nova Scotia has a particular interest in one item, namely, the admission into Canada from Great Britain of bituminous coal duty free. If this means anything, it must mean that a large additional import of coal and other commodities is to be made. Otherwise there is no necessity for the resolutions.
I understand that in recent weeks there has been imported from Great Britain 2,000,000 tons of bituminous coal, most of which is now in storage for the Montreal-St. Lawrence market. If the change in the duty is to have the effect it is supposed to have and there is to be a large additional importation of bituminous coal, it means the displacement of Nova Scotia coal in the markets that have been recognized as belonging to Nova Scotia; that is, the maritime provinces, Quebec, and eastern Ontario as far west as is necessary to absorb sufficient coal to take up the production of Nova Scotia.


Mr. MacNICOL:: As far west as Toronto.


Percy Chapman Black: As far west as Toronto or even farther.
I am not opposed to these resolutions. I am heartily in favour of them. I agree with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) that they have not gone far enough. If Great Britain is to be put in a position to pay, at least in part, for her enormous importations, she must be allowed to export to this country and to the United States-a privilege she was denied by the United States in making payments on the loans in the last war.
If taking off the duty on bituminous coal means anything, it means that a large quantity of bituminous coal will come into the Canadian markets to which I have referred, to the disadvantage of Nova Scotia. I should like it. to be understood that if that is to be done-and I am not going to oppose it-then subventions and assistance should be extended so that Nova Scotia coal can be marketed to

points farther west in Ontario in order that the total output of Nova Scotia coal may be absorbed in Canada. That can be done by paying additional subventions, and it would have the effect, not of interfering with the importation of British coal but of keeping out coal from the United States, and in that way helping our position as regards United States exchange.
We in Nova Scotia treasure very highly the subventions and other assistance which have been given to coal mining during the last ten years. The importance of that assistance has been recognized, I believe, by all the people of Canada. It was put into effect when the coal trade of Nova Scotia was at the most difficult period in its existence. In
1930,	372,000 tons of Nova Scotia coal were assisted by subvention. In 1939 that amount was increased to 2,381,995 tons; in the ten months of the present fiscal year the total quantity so assisted is 1,828.000 tons. It is necessary that this assistance be rendered. Costs of production are higher than for imported coal; the men are entitled to a fair wage; and the people of Nova Scotia are entitled to this market, the only one open to them, that they may have fair treatment within confederation, and to some extent obtain the means whereby they can pay for their enormous purchases of commodities of many kinds from central Canada. Many of these commodities are mass-produced, and there is no possibility of manufacturing them in outlying portions of Canada.
In 1939 Canada imported 9,907,000 tons of bituminous coal, 3,977,805 tons of anthracite coal, and-


John Ritchie MacNicol: May I ask the speaker
if the bituminous coal was largely imported from the United States, or was a portion imported from Great Britain?


Percy Chapman Black: I have not
those figures, but I believe that in 1939 the importations were almost entirely from the United States. In addition, we imported 435,871 tons of coke. In the ten months of this fiscal year to October 31 Canada imported 11,898,453 tons of bituminous coal, 3,369,183 tons of anthracite coal, and 742,132 tons of coke. Therefore there is still a large importation from the United States of fuel a part of which, at least, can very well be assigned to Nova Scotia, in order that the coal mines of that province may have a market for all that they are able to produce.
When the subventions were extended in
1931,	it was said that we would market an additional million tons of Nova Scotia coal. Under those subventions, the increase from 1930 to 1934 of coal marketed in central Can-

War Budget-Mr. Black (Cumberland)
ada amounted to 1,375,975 tons. For last year, 1939, this has increased to 2,381,995 tons. It is the expectation of the people of Nova Scotia that it will be further increased, and that we shall have in central Canada a market for three million tons or more.
In the fuel policy laid down for Canada at that time, it was the view that Canadian-produced coal was necessary in our national economy. It is necessary at the present time, and how much more necessary it would be if anything should occur-we are all thankful it has not occurred, and do not believe that it ever will-whereby we were not able to get importations from the United States. Such a contingency makes it necessary that markets be found within Canada for the coal production of Nova Scotia and western Canada.
We in Nova Scotia are thankful for the assistance which has been given our coal industry. I thank the present government for their assistance in carrying out the policy which was put into effect in 1930-31. I thank the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar), because I have found that he has been sympathetic; also, the Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty). I thank the people of Ontario and Quebec and the industries established there for their sympathy towards Nova Scotia and their assistance in the marketing of this coal.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Pardon me, was not 1928
t-he first year of this coal policy?


Percy Chapman Black: It was put
into effect about 1928 as an experiment, but the difficulty at that time was that no coal of any consequence was moved. The principle may have been established at that time, but the subventions were not sufficient to move any appreciable quantity of coal and provide an output which would keep the mines of Nova Scotia operating.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
correct.


Percy Chapman Black: There are
many other organizations which should have a word of special appreciation for their consideration to Nova Scotia; among them are the Toronto board of education and many institutions, individuals and industries.
As part of that policy the duty on bituminous coal was increased 50 per cent, to seventy-five cents a ton; a duty on anthracite coal of fifty cents a ton was put into effect, where there was no duty before; and a duty of $1 a ton was placed upon coke, thereby encouraging the production of coke in Canada, and a bonus of $1 a ton paid on Canadian coal used for coke. But these subventions have been entirely paid for through the increased
revenues accruing from the additional duties placed upon imported coal. For the last ten years the additional revenues have totalled $24,352,000. The total subventions paid to eastern and western Canada in the same period amounted to $21,333,000, so that a surplus of $3,000,000 accrued to the treasury of Canada over this period by virtue of this fuel policy. Furthermore, if it had not been put into effect, many of the coal mines of Nova Scotia could not have continued to operate. At that time they were in a desperate plight; in fact, the government of Nova Scotia had to plead with the banks that credit might be extended to tide this industry over that very, very difficult period.
I would mention particularly one man from central Canada who was most helpful to us in Nova Scotia at that time. I refer to the Hon. Wesley Gordon, then Minister of Mines and Labour, who cooperated with us on every occasion and assisted in increasing the duties and subventions. It meant tens of thousands of dollars in additional costs to the consumers of coal used in his constituency. On top of the other difficulties, he said it might result in such intense criticism of himself that he might never come back to the federal parliament. "But," he said, "I believe you are entitled to it and I am going to stand by you and put it into effect." He did, and I am grateful to Wesley Gordon and the Bennett government for what they did in those hard years in Canada and particularly in Nova Scotia from 1930 to 1933.
There is one other man whose name I would mention. He was really the author of the Canadian fuel-steel policy-the Hon. Gordon S. Harrington, deputy minister of national defence overseas in the last war, premier of Nova Scotia, and first chairman of the unemployment insurance board. He gave splendid service to the people of Nova Scotia and Canada in connection with coal and other matters. He regarded his duty to the public so highly that he refused a judgeship in that province-and there are very few men who have sat in this house who have refused such positions of great honour and trust in order to continue to serve in public life. I was sorry indeed that he was not given fuller justice last year when he was referred to by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), but we in Nova Scotia are under a great obligation to Colonel Harrington. He is out of politics now, but his work with regard to the fuel policy will be a lasting credit to him.
I have not taken up much of the time of the house during this session because I felt that I should render every possible assistance to the government and that in so doing I
700	COMMONS
War Budget-Mr. Black (Cumberland)
would be serving my electors. I have therefore withheld criticism, but that does not mean that there is not a great deal of discontent in Nova Scotia with regard to the administration and more especially from the point of view of the war. I have asked the people of Cumberland and Amherst to have patience and to do their part. Nova Scotia is nearest to the seat of the war and perhaps there is more uneasiness there than in any other part of Canada.
There has been much delay in equipping our soldiers. Last week-end I was motoring from Amherst to Oxford and Pugwash and I overtook a soldier. He was two hundred yards ahead of me when he beckoned me to stop. He wanted to get home to his family in Oxford. The temperature was almost zero; there were six inches of snow, and he had no overcoat. I asked him where his overcoat was and he said that none had been issued to him. I suggested that he must be an exception and he assured me that there were two hundred men in the North Nova Scotia Highlanders who had not yet been given greatcoats. It is hard to understand that. If the figures the minister gave in his statement to the house are correct, 411,000 greatcoats had been ordered and 241,349 had been issued. It seems strange, therefore, that there should be a lack of clothing for these men. It is said that the trainees are given their equipment more expeditiously and are given better equipment than the men who have enlisted for active service, the argument being that it will make a good impression at their camps and when they go home they will say how well they have been treated. At any rate, there have been complaints in Nova Scotia, in Cumberland, from the early days of the war until last Saturday, that the men had not been issued proper clothing.


Mr. POTTIER:: Was that a member of the active service force or the non-permanent active militia?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would that make any difference?


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: In the one case they
furnish and in the other the government does.


Percy Chapman Black: I understood he was a member of the North Nova Scotia Highlanders, active service. I am not going to make any charges, but the reports that have been coming to me should receive consideration. I am given to understand that there has been extravagance in many of the expenditures, and this is having a bad effect on the morale of the people who are asked to contribute in the form of war savings stamps,

and subscribe to war loans. Many complaints have come to me with respect to conditions in the camp at Debert. It would appear that there has been lack of sanitation, lack of water, lack of the ordinary conveniences and necessary supplies that make for contentment at a camp. There are also serious reports regarding the way the work at Debert was started and is being carried on. I wish to quote from a report by Mr. H. R. MacMillan, timber controller for Canada. In a public statement appearing in the magazine Timber I find the following:
The timber controller explained that it would have been impossible to have put this job over under ordinary government methods of procedure. As a matter of fact he bad bought the lumber without authority and without any money being voted. In fact the government didn't know of the transactions until they were completed. It was necessary to exercise initiative in the emergency arising. The timber controller pointed out that there is lots of authority in Ottawa but the trouble is there are not enough people willing to exercise it.
In explaining some o>f the difficulties under which timber control operated, Mr. MacMillan stated that no bills of material had been taken off for millwoTk. The plans for the Debert job were received the d'ay the government announced construction would begin, and the statement was made that the camp would be organized in six weeks' time. In this emergency timber control had bought all the material without tenders, a procedure entirely contrary to the government system of doing business.
It is a serious matter to Canada that the Debert construction programme should not have been under way before August 15, according to this report.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Percy Chapman Black: Mr. Speaker, I have asked my people to have patience, and there has been very little criticism. The feeling, however, has been fairly definite and fairly widespread that everything possible has not been done and that fair consideration has not been given the people of Nova Scotia and the maritime provinces generally. I do not wish to be unduly critical, but I do not see how I can remain silent with respect to these matters that are of so much concern to the people whom I represent.
In his statement a few days ago the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) included a table showing the purchases by his department up to September 30, 1940. Total purchases in Canada amounted to $383,941,515. Of this total only $7,445,561 was spent in Nova Scotia, or less than two per cent. With

War Budget-Mr. Black (Cumberland)
many of our industries idle or working on part time this cannot help but create discontent. About November 20 I received a circular, as did all other hon. members, I presume, from the office of the director of public information, indicating that the Department of Munitions and Supply had placed orders for 120 sets of harness and twenty portable sawmills capable of sawing 20,000 feet of timber a day, for use by the forestry corps overseas. In my constituency we have a prominent harness factory, and at Oxford we have a manufacturer of portable sawmills. I assumed that these firms had been given an opportunity to tender for these materials, and if that had been so, I would have had no complaint. I communicated with them, and set out the information contained in this circular. I had a reply from A. E. Wry-Standard, Limited, one of the larger harness manufacturers, who market their products over Canada, stating that they had never had even an inquiry, that they did not know the material had been required and therefore could not submit their prices. I wrote the Oxford Foundry and Machine Company, Limited, at Oxford, Nova Scotia, and from that company I received this telegram:
Appreciate yours -of 21st instant. No inquiry or tender received for portion of twenty sawmills required for forestry corps for operation in Great Britain. We feel this discrimination against maritime province industries. Thanks for your very fine cooperation.
These two firms are listed in the Canadian Trade Index, which is put out by the Canadian Manufacturers Association and accepted all over Canada as authoritative. Under "harness" is listed A. E. Wry-Standard, Limited, one of twenty-five firms under this heading; under "sawmills, portable", is listed Oxford Foundry and Machine Company, Limited, together with fifteen other firms. The Oxford company makes a specialty of these sawmills, supplying practically the entire requirements of the maritime provinces and even shipping some of their mills to the United States. They have patented many devices or appliances in connection with their sawmills and have acquired the reputation of being one of the best manufacturers of sawmills in Canada. How can the people of Cumberland or of eastern Canada be content when firms such as these are not given even an opportunity to quote? If they had submitted their specifications and figures; if the specifications were not suitable or the prices were too high, I would have no complaints; but I do remonstrate when firms such as these-and they are only two of many-are not even given an opportunity to tender.
Many new industries are being established in Canada; I understand that many millions of dollars are being expended for this purpose. None of these industries is being established in the maritime provinces. There is also the Christie Trunk and Bag company, of Amherst. There was some publicity given to certain requirements in their line, but they were not given a chance to figure either. I do not wish to be too critical, I waited upon Colonel W. A. Harrison, an executive of the Department of Munitions and Supply early last summer, and he gave me the assurance that he would do what he could to see that some recognition was given the people of the maritime provinces. I know that in some instances that has been done, but in many others it has not.
We have other industries as well, such as the rolling mills at Amherst. Since I came to Ottawa I have received representations to the effect that the workmen there are anxious to do their part but that the mill is about to close down because it has no orders. There are also the salt mines at Malagash; with the need for large chemical plants in Canada in connection with our war undertaking, some special consideration might be given them and the industries of eastern Canada, such as those I have mentioned.
Protection was given to our industries back in 1878; in some instances bonuses were given in order that industries might be built up for peace-time service and be ready in case of an emergency such as we have at the present time. Never in the history of Canada, however, have grants been made to industries to the extent practised since the beginning of this war, and particularly in recent months. It is time some consideration is given to the outlying portions of Canada that have sacrificed a great deal in the interests of victory. How can we expect to have a united war effort in all Canada if consideration is not extended to those outlying parts of the country? Not only should industries be established for war purposes; they should be given assistance in order that they might have an opportunty of continuing operations in peace time. Then there would be better distribution of industry throughout Canada, but so far as I know that has not been done in connection with expenditures in the maritimes by this government.
Another question which I am sorry I have to bring up is in connection with the airport in Amherst. I do not wish to be critical, but in justice to the people whom I represent here I must make a statement. Aeroplanes have been assembled at Amherst. How do I know? Well, a report was made to parliament
702	COMMONS
War Budget-Mr. Black (Cumberland)
on May 21, 1940, covering the work being done in Canada, and in that report I find this paragraph:
Amherst:
The assembly of Anson wings and aircraft.
The overhaul of Anson aircraft.
Amherst was asked to provide the land for a runway first, then for a standard port and then for a super-standard port, and Amherst complied with every request. The town was then asked to go fifty-fifty on the cost of grading the land. The money could not be provided until the expenditure was submitted to the ratepayers, who approved more than one hundred in favour to every one who voted against it. The people of Amherst have a patriotic interest in this, and they have, too, a money interest. The Right Hon. Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of England, expressed the views of the English people when he said that never in history did so many people owe so much to so few. Our people want to be of assistance, and they want to have the undertakings implemented.
I do not blame the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power). If I may judge from my contact with him, I would say that I am sure he wishes to get results. I do not blame Mr. Ralph Bell, who is in charge of aeroplane construction; knowing him as I do, I believe he, too, desires to get results. I did blame the Canadian Car and Foundry Company. I visited their plant at Montreal, and had a chance to see what they were doing. I doubt whether there is another firm in Canada that is doing better war work than this company. The people of Amherst are not at fault; so why have we not results? Someone is to blame. I am going to leave the matter there.
I am sorry the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) is not at present in his seat. I understand he is overseas conferring with the British authorities. May I pay my respects to him, and tell him that the people of Amherst, of Cumberland, in fact the people of not only Nova Scotia but of all Canada, have confidence in him and are proud of what he is doing. At the time of the last war he did his work well, and I am satisfied he will do it to the limit of his ability in the present war.
I am pleased, too, to join with other hon. members in welcoming to the house my associate from Nova Scotia, the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald). He is here only because duty has called him. Associated with me in this chamber are five of us who had experience together in the provincial legislature of Nova Scotia. That legislature has sent good men to this chamber and to the public life of Canada. From that legislature came Sir Charles Tupper,

Sir John Thompson, at one time Prime Minister of Canada; the Hon. W. S. Fielding, the Hon. A. K. Maclean, and many others I could mention.
The Minister of National Defence for Naval Services has said in the house that he is here to speak for those men who go down to the sea in ships and do business in great waters. He also has the traditions of the British navy to follow, the traditions of Drake, Nelson, Beatty and Churchill. Churchill with whom to some extent he will no doubt be associated, was First Lord of the Admiralty soon after the declaration of war. It was he who sent ships of the British navy to Norway, irrespective of international law. We remember the greeting they got there, "The navy is here!" That is the watchword all over the world-in South America, in Iceland, on the stormy Atlantic-everywhere: "The British navy is here!"
Therefore my hon. friend, the Minister of National Defence for Naval Affairs has a great duty to perform and a great tradition to follow. He has to follow and be worthy of Mr. Churchill, that man of destiny, that man who, prior to 1939, was warning the British people, and who later became First Lord of the Admiralty. He was First Lord of the Admiralty at the beginning of the first great war, in 1914; with prescience, he felt that that first great war was coming, and kept the British Navy at sea so that it might be ready, its guns manned for action. This is the same Mr. Winston Churchill who was First Lord of the Admiralty back in 1911, 1912 and 1913, at a time when the then Prime Minister of Canada, Sir Robert Borden, wanted to do something to show the duty of this country to Great Britain and other parts of the empire.
Away back in those years Sir Robert Borden conferred with Mr. Winston Churchill, and the policy was then laid down whereby three dreadnoughts were to be built, the finest that science could devise or money could buy, It was Sir Robert Borden who in those years also laid down the policy that cruisers or destroyers would be built in Canada-a policy practically the same as that announced a few days ago in this chamber by the minister.
This statement was made either by Sir Robert Borden or by the present Minister of National Defence for Naval Services. Either of them could have said it:
I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian people wish indefinitely to continue a policy which demands of Great Britain the sole responsibility of guarding our trade routes, or which on the other hand takes shelter behind the existence on this continent of a great and friendly power. I believe that Canadian pride, Canadian dignity, Canadian

War Budget-Mr. Stirling
consciousness of present greatness, Canadian hope for increased stature among the nations of the world all demand that we should assume our proper share of the burden of naval service hitherto borne so largely by the motherland.
Those were not the words of Sir Robert Borden; they were the words of the present Minister of National Defence for Naval Services. He was born thirty years too late, or he would have been standing side by side and shoulder to shoulder with Sir Robert Borden thirty years ago. Had that policy been carried out then, had we been united within the empire in Canada, in south Africa and in Ireland, there are many people who believe that that first great war would not have taken place-and perhaps we would not have the present one.
The minister announced in the house that the government was going to establish a naval college as well as build destroyers in Canada.
I am sure those statements would not have been made by the minister unless they were to be carried out. I am sure that so far as the minister and the government are concerned, they have no political considerations with regard to matters of this kind. It is my view that the naval college should be located on the Atlantic coast. It was there in 1917, but was destroyed at that time by the great Halifax explosion. It should not be placed adjacent to balmy waters, but should be placed facing the north Atlantic, and in association with the fishermen of Nova Scotia, the Magdalen islands and of Newfoundland. Those men go down to the sea in ships, as the minister has described. There should be close contact with the British navy, with the stormy waters of the Atlantic and with the British people, and an understanding and friendly hand extended to the United States who are so anxious to cooperate with us with regard to naval matters.
I must hurry along to the discussion of a few more subjects with which I should like to deal. The largest industry in Nova Scotia is that of farming, but the farmers of that province are not prosperous. They receive low prices, and are faced with increasing costs. They have to compete with mass production, and the difficulties of processing and selling. They have made one request through their minister of agriculture in the local legislature, the Hon. John A. McDonald, and through their agricultural societies. That request is that they receive mill feeds at reduced freight rates, so that they might be placed on the same basis as were the people in Europe to whom those feeds were formerly exported.
The granaries of the west are overflowing. Our friends from the prairie provinces are anxious to dispose of their product, while the farmer of the maritime provinces wants those
products. The minister and other representatives have asked for that reduction in freight rates, but up to the present they have not been able to secure it. The result is that they are unable to obtain these feeds at prices which would permit them to make the necessary purchases to feed their stock.
The farmers of Nova Scotia wish to be placed upon the same basis as the farmers of the west as regards the control of water. Millions of dollars have been spent in the west to control water, but in the constituency of Digby-Annapolis-Kings, represented by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley), there are dyke lands that have gone out to sea. In my county of Cumberland and in Westmorland there are large acreages of land which attracted the early settlers, but which are covered by the sea or have reverted to floating bogs. This matter should receive attention from the government, and I should think this was as good a time as any to put some of the idle machinery in the Department of Public Works to use.


Georges Parent: I have to inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Percy Chapman Black: With the permission of the house, I have just a few more subjects to discuss.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not like to take exception, and I do not think it should be necessary to take exception in a case of this kind, but the fact is that we are trying hard to get through and the hon. gentleman has been talking about nearly every subject except the one that is really before the house. I do not think that I can assent to his going on.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This is a
motion for ways and means, and I think hon. members can make budget speeches if they desire. But I agree that the forty-minute rule should be observed.


Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Yale):: Mr. Speaker, I shall detain the house for but a few minutes because I desire to deal with just one phase of this motion. The measures which will result from the passing of these resolutions are for the purpose of enabling the government to conserve that comparatively small amount of United States exchange which is in our hands, for the purpose of buying from that country ever increasing quantities of materials, munitions and commodities of that sort required for the war. I am in full agreement with the desire which the government has in mind, and I referred to it when I spoke on the address ten days ago. My reason for being so strongly in
War Budget-Mr. Stirling


Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, my address on this resolution will by no means be the best during this debate, but I do lay claim to this one thing, that it will be the shortest.
This nation is at war. The budget resolutions are aimed at increasing our war effort. Upon their general principles I find myself

War Budget-Mr. Graydon

almost entirely in agreement with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), because it is of prime importance to Canada that our foreign exchange position be guarded and maintained.
My plea, however, is that the resolutions do not go quite far enough. I am not convinced that the government gave sufficiently careful or sympathetic consideration to the admittedly heavy Canadian purchases of fresh fruits and vegetables from the United States. In that I am in agreement with the previous speaker (Mr. Stirling), who gave in much more detail than I shall do the entire picture of this trade.
This importation is steadily on the rise and is seriously sapping the vitals of our foreign exchange status. This year we shall import approximately $23,000,000 worth of these commodities. Over half of these purchases are of a class or kind produced by our own growers who are in turn asked to assist our national war effort. Added also to that is the fact that, roughly speaking, we are using up almost $43,000,000 worth of precious exchange when we add the freight charges of something like $20,000,000 to the amount which I already gave; and this, Mr. Speaker, at a time when we need every cent of foreign exchange on which we can lay our hands in order to purchase engines of war from our neighbours.
I plead with the Minister of Finance tonight to give comprehensive, earnest and sympathetic consideration to what, I think, is a simple and direct governmental duty at this time.
Canada surely cannot be serious in thinking that the use of our money supplies to buy United States fresh fruits and vegetables can be an effective means of helping our war effort while similar products to those which we purchase lie rotting in our fields.
The question is simply this, and with it I conclude. Shall it be, for this country, fresh fruits and vegetables, or shall it be munitions and supplies from the United States? That, I think, is a simple question. As a matter of fact we cannot have both from the same Canadian dollar. I think I know the answer. I think the government knows the answer. I think the house knows the answer. And I am sure the people of the Dominion of Canada know the answer, too. Need I say more? Surely this is a time for action rather than for words.


Mr. H. H. HATFIELD (Victoria-Carleton):: I want to commend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) for his budget, but it does not go far enough. There may be a reason for not including all fruits and vegetables in schedule 1, which is the prohibitory schedule; but surely such fruits and vegetables as strawberries,
[Mr. Graydon.l
grapes and other small fruits, vegetables coming from Louisiana, Florida and California, and especially new potatoes and all grades of potatoes, should be prohibited, in view of the fact that we have in eastern Canada almost the largest surplus crop of potatoes in history, selling at half the cost of production, at a price of 20 cents a bushel to the grower. There are coming into Canada at the present time potatoes of a lower grade than the growers of Canada are allowed to ship to market. There is in the United States and Canada one of the largest crops of potatoes that we have had in a great many years, and the only shortage is in the provinces of Manitoba and Ontario. I contend that foreign exchange should not be allowed to be used for imported potatoes when we have a surplus crop in this country and the potato growers are able to supply our markets the year round.
According to the last Canada-United States trade agreement we are not allowed to ship potatoes to the United States except under a quota, but there is no quota or any other restriction upon United States potatoes entering Canada. Surely their potatoes, the production of which is assisted in every way by the United States department of agriculture, should not be allowed to come into Canada and compete with our Canadian potatoes at this time when our growers are selling their potatoes at less than half the cost of production, for that is what they are doing this season. In the last two months more than ninety-one carloads of potatoes came into Canada from the United States. I quote the weekly imports furnished by the Department of Agriculture of potatoes marketed in the city of Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Car loads
From	From
Week ended	Minnesota the Dakotas
October 3 		2	1
" 10 			9
" 17 			17
" 24 			22
" 31 	7	9November 7 	2	7" 14 	1	3" 21 	1	2" 28 	6These potatoes sold	at ten	cents
hundredweight lower than Alberta Gems, and forced the Canadian market down.
The maritime provinces have received from this government no such assistance as the United States potato growers have had from theirs. Across the border from my constituency, in Maine, potato growers are now receiving fifteen cents a bushel for every bushel of potatoes they deliver to the staich factories. This bonus tends to lift the surplus from the market and give the grower a better

War Budget-Mr. Hatfield
price for his marketable potatoes. The potato growers in the maritime provinces receive practically no attention from our Department of Agriculture. This government could assist the eastern potato growers at very little cost by making arrangements to increase the production of potato starch and dextrine, and at the same time help our war effort, because the British empire needs these starches and dex-trines for the textile trade and for the manufacture of explosives.
The starch factories now operating in Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick cannot begin to handle the surplus supply of potatoes this season.


Georges Parent: Order. I have to call the attention of the hon. member to the fact that he is reading his speech.


Heber Harold Hatfield: The starch factories in Prince Edward Island number three, and there is one in New Brunswick, with another under construction which, I hope, will soon be in manufacture. These factories will not begin to handle the surplus of potatoes. Not only potato starch, but potato dextrine and wheat starch are needed in Great Britain. We are sending thousands of dollars out of Canada for the importation of com to be manufactured into corn starch in this country. This corn comes from south America and south Africa. Low grade wheat would make wheat starch which is equal to or better than corn starch, and also dextrine and a better grade of glucose than can be derived from corn. We are, however, sending away thousands of dollars for corn which comes in free of duty to be manufactured into corn starch. I suggest to the government that they get in touch with our corn-starch manufacturers and invite them to erect factories for the purposes I have mentioned. I believe the Canada Starch company have a factory at Fort William which they have not used for years and they could use the surplus of low grade wheat.
We cannot continue increasing the crop of potatoes in eastern Canada and the crop of wheat in the west for food purposes because we have at the present time more foodstuffs than the markets will absorb. Agriculture has come to the manufacturing stage and the sooner the government assists in the manufacturing of agricultural products, the better. Canada is the only country in the world to-day that is not assisting in this direction. The United States government has just voted $6,000,000 for the erection of four laboratories in that country to look into the
14873-45i
manufacture of power alcohol. Power alcohol will account for 80,000,000 bushels of western wheat, and low grade wheat at that.
We cannot go on in the west piling np wheat and building more storage space. Every bushel of wheat that goes into storage overhangs the market and every bushel that goes into a manufacturing plant is taken off the market. Wheat will make the finest starch, dextrine and glucose, and calls are coming now from the British empire, China, south Africa and south America, and all countries that are not blockaded. The textile trade of Great Britain is in need of starch, both potato and wheat dextrine.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to put on the record a brief prepared by a chemical engineer who left Poland before the Germans entered. He had a plant for the manufacture of power alcohol from wheat, barley and soya beans. It was worth a million and a half dollars and he destroyed it before he left. I wonder whether I may place this statement on the record.


Georges Parent: Is the brief lengthy? Only with the consent of the house may it be put on Hansard.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Heber Harold Hatfield: I think it would be of interest to western members. It is as follows:
Arguments for the Erection of Industrial Plants in Canada for the Production of Power Alcohol
A.	Present situation of the alcohol industry in Canada.
In 1938, alcohol production was about ten million proof gallons, including _ 4,250,000 gallons commercial alcohol. For this production, the following raw materials were imported:
Corn	lbs. 72,000,000 value $ 1,200,000
Molasses	
"	89.000,000	"	650,000Fuel oil	gals. 2,240,000	"	106,000In 1940 these figures will be increased considerably. Canada, having an overproduction of agricultural products suitable for the production of aloohol, imported over $2,000,000 of raw materials for this industry. By the new methods for producing alcohol from domestic raw	materials-potatoes	or grains:-it is
possible to obtain alcohol cheaper than1 from imported molasses and corn, and also by this-method to obtain very valuable residues (slops) rich in protein vitamins and yeast. These-residues are very valuable foodstuffs for cattle and poultry. From the production of ten million proof gallons annually, an amount of about 10,000 tons of this high value feed would be available.
Thus it is possible to liquidate the import of molasses and com for cattle food. The total amount of these imported products for industrial purposes and for cattle feeding amounted to the following for the year 1938:
Molasses ....gals. 12,600,000 value $ 2,180,000 Com	bus. 15,500,000	"	10,330,000
War Budget-Mr. Hatfield

B.	Importance of creating a power alcohol industry in Canada.
1.	Trade balance.
Canada imports $60,000,000 of petroleum products per year, and over $2,000,000 of tetra ethyl lead. The amount of these imports will increase on account of the development of motorization, and with the difference of exchange between the Canadian and American dollars.
The consumption of gasoline in Canada amounts to over 800,000,000 gallons per year. A blend of 20 per cent of alcohol (160,000,000 gallons) mixed with gasoline will not only improve the quality of gasoline from 63 to 80 octanes, but will save in trade balance about $15,000,000 per year in imported petroleum products.
When producing 100,000,000 gallons of absolute alcohol per year from grains and potatoes, Canada will get about 320,000 tons of the above mentioned valuable foodstuffs. This cheap fodder will increase the production of milk and eggs; will create conditions for the breeding of cattle and pigs, and will also be the basis of a new industry of next products, thus liquidating the import of animals and animal products, which amount at present to .$30,000,000 per year.
2.	Profits for Agriculture.
Canada produces per year the following average amount of grains and potatoes:-
Wheat	
bushels	300,000,000Oats	
bushels	330,000,000Barley	
bushels	80,000,000Rye	
bushels	10,000,000Potatoes	cwts.	40,000,000
The value of field crops amounts to $600,000,000 per year. Because of the overproduction, and lack of export in some years, this figure decreases to less than $500,000,000. This difference is a big loss for the farmers.
When adding 20 per cent of alcohol to gasoline, we create a consumption of 160,000,000 gallons of power alcohol per year. This quantity of alcohol would need 80,000,000 bushels of grain, and would provide every year a "safety valve" in the grain price market, by taking this amount of grain out of the market for good. From the economic point of view, the production of power alcohol is not less important than the grain elevators problem was some years ago. Grain elevators provide for the storing of grain only. Modern alcohol factories, using agricultural products, decidedly rid the markets of agricultural overproduction, which does not return to the markets at a later date. Moreover, the cost of investment in a modern alcohol factory for one ton of processed grain is not greater than the construction cost of the same amount of grain elevators. Producing alcohol from grain saves the cost of grain storage. Alcohol is usually produced from the lower grades of grain, which increased therefore the value of the other grades of grain. Constructing an alcohol factory where the grain grows, saves 70 per cent of its weight in the cost of transport, or 90 per cent when dealing with potatoes. The weight of the alcohol produced from grain amounts to 30 per cent of the weight of the grain, or 10 per cent of the weight of potatoes. Besides this, the farmer gets the valuable fodder mentioned above, which gives him the possibility of an additional revenue on the breeding of cattle and poultry,

receiving at no charge a great amount of fertilizer. Thus he reduces the cost of the production of grain.
3.	Indirect profits of development of the
power alcohol industry for the economic life in Canada.
The construction cost of a modern factory to produce 10,000 gallons of alcohol daily is estimated at $500,000. If the industry were to be developed to the extent mentioned, i.e.,
160,000,000 gallons annually, a capital investment of $25,000,000 would be necessary. The buildings and machinery equipment can be executed in this country. Thus the building and machinery industries would be able to give work to a large number of unemployed. The new alcohol industry itself would be able to give permanent work to 5,000 workers, not including the farmers nor the industries connected with the alcohol production.
The fifteen years' experience of 35 countries of the world which introduced the production of power alcohol, indicates that these countries not only did not suffer though cancelling the taxes of the power alcohol which takes the place of taxed gasoline, but received them back from the improved agriculture, through the decrease of money grants to farmers and unemployed, also saving at the same time many foreign payments already mentioned. During the last few years, Brazil, Italy, and Japan, increased many times the power alcohol production. Now, Australia is developing a great programme of production.
Among the agricultural countries, Canada is the only one which has not done anything yet about this important industry.
4.	The alcohol industry and the war.
The war is a great consumer of alcohol, as it is required for the production of explosives, and other war needs. Production of alcohol in England is based on imported molasses. Because of transport difficulties, it would seem useful to construct immediately some alcohol plants in Canada, using domestic raw materials. Canada, being free from air raids and invasion would be able to deliver alcohol to England in connection with its war programme of supplies.
C.	Execution of the programme.
The construction of a power alcohol plant under actual conditions, would require at least eight months. Considering the large area of Canada, it would be wise to construct two or three plants at once, in different centres of large agricultural overproduction. These pilot factories would give practical results as to the cost of production, as well as the economic point of view. The results obtained would give a basis for the construction of other factories.
D.	Recapitulation.
The creation of power alcohol production in Canada would give the following benefits:
1.	Decrease imports per year as follows:
Molasses and corn	 $12,000,000
Petroleum products	 15,000,000
Animals and animal products 30,000,000
2.	Protect agriculture against marketing losses of $50,000,000 to $100,000,000 per year.
3.	Increase taxable revenues from the more profitable agriculture and the new industry in alcohol.
4.	Reduce unemployment in agriculture and industry.
5.	Save cost of transporting 70 per cent of
80,000,000 bushels of grain annually.

War Budget-Mr. Hatfield
6.	Save cost of storing 80,000,000 bushels of grain annually.
7.	Supply agriculture with a cheap valuable fodder as well as fertilizer, and create the basis of increased animal production and meat industry.
8.	Ensure delivery of a great amount of alcohol for war purposes from domestic raw materials.
9.	The use of the lower grades of grain in such large quantities will increase considerably the value of the rest of the grain.
10.	Provide a "safety valve" for the grain price market, even of more importance and utility than the grain elevators question a few years ago.
(The basic figures given in above report can be confirmed by the Canada Year Book, 1939.)
I should like to see the Department of Agriculture do something to assist the potato growers of eastern Canada especially in the maritimes. We have no market in the United States this year. Our export market has been shut off.
I wish to commend the Minister of Trade and Commerce for his trade mission to south America. I believe I brought this matter up in June. It is late, but better late than never. I suggest, however, that they will have to go further than a trade mission. The United States government has been building a steamer a month for the last ten months and turning these ships over to the operators for the purpose of capturing the trade which Germany and the Scandinavian countries had in south America before the war. We need shipping facilities to south America. There is a very large trade there for the agricultural products of Canada.
The bacon agreement made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) while in the old country is lower by $2.28 a hundred than the former agreement, and in the meantime prices of mill feeds and of everything else that go into the production of hogs have risen, so that our eastern farmers are up against it and are cutting out the raising of hogs.
I see that the war-time prices and trade board has fixed a maximum price for butter. Why should it fix a maximum price for butter when it has fixed a minimum on apples and wheat? If we want the dairymen of Canada to take their milk to the cheese factories there is no need to use force. The dairymen are loyal and they will cooperate. All the government has to do is to tell them that cheese is required instead of butter. There is no need to fix a maximum price for butter. It can go as low as you like, but it cannot go higher, and if butter is in the hands of speculators it should not be. The government should have some system of handling butter in surplus periods in the summer months, and the farmer who makes the butter should have the benefit of the excess price in the winter.
May I say something now about fertilizer and fertilizer chemicals. When the war import tax of 10 per cent was imposed it covered fertilizer. Our fertilizer chemicals have to be imported. The exchange tax of 10 per cent meant to our farmers, who are selling their produce below cost of production, an advance of from $3 to $4 a ton. Only one fertilizer chemical is produced here, namely, sulphate of ammonia. That is handled by one firm who immediately advanced the price $4 a ton or 10 per cent. This should not be allowed.
There is no reason why we should send out foreign exchange for the importation of corn. I would suggest that the government establish a committee to look into the question. The Department of Agriculture and the Department of Trade and Commerce should study the whole subject. We should be using up our low grade western wheat. Two hundred million bushels of wheat could be used in the manufacture of starch dextrine, glucose and power alcohol. Two million dollars' worth of tetra ethyl lead is imported, raising the octane value of gasoline. Power alcohol, wheat alcohol or potato alcohol would give the same results.
I suggest that the government do away with the central experimental farm and turn over the experiments to the national research council. The council is doing a wonderful job in Ottawa, whereas the farm has outlived its usefulness. There are enough offices at the central experimental farm without building more. Agriculture to-day is not bothered with the problem of production. It has surpluses. Give the farmer a decent return for his products and he will soon find ways of producing them. It is not the production we need so much as the marketing.
The people of Canada are tired of the waste that is going on in our war effort. They are tired of seeing money spent for the construction of small arms factories and so on. Nothing but aeroplanes will win this war, and an aeroplane factory should be built in every province.


An hon. MEMBER:: Is the hon. member an expert?


Heber Harold Hatfield: No, I am not an expert, but that is what the people are calling for. And since the people are demanding that we build aeroplanes we should start now to do so, even though it is late. We should not be importing aeroplanes; we should be spending every possible dollar in the construction of these factories. In the meantime we should buy aeroplanes wherever they can be secured, and send them to Britain to help carry on this war.
War Budget-Mr. Maclnnis

In conclusion, I should like once more to suggest to the government that a committee be formed to look into the manufacture of our surplus farm products, thus doing away with the necessity of using foreign exchange for the importation of farm products to be manufactured here.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say just a few words *on the motion and the amendment. First, I should like to endorse the statements made yesterday by the acting leader of this group, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell); that is, the budget proposals in the main are satisfactory, as far as they go. Measures will have to be taken to ensure that prices of home products are not increased where importations are restricted or prohibited. The necessary safeguards, however, I think can be better discussed when we are dealing with the items in the schedules. My purpose in rising at this time is to support the amendment proposed yesterday by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar and seconded by myself. Our amendment has two virtues: it is very simple, and it is very direct. I should like to read it again for the benefit of hon. members. It reads:
That all the words after "that" in the said motion be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"This house regrets that the government has not seen fit to introduce proposals for the raising of a compulsory war loan free of interest to be levied according to ability to subscribe."
In his two speeches on the address in reply to the speech from the throne the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) referred at considerable length to the last war loan. Speaking just last Tuesday, he referred to the failure of the loan and the necessity of finding some procedure to get large numbers of individual investors to subscribe. He said that he did not know what the cure was, but that there would have to be concerted action. Well, we are proposing concerted action, and, moreover, action that is in conformity with the provisions of the National Resources Mobilization Act of 1940. I will quote the important section of that act, which reads:
2. Subject to the provisions of section three hereof, the governor in council may do and authorize such acts and things, and make from time to time such orders and regulations, requiring persons to place themselves, their services and their property at the disposal of his majesty in the right of Canada, as may be deemed necessary or expedient for securing the public safety, the defence of Canada, the maintenance of public order, or the efficient prosecution of the war, or for maintaining supplies or services essential to the life of the community.
{Mr. Hatfield.]
When the amendment was proposed yesterday, I thought I detected hostility to it from the attitude of certain hon. members opposite. I am at a loss to understand why that should be the situation, since these members gave their unanimous support to the National Resources Mobilization Act less than six months ago. The ipurpose of that act, as is clear from the section I read, was to give the government power to take whatever measures were necessary for the effective mobilization of the resources of this country, both human and material, for the prosecution of the war. At the time that act was under discussion this group pointed out that we were fearful, because of past experience, that in its operation the act would be applied only to persons and not to property. So far the act has been applied only to persons. In reply to our expressed fears in that regard the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said, according to Hansard for June 18, 1940, at page 902:
The measure is intended to cover every resource that the country has, human and material. But may I ask my hon. friends this question:	What justification is there for
assuming that it is only going to be the provisions of the measure related to the human that will be invoked and not the material? Is not any fair-minded man entitled to say that there is just as much reason to assume that this bill is introduced solely for the purpose of applying it to material things?
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar said:
Experience of the past.
Then the Prime Minister went on:
Not experience of the past. I absolutely deny that statement. Does my hon. friend mean to say to me he believes I place more value in material things than I do on human life?
The fact of the matter is that we were at that time fearful that this act would apply only to human beings, and we stressed that point. We tried in every possible way to get this house to put itself on record that it would deal with material things first. What has transpired since the act was passed last June is sufficient proof that we were wise in taking heed of our past experience.
The young men who have been called up since the national registration are wondering why the act should apply to them, why they should be registered, tabulated and on call. They know that if they do not show up at the appointed place at the appointed time, a policeman will knock at their doors and find out very quickly the reason why. They wonder why all this is done, when no attempt is being made to take the wealth of people who have been bleeding this country since and even during the last war.

War Budget-Mr. Maclnnis
In my home city of Vancouver young men in their 'teen age are walking the streets without anything to do, and without a place to lay their heads. They are sleeping in boxcars and empty buildings-any place they can find. As soon as they reach the age of twenty-one they will have to answer the call and take their turn at training, in order that they may give their lives, if necessary, to defend a country which will not feed them.
I think it is far more appropriate that people to whom the country has been kind, people who have been able to amass large amounts of this world's wealth, and who have been able to lay that money to one side, should be called upon at this time of need to give of their means and their wealth in defence of their country, without waiting until it in its extremity will have to give them higher interest rates or higher wages for their money.
Why should there be any opposition to compulsion? As I have said, we have already voted for compulsion. This house has approved it; it is on the statute books; it is the law; it is being applied to human beings. Then, why should there be any opposition to its application to money or to wealth? Surely, when hon. members voted for the National Resources Mobilization Act, they did not make mental reservations. Surely they did not from their experience of the past conclude that it would not apply or that it would not be used to take property. But let us consider this matter of compulsion. Is not all taxation a matter of compulsion? So far as compulsion is concerned, what is the difference between digging into the pay envelope of the young man or young girl, old man or old girl, if you like, who gets a measly $50 or $60 a month, and taking out 2 per cent of the wage and calling it a national defence tax,
Deposits
Of $1,000 or less	
Of $1,000 to $5,000. .. Of $5,000 to $25,000. . Of $25,000 to $100,000 Of $100,000 and over.
There are 626 people in Canada with savings accounts that average over $303,000. That money is being left intact in the banks and is growing from year to year. Yet we take 2 per cent out of the pay envelopes of those girls mentioned the other evening by the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank), whose wages are so little that the only breakfast they can afford is a cup
and taking from the savings of those who have been receiving anywhere from $5,0Q0 to $50,000 or more a year for the past number of years, and asking them to lend a part of it without interest to the country in its time of emergency?
There is no ethical difference in the world, so far as the two cases I have mentioned are concerned. If there is any difference, and if any different method should be applied, surely it is the person who is getting the low wage who should be exempt, and not the other person who has a good living and idle money.
I believe I read somewhere in a bankers' magazine that the real purpose of savings certificates and of urging persons of small means to subscribe to war loans is not so much to get the money but rather to take the money out of circulation, so that it will not be used for ordinary consumption purposes. People who have huge savings accounts are not limited in what they can buy, as long as they have those accounts. Very wisely, I believe, our amendment does not go into detail as to how a measure such as we suggest, or a loan such as we have proposed, should be organized. We have not made any suggestion as to what amount of savings should be exempted or taken. We leave all that to the minister and his capable advisory staff.
As I have said, however, there is plenty of idle money in the country. I have in my hand the last return made by the chartered banks of Canada, showing deposits in those banks as at October 31, 1939. The return shows in savings accounts an aggregate amount of $1,705,455,083. There are 4,160,897 accounts, but in 3,828,291 of them the average deposit amounts to only a little over $118. The details of the table I have before me are as follows:
Number of	Aggregate	Averagedepositors	deposits	deposits3.828.291	$ 454.885,624	$ 118290,222	588,261,912	2.02640.001	348.860,597	8.7212,757	123.329,760	44.733626	190,117,190	303,7014,161,897	$1,705,455,083	
of coffee and a cigarette. This way of raising money is not good enough for people who are saving civilization. We must change our ideas of values-of things worth saving. We must place a greater value upon human life, human welfare and human happiness than we place upon large bank accounts accumulated over the years by people in favoured positions.
War Budget-Mr. Lacombe

I do not think the people of this dominion can consider that they are more patriotic, more interested in doing the utmost for the cause for which we are fighting, than the people of our sister dominion of New Zealand. The proposal we are making is for a compulsory loan to which people would subscribe according to their ability to do so. This principle was adopted in New Zealand a considerable time ago. So I ask the house to give its approval to this amendment. It is in absolute accord with the National Resources Mobilization Act. It asks only that those people who can afford it shall give of their idle money for a short time, that time depending upon how long it takes us to win the war.


Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, the war budget now under consideration by the house is closely related to the financial and economic position of the country. That is why I have decided to make a few brief remarks in what I believe to be the interests of the Canadian people.
As regards the amendment presented by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold well), it would seem to be but another attempt at conscripting wealth. We must therefore reject it as should be rejected conscription of any nature, for in the preparation of a budget, as in all things, our first care must be to avoid imperilling the economic life of the nation.
Agriculture is, particularly in war time, our principal industry. To lessen agricultural production, to take away the labour essential to its prosperity would be a tragic mistake. The various countries vanquished by Germany were subdued through lack of food and munitions. In these difficult times, agriculture must not only carry on but develop and expand. Farm production, intensified and reorganized with the assistance of public bodies, will triumph over the obstacles that lie in the path of sacrifice whereon treads a world in distress. Liberty, justice and right cannot successfully oppose barbarism without the support of that living force that is agriculture.
Many have suggested that the training period of our young men be extended from one to four months. Such a measure would be most inopportune. It would paralyse agricultural production and consequently this country's war effort. Numerous are the young farmers, journeymen and technicians who have had to request from their local registrars delays and postponement of their training under the mobilization act. Such postpone-

ments are granted however only in extremely serious or special cases. It has been said that the training of young farmers at the end of autumn and during the winter would not impair agricultural production. This is not correct. A great many young men and as many heads of families have pointed out to me that it would be impossible for them to find the help required for the maintenance of production figures and the sound management of their farms. Certain farmers in my riding sell a great deal of milk the whole year round. Many of them are the owners of certified herds, having invested in the dairy industry the greater part of their assets. Concerned with public hygiene, they have erected their farm buildings according to plans and specifications furnished by the governments. Briefly, there exists for them no off season, no more than for any progressive farmer to my knowledge.
The same remarks apply in the case of market gardeners. There are in my riding a great many hot-house owners who produce fresh vegetables all winter long. Their installation and equipment costs have been rather high. Why should we now add to their already heavy burden of poor returns for farm produce that of a scarcity of labour. Therefore do I demand for agriculture and all the vital industries of the nation, on which depend the economic balance and the salvation of this country, all the assistance required not only to pass through a trying period but also for the solution of those distressing post-war problems. When the present conflict has reached an end, the lost peoples of the earth will turn to the land in their supreme struggle for life. What industry better than agriculture will then be able to resist the far-reaching reactions provoked by war? In so far as it is essential to life, thus will its decline paralyse all initiative. Side by side with armament plants erected at the cost of enormous sacrifices, the governments should build a first rate agricultural industry.
The worst enemies of agriculture are: the desertion of rural areas, war profiteering and the unfair distribution of taxes. Sixty years ago or more, the farm population of Quebec represented four-fifths of the total population in that province. The exodus toward the cities, begun in the years following 1880, has been increasing ever since and to such an extent that there exists to-day a terrifying lack of balance in this regard. At the moment, two-thirds of the population of Quebec live in urban centres. In the face of such a deplorable economic situation, what policy should our governments follow? They should endeavour to prevent this wholesale desertion of our rural districts by adopting measures destined to en-

War Budget-Mr. Ilsley
courage and protect agriculture; to promote understanding and appreciation of agriculture through education, farmers' organizations and cooperation; to check by every means profiteers who exploit the poverty and efforts of the producer and the consumer.
While there were more than fifty million pounds of butter stored in various warehouses throughout the country, we recently experienced a rise in the price of this commodity to the sole profit of the speculator. The price obtained by the producer for his milk remained in fact the same, and both he and the consumer were thus exploited. One might make the same observation in connection with a great many other farm products. How can such reprehensible speculative operations be tolerated at a moment when the workmen of the soil and the factory are making enormous sacrifices? Taxes of all kinds have been placed not only upon luxuries but also upon the necessaries of life. Consider, for instance, the tax placed upon containers destined to our home industries, and the additional taxes upon the very products of such industries. Let us beware of awakening one day to find agriculture in an irreparably exhausted state. Let us keep on the land the labour essential to its development. Let us not tear away from agriculture the youth in whom rests the survival of this nation. Nowhere else could they render greater service to their country than on the farm. The day agriculture is sacrificed, then may we expect the worst to befall us.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Speaker, I have just a few words to say on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). The habit has grown in this debate of referring to the speech that I made here last Monday as a budget, and to the proposals as budget proposals. I think it is unfortunate that members should have fallen into the habit of referring to it in that way because it has led us into many speeches some of which I think perhaps would not have been made had the purpose of these proposals been kept more clearly in mind. The budget, of course, is a different thing entirely. The budget estimates the revenues and expenditures for the coming year and ordinarily proposes the imposition of taxes, presents a financial statement, and otherwise deals with the financial affairs of the 1 country. But this was in no sense a budget. These proposals have one purpose and one purpose alone, namely, the conservation of foreign exchange. Such taxation measures as were proposed were incidental and supplementary to the main proposals which were for the object I have mentioned. I was very careful in the proposals to leave 14873-46
out anything of a taxation nature or anything which could be construed as being introduced for the purpose of raising revenue.
There are measures which I should have liked to introduce in the house this session if the circumstances had been just a little different. For instance, I announced in September last that income taxpayers would have the privilege of paying their income tax by instalments; that is, the income tax which will be due on April 30 next. If the taxpayer should pay one-third of his tax in four monthly instalments before April 30, he would have the privilege of paying the other two-thirds of his income tax in four equal monthly instalments following April 30. It is necessary that this be authorized by act of parliament, and I was tempted to include that proposal among the proposals submitted at this session, but I purposely left it out because I did not want the house to fall into any confusion about the purpose of these particular proposals. They are introduced for one purpose and for one purpose alone.
The procedure was to move that the Speaker do leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of ways and means. I believe that under the standing orders it is possible under a motion of that kind to move an amendment such as the one proposed. But while that may be, I presume, technically possible under the rules, nevertheless it is not, I submit, a proper amendment for consideration on its merits by the house at the present time. It is simply a motion of non-confidence in the government and must be regarded by the government as such. It is equivalent to saying this: The government is moving that the Speaker do leave the chair for the house to consider certain proposals for the conservation of exchange, but I, the mover of the amendment, and my supporters, think that, instead of doing that, the house should go on record as condemning the government for having taken the wrong line in its general financial policy. Of course that is a serious motion, and if it were to be treated on the merits it would require a full discussion, a great deal of debate, and so forth. But I do not think the house or the country will expect us at this stage, before the Christmas recess, to depart from the consideration of exchange conservation measures into a broad discussion of general financial policy. I hope not, and I think that is the feeling of the house and also the feeling of the people whose eyes are upon us here.
So, Mr. Speaker, I am going to content myself to-night with simply pointing out

War Budget-Division

to the house that, if the amendment passes, we are prevented from considering the exchange conservation measures because the Speaker will not leave the chair. Those words, if the amendment carried, would be struck out, and we would be prevented frbm considering exchange conservation measures which I believe everybody in the house agrees are necessary and urgently necessary.
I would also point out that, if the amendment carries, it is equivalent to a vote of non-confidence in the administration and would be followed of course by the results which normally attend such a vote. I would suggest, therefore, that the house deal with the amendment on those considerations. At the proper time there is no objection at all to amendments or proposals of this kind being considered on their merits, and we will consider them on their merits. But I am suggesting to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the house that this is not the time and the place, and I am going to ask the house to reject the amendment, for these reasons.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: I was paired with the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). Had I voted I would have voted in favour of the amendment.
Motion (Mr. Ilsley) agreed to on division.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Vien in the chair.
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Special War Revenue Act and to provide-

Special War Revenue Act
1. That schedule 1 of the said act be amended as follows:
(a)	by repealing paragraph 1. (a) thereof and substituting the following:
1. (a) Automobiles adapted or adaptable for passenger use, with seating capacity for not more than ten persons each, valued at
$900 or less	 20 per cent
Over $900 but not more
than $1,200	 20 per cent on
$900 plus 40 per cent on the amount in excess of $900.
Over $1,200	 20 per cent on
$900 plus 40 per cent on $300 plus 80 per cent on the amount in excess of $1,200.
Mr. GREEN:: Will the minister explain, to the committee just what objective he has in mind in increasing this excise tax on automobiles? It does seem to me that the government overlooks the fact that for many of our people an automobile is not a luxury at all but a necessity; for example, for the majority of our farmers, for many of our tradesmen in the cities and towns, for physicians and for salesmen. Perhaps hundreds of thousands of Canadians have to use automobiles to make their living, and it seems to me that the government should have very good reasons for increasing the excise tax on automobiles produced in Canada. I would ask the minister to explain just what he is aiming at in taking this drastic step.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The importation of automobiles into Canada will be prohibited under the provisions of the War Exchange Conservation Act, when it is passed, and it is not desired simply to transfer the business from those selling imported automobiles to those selling domestic automobiles.
That is one consideration. The second and more important consideration is this. We are informed that manufacture of automobiles makes drains upon plant capacity, upon materials and upon labour, which can be used very suitably in our war effort and which will be required in rapidly increasing degree for our war effort. While it is recognized that for many people automobiles are more or less a necessity, yet it is hoped that there will be a tendency on the part of the people of Canada to use their old cars longer instead of buying new cars, so that there will not be a drain in the form of resources that are required in the manufacture of a large number of automobiles. I do not know that I can explain it any better than that.


Howard Charles Green: I am afraid one of the reasons for this step is that mentally the government 14873-46}
is still living in the horse-and-buggy days instead of in a stream-lined age. I am afraid it is trying to force people back to the horse and buggy, and they will not go back. I think the minister will admit that the effect of this measure will be to increase the cost of an automobile to everyone in Canada who buys a car.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is true.


Howard Charles Green: The minister says this step is being taken in order that automobile manufacturers may not be making too many cars. Well, the government have power, under legislation passed since the war began, to tell the manufacturer that he must make a certain number of cars and trucks for war purposes. Why can they not say to the manufacturer that he must make so many trucks and so many cars for the forces, and then let him make whatever cars he can over and above that number for sale to civilians in Canada? The government also have power to control prices, so they cannot be increased. I suggest to the government, certainly in connection with the low priced cars, that if instead of taking this drastic step they would tell the Canadian people it is desirable that they should not buy new cars, perhaps that would have just as much effect. This measure simply means that if a man has to buy a car he has to pay that much more for it, and I doubt if it will stop the purchase of very many cars.


John Ritchie MacNicol: May I ask the minister if the same tax applies to parts coming in from the other side?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The resolution with which we are dealing now has no reference to the importation of cars.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I should like the minister to make some comment on the point raised by the hon. member for Vancouver South, who brought up some very important matters. I think the minister should say whether some direction could not be given manufacturers of automobiles as to whether they should discontinue the manufacture of cars, and to the public at large as to whether they should refrain entirely from purchasing new automobiles.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know whether that would be a better method; personally I do not think it would. I believe this is a far better method.


Howard Charles Green: It is not possible to distinguish in some way between people who must have automobiles and people who get them as a luxury? Can the government not devise some measure that would differentiate between these two groups of Canadians?
Special War Revenue Act


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know how.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What about parts purchased in Canada, then; is there an additional tax on those?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, not on repairs.


Mr. REID:: May I ask the minister l notice has been taken of the fact that many dealers had cars on their hands before this tax came into effect? It will be remembered what was done when the 10 per cent increase was brought in. What check is going to be made in that connection?


James Lorimer Ilsley: We are not doing what we did last spring, when we made the tax we imposed attach to cars on showroom floors. This time we are not doing that. I do not know whether the committee would be interested in why we pursued one rule last spring and why we are pursuing another now-


Richard Burpee Hanson: You were wrong then and you are right now; is that it?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No. It has not always been the practice of governments to follow the same method in connection with regular budgets as in connection with extraordinary measures between budgets.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
(b)	by repealing paragraph 5 of the said schedule and substituting the following:
5. Cameras, phonographs, radio broadcast receiving sets and tubes therefor, 25 per cent.
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Surely the
reasons given by the minister with reference to automobiles would not apply to cameras and radio receiving sets. There would not be large quantities of steel used in the manufacture of these articles. Would the minister mind explaining the reason for this excise tax, especially on radios, which have become a practical necessity in Canadian homes, particularly farm homes where newspapers very often are not received?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Generally speaking, durable consumer goods require skilled labour for their manufacture, and the kind of materials used in what is required for war purposes. If the hon. member asks me to name just what materials are in cameras, and the type of skilled help required, I cannot do so, because I have not the technical qualifications necessary to give that answer. Generally speaking, however, the same considerations apply to practically all durable consumer goods. I have stated publicly that in the opinion of this government that would be a good line for economy and for saving on the part of the Canadian people.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is there actually a shortage of skilled labour for the production of these articles? Is there a shortage of the raw materials which go into their manufacture, or is the government using this as a revenue-producing tax, and advancing the other reason more or less by way of windowdressing?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No; this is not done for the purpose of raising revenue. Perhaps I should have said that we are prohibiting the importation of these particular articles from high-currency countries, and that unless there is a tax imposed in Canada the probability is that a great advantage will be given to the domestic manufacturer. It is not desired by the government that the domestic industry should simply expand to take the place that was formerly filled by the imported goods. Our people then would be spending for these commodities just as much as they spent before. That is not the object, nor is it in accordance with the principle underlying the war conservation measure we are taking.


Mr. HANSELL:: To what extent are these three articles manufactured in Canada? I do not know of any place where we manufacture cameras.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Oh, yes, we have one of the largest plants in the empire.


Ernest George Hansell: Probably, but I had not heard of it. What is the advantage? It seems to me that if the purpose is that of saving labour, it will save United States labour, more than our own.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The Canadian Kodak company is the company I had in mind. I have not detailed information before me, but I happen to know that that company does a large business in this line. I believe that is the one the hon. member for Davenport had in mind.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes, the Canadian Kodak company at Mount Dennis.


Ernest George Hansell: How about radio companies?


James Lorimer Ilsley: There are many of them.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I do not wish to labour the point, but I must say that in my opinion the principle underlying this excise tax is not sound. The purpose the minister has in mind may be a good one, but I am not sure that this provision will have the effect the minister desires. It seems to me the people who imported cars and radios were importing expensive articles. They will now buy them on the local market. The price will

Special War Revenue Act
be higher than it was before, but it will not be higher than the price they paid previously for the imported article. So it seems to me practically the same number of people will be buying these commodities. However, the people who will not be buying them and will be pushed out of the market are the poorer class. They will be pushed out by those people who used to buy abroad, but are now buying at home. It means that the poorer man who used to buy a car or a radio, by virtue of the increased excise tax will be pushed out of the market, and his place will be taken by the person who at one time bought the imported article. The result will be a curtailment of consumption of these commodities, and that curtailment will affect the people who least deserve to be penalized. It will not affect the people who used to buy the imported article, but who are now buying the one manufactured at home. To obtain a commendable objective we are following a method which will penalize one class of the people. It seems to me that is not a proper procedure.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It penalizes everyone who buys.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes; but it penalizes most the person who cannot buy. There comes a certain margin beyond which people will not be able to buy those commodities. If this were not going to push certain people out of the market, there would be no use in having the excise tax. It is only because certain ones will no longer be able to buy that you will be able to conserve raw material and labour. The people who will be pushed out of the market are those in the low-income brackets. It seems to me some rationing system, or some other system of handling the matter would be more equitable. We are now going to prevent the people in the low-income brackets from buying radios and cameras.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I would not want to undertake the rationing of cameras to the Canadian people, I can assure the hon. member.


Ernest George Hansell: I can appreciate the minister's reply with regard to cameras and radios manufactured in Canada. I wish to say, however, that some of us deplore very much tihe fact that prices of such articles produced in Canada are very much higher than .they are in the United States. We may walk down the street and see a tiny radio bearing a price tag of $18 or $20. Immediately we say, "We can get those in the United States for about $7.50." There is something wrong there, somewhere, if we manufacture radios of that kind in Canada. People have to pay almost twice
as much. I do not know very much about manufacturing, but when I see those price tags my immediate reaction is, "Well, of course there is a duty to pay." We do not mind paying a little duty. It is now revealed that radios are manufactured in Canada, and in view of that fact I say those who are in responsible positions should see that those radios are reduced in price.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
(c)	by adding to the said schedule as para-praph ti thereof the following:
6. (a) Electric or gas light fixtures and lamps and shades, globes and reflectors therefor	 25	per cent
(b)	The following electrical or gas appliances adapted to household use:
Stoves, ranges	and	heaters; water	heaters;refrigerators	25	per cent(c)	The following electrical appliances adapted to household use:Food choppers and grinders; irons and ironers; washing machines; garbage disposal units; floor wiaxers and polishers. .25 per cent (dj The following electrical appliances: Vacuum cleaners antd attachments therefor; grills, waffle irons, hot plates, roasters, kettles, chafing dishes, food and drink mixers and juice extractors, coffee makers, toasters of all kinds, portable humidifiers, curling irons, tongs, hair dryers, permanent waving machines, razors	.and	shavers....25	per cent
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury); I would call the attention of the committee to paragraph (b), dealing with stoves, ranges and heaters. These are household necessities. They are absolutely necessary in certain communities where hydro development has taken place. I suggest that the extra tax of 25 per cent on an electric or gas stove is putting a high premium on the cost of living. I say that those articles are not at all in the same category as automobiles, cameras, phonographs or radio receiving sets. I should like to register my objection. Perhaps water heaters are not quite in the same category. The fact remains, however, that stoves, ranges and heaters are absolute household necessities, and they are necessities which are constantly wearing out. I suggest that the minister might very well eliminate those three articles from the schedule, and I ask him either to do so or to justify their retention. I say that these are not articles upon which people should be taxed unduly. The most humble people have to have them, and certainly they cannot be classed as luxuries.
In large cities like Toronto, Ottawa or Montreal an electric stove, in many instances, is the only kind that can be used. I have gone back to using the old-fashioned wood range because electricity in my community is too high. If electricity were
Special War Revenue Act
[Stage Direction]
cheaper, I would never have abandoned the electric stove. These items are in an entirely different category from that of the preceding items upon which the minister has placed this excise tax of 25 per cent. Electric stoves, ranges and heaters are necessities and I object to a tax being placed upon absolute necessities.
Mr. SHAW:: With the imposition of a 25 per cent tax on washing machines I am led to believe that the minister and his advisers consider that washing machines are luxuries. For a long time I tried to convince my wife of that fact, but I was unsuccessful. I should like to hear an argument advanced by the minister which would convince the washboard-aged mothers of this country that washing machines are luxuries. In view of his being unable to advance such an argument, I suggest to the minister that these washing machines be deleted1 from this list.


James Lorimer Ilsley: A good argument might be
made for the deletion of practically every one of these items, and for the removal of all other taxes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
not treating the position fairly, and I suggest that the minister ought not to treat this matter with levity. Electric stoves are absolute necessities. In many instances they are the only kind of stove that can be used, and they should not be taxed. We are supposed to be taxing luxuries, not necessities. I do not think the minister did himself justice when he treated this matter with levity. Perhaps he has an argument against taking off this item; if so, I should like to hear it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: This is not a luxury tax.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, it is a luxury tax.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is a tax to discourage the purchase of particular items which require certain materials, plant capacity and labour. I admit that they are not all luxuries.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Some of them may be, but these are not.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Most of them are what
are used by well-to-do people. The hon. gentleman says that he was not obliged to continue to use an electric stove.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I do not rise to find fault with the items in paragraph 6, but I wonder whether the minister has had his departmental officials estimate the number of employees who will be displaced by the reduced purchases of these articles. In the production of the articles in subparagraphs

(a), (b), (c) and (d), at least 75 to 80 per cent of the labour is female. I am acquainted with these factories and I know that the assemblers of these articles are girls. Is it intended that they are to be displaced so that they can be absorbed into munition plants? If so, I have no objection.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I cannot give any estimate, but the hon. gentleman must remember that retail store sales have been increasing quite rapidly on account of the large amount of money in circulation in the country. It is not a question of getting these sales much below their present level; it is more a question of preventing an undue expansion of demand for those articles which require materials, plant capacity and labour which could be devoted to other purposes.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: If a tax of 25 per
cent is to be placed on slot machines, what tax will be put on Florida strawberries?


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is a poser.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I should like an answer.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am speaking from memory but I believe the tax on Florida strawberries is 10 per cent. Then there is an exchange disadvantage of another 10 per cent. In addition, there are fixed valuations which are applied when strawberries enter the country at a time when our own strawberries are in production.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They have none to ship then.


George Alexander Cruickshank: If the hon. member will be quiet, I can take care of this.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Then there is a war exchange tax of 10 per cent. Even if we leave out the fixed valuation, there is a tax of 30 per cent on strawberries.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I do not claim to be a moralist, but if there is a tax of only 25 per cent on United States pin games or United States skin games or any other kind of games, why should strawberries and other fruits and vegetables be allowed into this country without paying any tax? In probably the best speech that he ever made in this house the leader of the opposition referred to trash, but these skin games are being allowed to come in.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I find the hon. gentleman's question rather difficult to answer. There is a tax of 25 per cent on slot machines when manufactured in this country, but they are prohibited entry from the United States.

Special War Revenue Act


Howard Charles Green: There is one item in this group which I suggest might very well be dropped from this legislation; that is, electric light globes. There may be some argument as to whether electric stoves are luxuries, but there cannot be any argument that an electric light globe is anything but a necessity for nearly every home in Canada.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The bulbs are not taxed.


Howard Charles Green: What is meant by globes?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is the covering for the bulb; the bulb itself is not taxed.


Howard Charles Green: The minister is quite definite that the word "globe" does not cover what ordinarily is called a globe?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is correct.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Food choppers and
mixers are not luxuries. They are used in every fox ranch and hennery in the country and they should not be included in this list.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: While these commodities are luxuries for 90 per cent of the people whom I represent, I still feel that if there is a shortage of the materials used to manufacture these commodities, the minister is not going about the restriction of consumption in the right way. The last time I spoke in the house I had in my hands one of our well known magazines, and in it were several double-page advertisements urging people to buy these commodities. Unless the minister is prepared to give definite direction to the Canadian people, legislation to increase the price is not going to serve the purpose he has in mind. I think a more definite lead should be given the Canadian people. _ It should be pointed out that they are consuming commodities which are urgently needed for our war effort.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is a question of method, and we have taken the least arbitrary method.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Has any direction been given to the manufacturers and the advertising agencies in Canada as to not carrying these attractive advertisements?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, I do not think so. It must be remembered that we are not under a dictatorship; we have a parliamentary democracy here, and there is still a considerable degree of freedom in the country. There is a huge number of people in business in Canada, and we cannot be interfering in their business all the time. We have to lay down some general principles and ask them voluntarily to help us carry on this war, and we impose taxes that will steer them towards that end.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister will admit, however, that from time to time we are being more and more regimented. That was a favourite expression of his leader in days gone by. We are certainly being regimented in Canada, and this is just another example of it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Much more regimentation is necessary in war than in peace.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Granting that it is necessary to establish general principles, what we are trying to do now is to see that those principles will be applied by the steps proposed to be taken. The purpose of this taxation is not so much revenue producing as to conserve material and labour to produce more needed articles. If that be true and we are going to try to restrict the number of automobiles and radios sold, would we not be further ahead by prohibiting altogether the manufacture of certain articles that have no social value, so as to allow people to purchase more of other articles at a lower cost?
I refer, for instance, to slot machines. What possible social value have they? Surely we are not going to allow people to continue to produce slot machines when, in order to get the material to make slot machines, we must do with less materials for cars and radios, which in the rural sections are an absolute necessity of life. We would be further ahead to stop altogether the manufacture of slot machines and other objectionable gambling machines and use the materials that go into their manufacture to produce radios, automobiles and goods of that kind. If the minister's object is to conserve labour and material,
I suggest that instead of a 25 per cent excise tax on slot machines he entirely prohibit their manufacture for the duration of the war, so that the materials that go into their manufacture can be used for the production of articles that have some social value.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The suggestion will be considered. There are prohibitions from time to time. I would point out that the description includes slot-vending machines which are not necessarily gambling machines. I do not think very many of them are made in Canada. They are practically all imported and now their importation will be prohibited.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Even the
vending machines have not very much social value. People can still buy what they want at the local stores. If you want to buy peanuts you are not limited to buying them from a machine.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not think the actual
prohibition of the manufacture of the very
Special War Revenue Act

few that are made is very important. If it were of importance it could be considered. It would not be such a difficult step to take.


George Alexander Cruickshank: As I understand it, the government is trying to conserve technical and scientific labour. I also understand, having played these slot machine games-


Richard Burpee Hanson: And lost.


George Alexander Cruickshank: -and lost, that they are of a most scientific nature. I cannot understand why we permit these machines to come into Canada and prohibit the importation of other articles. I would ask the minister, instead of merely imposing a 25 per cent excise tax, to consider prohibiting entirely the importation of slot machines or any other article that requires labour which could be utilized in winning the war.


Thomas Langton Church: In the matter of electrical fixtures is any distinction going to be made between fixtures bought by a privately-owned utility and those bought by a publicly-owned utility giving the consumer power and all other services at cost? The hydro-electric system in Ontario operates at cost; commercial and domestic consumers get current at actual cost. Hydro pays no dividends like the privately-owned utilities. In my opinion a distinction should be made between the two, especially since the working classes are large consumers of electric power supplied by the publicly-owned system. These candles may be used for street lighting, for commercial and domestic lighting, and the principle of the whole tariff has always been to give the benefit to the publicly-owned utility, which is supplying power at cost for the artisan, the farmer and the industrial worker. I do not think that principle should be changed. Is there any difference in the treatment accorded publicly-and privately-owned plants?


James Lorimer Ilsley: From what I could gather, the hon. member is speaking of the taxing of electrical energy and power, which is not dealt with in this 'resolution. If I am wrong about that, I wish he would let me know.


Thomas Langton Church: A tax of 25 per cent is a pretty heavy charge on a system supplying power at cost.


Howard Charles Green: I tlhink the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) had in mind lights for city streets and matters of that kind.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am not clear just what his question referred to. It may have been that he was suggesting that if these articles are bought by publicly-owned utilities instead1 of private companies, the tax should not apply.
I do not think we would be justified in mak-

ing that distinction. In some places the two Systems are in competition. I do not know the ground for making sudh a distinction.


Howard Charles Green: Would cities, for instance, have to pay the tax on the fixtures they get for street lighting?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The standards are not in this list, but the shades are, and they are taxable. There would be no exemption for a city. The tax is on the manufacturer, and he adds the tax, no matter to whom he sells.


Mr. GLADSTONE:: The effect of this 25 per cent tax may or may not be to reduce the use of the articles specified. The minister hopes that the increased prosperity of the country on account of war activities may keep the purchase of these articles up to normal.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I did not say I hoped that, but I thought that would probably happen.


Robert William Gladstone: If there should be a heavy reduction in the use of these articles, individual industries and the working people engaged in those industries in a small community might be seriously affected. Certain war industries are being set up in the larger industrial centres, and the call goes out for skilled workmen. The call comes to these small communities where skilled workmen are released from industries that have been affected by this higher tax. I should like to know if the Department of Finance has already taken up or will take up with the Department of Munitions and Supply the necessity of safeguarding small communities which are entirely dependent upon an industry that may be almost put out of business through the imposition of this tax.


James Lorimer Ilsley: If a situation arises which deserves attention, attention will be given to it. That is the best I can say.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is no question that the point which the hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Gladstone) has made is an important one. If this has the effect which the minister anticipates, namely, the reduction of the sale of all these different articles-and I imagine that the total quantity sold in a given year is substantial- some unemployment will result. The sale will be cut down, consequently employment will be reduced, and there is not any compensation at all. That is what the hon. gentleman is referring to; and the minister takes that risk when he puts through this class of taxation and legislation.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I should like to add
just one further word in connection with a question I asked the minister earlier. I

Special War Revenue Act
have now had time to study the various items. Nearly everything mentioned in these schedules is manufactured in my riding. Many of the largest plants in Canada are in my constituency, manufacturing many of these articles: phonographs, broadcast receiving sets, electric and gaslight fixture^, household electrical or gas appliances such as water heaters and refrigerators, and such household electrical appliances as irons and ironers, washing machines, garbage disposal units, floor waxers and polishers; also grills, portable humidifiers, and so forth.
I have been making a mental calculation from memory of the number of young women employed in these various factories manufacturing these lines of material, and I think I can say that there are not less than five thousand so employed. If what the minister said at the beginning, namely, as I took it down, that one of the objects of these schedules is to discourage the buying of these items, then, supposing that buying is discouraged by only 25 per cent, this would mean that within a reasonable length of time 25 per cent of five thousand, or twelve hundred and fifty young women, will be thrown out of work. If they are reemployed in shell-making and fuse-making factories, some of which are located in my riding and are increasing in size, and in other branches of war industry, I have no objection. I have been wondbring whether this has been taken into consideration-the numbers of female help that will be thrown out of work if my calculation that it will affect twelve hundred and fifty in my riding is approximately correct. I hope that such unemployment, if it occurs, would be only temporary, and that as war production plants increased, all such labour would be reemployed, but it will mean hardship for them for a time.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I would say to the hon.
member that the 25 per cent here mentioned is reckoned on the manufacturer's price, not on the retail price, and that makes the tax lighter than might be thought at first blush, because the manufacturer's price in many instances is very much lower than the retail price.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It is 50 per cent, though, anyway.


James Lorimer Ilsley: In the case put by my
hon. friend, if without these taxes the demand for these particular goods would be increased by, let us say, 30 per cent, and the imposition of the taxes has the effect of discouraging purchases-


John Ritchie MacNicol: I hope the minister is
right.


James Lorimer Ilsley: -to the extent of 25 per cent-


John Ritchie MacNicol: Then, it would not make any difference.


James Lorimer Ilsley: *-then, employment has not been reduced at all.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I hope the minister is
right.


Howard Charles Green: Has the minister estimated what the increase in the retail price will be as a result of this 25 per cent tax? As I understand, the tax is levied on the manufacturer, and then of course there will be a mark up, perhaps as high as 50 or 100 per cent, of that manufacturer's price by the wholesaler and retailer.


James Lorimer Ilsley: One would have to take
it for every commodity; the discounts cover such a range; they are so much greater for one commodity than they are for others. But the hon. member will understand that the probability is that the increase in the retail price in many instances would not be 25 per cent. It should not be.


Howard Charles Green: Is it not apt to make the
retail price 50 per cent higher?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Oh, no. I would be very much astonished if anything of the kind occurred.


Mr. ESLING:: I wonder whether the minister has given thought to the immediate effect on retail dealers and on salesmen employed by such dealers? I ask for this reason, that every general store in the country-every hardware store, every electrical store-now has a supply of these articles on hand. They employ salesmen to go practically from door to door. Because such articles are usually sold on the instalment plan, it is only by solicitation that people are induced to buy them; and it simply means that now they will not buy them and that thousands and thousands of retail salesmen, solicitors, are going to be out of jobs. The question is, will this curtailment compensate for the loss of labour in such ranks?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think that is just the subject we have been discussing.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We take the risk of that; we are bound to take it.


Frederick Davis Shaw: While we appreciate the difficulties confronting the minister and his advisers in devising forms of taxation, I am satisfied that, so far as taxes on electrical appliances are concerned, Canada should have been zoned into two broad zones.
Special War Revenue Act


Richard Burpee Hanson: One to have it and one not to have it!


Frederick Davis Shaw: I say that for this reason. Take Alberta as an example. We find that the people of Alberta pay an 8 per cent tax on the consumer cost of electricity; and also, the cost of electricity-that is the consumer's cost-is four or five times as high in Alberta as it is here in eastern Canada. Not only that, but most of these electrical appliances manufactured in Canada are made in the east, and with the ridiculous freight rate we are confronted with we find that we pay considerably more for these appliances than is paid by the people of Ontario and Quebec. So I suggest to the minister that we zone Canada into two broad zones, and that, so far as the tax on electrical appliances is concerned, it be made lower in so far as it applies to western Canada. I believe that the reasons are very evident. It may seem only a small matter, but if one takes into consideration all the appliances purchased and used in the west, plus the cost of all electricity used in western Canada, he will find that an unfair burden is being placed on the people in the western areas! I would ask the minister to give the matter consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
(d) by adding to the said schedule as paragraph 7 thereof the following
7.	Coin, disc or token operated slot machines
and vending machines; coin, disc or token
operated games or amusement devices of all
kinds	25 per cent
Paragraph agreed to.
Resolution agreed to.
2. That any enactment founded on this resolution shall be deemed to have come into force on the second day of December, one thousand nine hundred and forty, and to have applied on all goods imported or taken out of warehouse for consumption on or after that day and to have applied to goods previously imported for which no entry for consumption was made before that day.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Will the minister be good enough to tell us why he has changed to the principle enunciated here, as distinct from the one he enunciated and carried through in the previous budget, that is to say, taxation of cars on the showroom floors? If that was just then, it is just now; if this is just now, then he ought to give back to the dealers of this country some money which the government took from them. It was done once before.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Well, I don't know.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is no excuse at all. I want to know what the principle is.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not think it is a question of the dealers at all. Let us take what we are doing this time. The tax is not being placed on the cars on the showroom floor. Let us say we had placed it on the cars on the showroom floor, as we did the last time; does not the competition between the dealers prevent any dealer from getting an unjust benefit?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not think so. That is the weakest argument I ever heard.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have not given the whole question the consideration it deserves, but does the hon. gentleman want me to argue that point out?


Richard Burpee Hanson: What I
want to know is, why the change? It was done before against the protest of a great many members of the house. It was done years ago and the refund was made-perhaps it was before the minister's time-and it cost the country a great deal of money. Will the minister admit that he is right now and was wrong then? That would suit me.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No; I should not like to do that.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Do I understand that there will not be an increase in the price of stocks in retail stores? What procedure will be followed to guarantee that there will not be an increase in these stocks?


James Lorimer Ilsley: We are just relying on competition.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Will a penalty be
imposed on retail merchants who charge an
increased price?


James Lorimer Ilsley: None is provided for.


Howard Charles Green: I have had a telegram from the motor dealers in Vancouver who feel they will be unjustly treated if the tax is applied as set out in the resolution. I will read the telegram and the minister can let me know if these people are correct in their assumption. It reads:
Fully attended meeting this association to-day strongly protested discrimination far western dealers in applying new tax to automobiles in transit unpaid. Many cars have been en route for ten or more days. Dealers nearer factory have benefit of quicker delivery and cheaper freight rate. Urge that all cars in transit prior December 2 be exempt also many of these cars already sold.
Vancouver Motor Dealers' Association.
Would it not be possible to provide, where cars were in transit on December 2, that the tax should not apply? This seems to be their suggestion.

Special War Revenue Act


James Lorimer Ilsley: The question comes up every time we touch cars. This is the third time in my recollection. The principle that has been laid down and so far always adhered to is that when the manufacturer retains the right of disposal of a car by attaching his draft to the bill of lading, the car is regarded as being in the manufacturer's possession and not delivered until the draft is paid and the bill of lading taken by the consignee. That is a reasonable rule and one which we have to adhere to, because there must in time come a point somewhere where the car passes from the manufacturer to the dealer. If the dealer pays for the car in advance, or if the manufacturer does not retain the jus disponendi, then the car has passed into the hands of the dealer and is in his possession, and the tax does not apply. But it would not do for us to depart from the principle that has been adhered to year after year whenever taxes affecting cars have been imposed.


Howard Charles Green: This is a very heavy tax and there is a grave injustice to dealers operating as far away as the Pacific coast. Surely something could be done to right this wrong. There is no doubt they are correct when they say that they are penalized in the way of freight rates, and in many other respects, for being such a long way from the manufacturing centres. The government might very well consider their request under these particular circumstances. They say that some of the cars have already been sold. Surely, under such conditions the government should allow some leeway.


Thomas Miller Bell: I was going to ask the meaning of the words "or taken out of warehouse for consumption.''


James Lorimer Ilsley: That applies to imported goods. Importation is one thing and being taken out of warehouse for consumption is another. Goods may be imported, and may go into warehouse in bond and remain there until the duty is paid. This applies to goods that are taken out of warehouse for consumption on or after December 2.


Thomas Miller Bell: I was wondering whether there might not be a loophole with regard to the matter raised by the hon. member for Vancouver South.


James Lorimer Ilsley: He was talking about a different matter. He was discussing domestically produced cars.


Thomas Reid: I wish to support what the hon. member for Vancouver South has said. There is a great deal of merit in it. The representations that have been made to me are to the effect that most cars heading for
the Pacific coast have already been purchased and are not being brought in on consignment, and the dealers are now faced with the necessity of saying to those who have purchased the cars, "We are sorry; we quoted you one price but now you will have to pay $90 or $100 more". It is a serious matter so far as British Columbia is concerned.


Mr. CASSELMAN (Edmonton East):: I
have received a similar protest from one big dealer in the city of Edmonton and I wish to be-clear on this question. If I understood the minister correctly, the specific example was a carload of cars arriving on Monday morning, already contracted for, having been sold to the purchaser by the retail dealer. The deal was closed and that dealer did not know until eight o'clock that night, our time out there, that this tax was in effect. Do I understand that the retail dealer in Edmonton is not responsible for the tax but that it falls on the manufacturer?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, that is correct. So far as we are concerned we look to the manufacturer if the draft is attached to the bill of lading, if the manufacturer retains control of the cars until they are taken delivery of in Edmonton.


Frederick Clayton Casselman: In that event there is this difficulty that the retail dealers find themselves in. The manufacturer says, "We did not know anything about it, and you, the dealer, will have to bear the tax or get it out of your purchaser". That is an unfortunate situation and I add my protest to those expressed by two other speakers. The matter should be reconsidered.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: With reference to the point I raised a moment ago regarding increased prices, would the minister consider imposing a penalty for any increase in retail prices of stocks already being carried? An increase of 25 per cent will give the retailers a large margin.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not like to say that I will not consider anything, but I would point this out to the hon. member. The retailers are in competition. There is no combine among retailers, is there? Not among the retailers of Canada at any rate. They are in competition with one another in the sale of these articles and I should think that such competition would be an effective deterrent to profiteering. I hardly think, however, the government would be justified in imposing penalties or taking further steps. Some day these taxes are coming off, and in that event these retailers would have a claim against the government if we

War Exchange Conservation Act
took a step of that kind now. I think it is just a situation where we shall have to rely on competition as far as retailers are concerned.


The CHAIRMAN:: Shall section 2 carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Eleven o'clock.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: I would ask my hon. friends if they would kindly not look at the clock, or at least refrain from calling the attention of the chairman to the hour. We would like to make some little progress, if possible. The senate, of course, will have to go over this legislation when it passes this house, and they have been waiting for these bills for two or three days. Of course I am in the hands of the committee, but if we could sit a little later to-night we might get the measures through a little sooner.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to be called the War Exchange Conservation Act, 1940, and to provide-
1.	That the importation into Canada of any goods enumerated and described in schedule one is prohibited except in such cases as the Minister of National Revenue in his discretion deems desirable and under and in accordance with the terms of a permit granted by him: Provided however that this prohibition shall not apply to-
(a)	any goods imported from, and being of the growth, produce or manufacture of, any country within the sterling area or Newfoundland, except, at the discretion of the Minister of National Revenue, goods composed wholly or in part of silk;
(b)	any goods which on or before the second day of December, 1940, were in .transit to Canada.
Richard Burpee Hanson: I should
like to make a few observations with respect to this matter. I made reference to it yesterday. Is there not some other method by which these exceptions could be handled? This measure provides that with regard to goods intended to be prohibited under this measure there may be exceptions in the discretion of the Minister of National Revenue, under the terms of a permit to be granted by him. This seems to me to be the wrong way to handle this matter. What would be the considerations that would actuate the minister in exercising his discretion and issuing a permit? What standards, what principles would he rely upon? Would every case be judged upon its own merits, or is there to be set up some standard which would guide the minister? I do not for a moment suggest that the present minister would abuse the exercise of his discretion,

but this discretion is capable of great abuse, and it is bad legislation because of that fact. Certainly I abject to the principle and spirit of this type of legislation. I dare say we have gone a long way beyond this in the delegation of power, but as far as I am concerned I am going to register an objection to the principle involved. I think we ought to deal with the matter in another way. Either we are going to keep out these goods, or we are not.
This prohibition does not apply to goods in transit, of course, so no question arises there. If we are going to keep out imports for the purpose the minister intends, that of conserving our foreign exchange, there should not be any loophole which would enable any friend of the government to come and say, "I must have this thing here." The minister might accede to the demand, while some man not so important, who would not be able to pull as many strings, may I say, would be denied the same right. That sort of thing does happen under party government; make no mistake about it. This is not exactly a war measure. It is a measure designed to aid the war effort, but it leaves too much power in the hands of the minister.-any minister-and I object to the delegation of power to any minister which will give him authority to say that John Jones may have this article brought in while Tom Brown may not have it. That is wrong, and I believe the matter can be handled in some other way.
If the minister is really desirous of keeping out certain articles let him go the whole length. I assume that this will not apply to goods ordered legitimately and1 now in process of transit or even of manufacture. I would help out a man who had entered into a contract even though the goods were not actually in transit. But to say that the minister shall be entitled, on representations made to him, to give a permit to somebody to bring in something that it is intended by parliament shall be kept out for the duration of the war, while somebody else cannot obtain a permit, I submit is all wrong. If I argued the thing for an hour I could not put it any more concretely than that.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I point out that with regard to part I the announced intention of the government is to prohibit all those items to everybody.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I understand that, but still-


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is part I, and that is the greater part.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But still
there is the exception.

War Exchange Conservation Act


James Lorimer Ilsley: I know, but the exception
is designed to enable the minister to deal with part II, although it does not say so.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If that
is the intention, then I say the language is very unhappy. Nobody would give it that interpretation.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Why not?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Later on it deals with part II, but under part I and schedule 1 the minister may, notwithstanding the prohibition of importation, make an exception and say that certain goods may come in. There is no doubt about the interpretation; the minister cannot put any other interpretation upon it. I am too old a bird to be caught by any line of reasoning like that.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I want to repeat that it is the intention to deny licences to all importers of all goods in part I. I am free to confess, and I want to say this so that everyone will remember that I said it, that from time to time we may have to make changes by order in council. There is no use in our deluding ourselves about the possibility of that necessity arising. As a matter of fact, this whole thing could have been done by order in council, but we placed it before parliament because it is a matter of great importance and something upon which parliament should pass. But in time of war abundant powers are vested in the executive to do almost anything by order in council, and the government has to decide what steps must be taken from day to day. Parliament is not in session all the time, and it is necessary to do these things.
Certainly it is not the intention of the government to make any changes in principle, or any sweeping changes or anything like that, by order in council, but that may have to be done. I debated with myself whether I should put in this measure a provision giving power to the governor in council to amend this list, to add to or take away from it. I did not think I would do that, because already the government has that power under the War Measures Act, and I think perhaps they also have power in certain cases under the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act. I thought I ought to tell the committee and the house that in working this matter out it may be necessary as time goes on to make changes by order in council. I say that because when we meet again I do not want anybody to say, "Oh, well, after parliament got away there was an order in council put through altering one or two of these items."
That might have to be done, but of course that is a different matter from the point raised by the hon. gentleman. He is talking about the discretion vested in the Minister of National Revenue. The intention as to the exercise of that discretion is that the Minister of National Revenue shall deny to all importers licences for the import of all the goods set out in schedule 1.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is the general principle.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes-except those in transit. I understand the Minister of National Revenue has decided to give licences to importers who have placed orders for goods prior to December 2, such orders having been placed in good faith, and accepted. I believe that is being done, and I presume is being done in all these cases. But that is a matter for the Minister of National Revenue. There are a number of cases where not only have importers placed orders which have been accepted, but they *have paid for the goods and have purchased letters of credit for them. That is the reason why there must be some discretion in the Minister of National Revenue.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, but the government can take care of those cases in the legislation, just as it can in respect of goods in transit.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And that is the way it ought to be done.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, if we can think of everything.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I suggested that idea to the minister. It does not apply to goods in transit, and I suggested it should not apply to goods under contract which were not in transit. If that is the intention in this instance, then say so in the statute. The minister should say so in the resolution, just as he has with respect to goods in transit.
My point goes far beyond that. It comes to this, that there should not be vested in the minister power to issue a permit to an importer in respect of any one of these classes of goods which it is intended, in the general principle, shall be kept out. If we are proceeding on a proper principle, then six months hence no power should be given to bring goods in.
Then, with respect to the cases to which the minister has referred, I would say that that would simply be a matter of justice, and ought to be in the statutes. It could be easily placed there. In fact, I do not know why the draftsman did not put those in when he was putting in goods in transit. He could, by

War Exchange Conservation Act
appropriate and apt expressions, provide for goods under contract, such as those to which the minister has referred, and to which I refer. That is the way it ought to be.
I object to the principle involved in this part of the resolution. I do not wish, however, to take time to argue it, because I am trying to get through. If I argued it all night I could not make it more emphatic than I have.


John George Diefenbaker: I believe this is the first time that the principle of giving a minister of the crown such discretion has ever been asked. It amounts to an abnegation of the right of parliament, as I see it. Already the governor in council has very wide powers under the War Measures Act. The minister says that the governor in council has the power to do that which is now being delegated to the minister. If this particular section is to cover only part I of schedule 1, I submit it should be so stated. The minister has said it is his intention and that of the government that the interpretation to be placed on this resolution is to make it applicable only to part I.
The minister will realize that the intention of the government will not be taken into consideration in the interpretation of the statute. I would suggest that at least in the first place part I be added to schedule 1, if the government insists upon passing the resolution as it now stands.
Second, I take objection to the wording.
It says:
That the importation into Canada of any goods enumerated and described in schedule one is prohibited except in such cases as the Minister of National Revenue in his discretion deems desirable-
And so on. I do not understand the use of the words "in such cases." Does that mean that the minister may say to one individual, "You may import certain goods," and to another individual, "You shall remain subject to the prohibitions in schedule 1." I do not think that can be the meaning of it.
If the meaning is that it refers to goods, and not to individuals, then I suggest that the words "in such cases" should be altered to read "for such goods." Generally speaking, I submit that this is one of the most flagrant delegations of power on the part of parliament to an individual minister that has been asked by this government. I suggest to the Minister of Finance that having the powers already, under the War Measures Act, to do that which he now wishes conferred upon the Minister of National Revenue, is sufficient. This is too great a delegation of power.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The changing of the phrase "in such cases" to "for such goods" is perfectly
[Mr. R. B. Hanson.j
all right, so far as part I is concerned, if the committee wishes so to do. It will be understood, of course, that no matter what the committee does or no matter how it is phrased, powers exist under the War Measures Act to go beyond or to repeal and go all round the statute. It is all very well for us to take great pains with the drafting, but those powers exist. They are not taken away.
So it comes to a question of trusting the governor in council but not trusting the minister. There may be a distinction there, but I do not think it is a valid one. I was going to say that the intention, so far as part I is concerned, is that all individuals will be treated exactly alike. That is, no individual in any particular period will be given a permit to import a certain class or kind of goods, and at the same time another individual be denied that permit. That will never be done under part I.
But under part II it may be necessary for that very thing to be done, depending upon the stock of goods, or the requirements of the person applying for the permit. Perhaps this could be torn to pieces in such a way as to tie it down a little more definitely as between these two parts of the act. Then, if it did not work in any particular we would have to alter it by order in council, under the War Measures Act.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does the draft bill follow the resolution?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, I believe so.


Howard Charles Green: I can find no reference in the resolution to part II of schedule 1. Why is there not some reference? Why are there parts I and II; what is the difference?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I explained exactly what
we intended to do, and the different treatment we proposed to extend to goods under part II
as compared with those under part I. Those under part I are prohibited goods. Those under part II are goods which are not prohibited, but concerning which permits are to be diminished, as time goes on.


Howard Charles Green: Tapered off.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, there is to be a gradual shutting off.


Howard Charles Green: Why is that not put in the resolution? Why is there no reference to part II in the resolution?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I was just saying that if the committee wishes to have such reference, there would be no objection. It would really have no further control.


Howard Charles Green: Will it be in the bill?

War Exchange Conservation Act


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not think so.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There
ought to be some redrafting, then. The minister suggests that even though the matter is dealt with in a stricter fashion, and the language is tied right down along the lines suggested, it could be overruled under the War Measures Act. Remember, this is a later statute, and if it is specific there might be a very nice conflict between those two statutes.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Oh, no.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, yes. Have the law officers of the crown given consideration to that situation? The War Measures Act is a general law. This is a specific law. Parliament is legislating on a specific matter, and if this law fastens the interpretation specifically, then I suggest to the minister that the courts, in a proper case, would look into the matter very carefully. The specific legislation would override the general legislation which was passed subsequently.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That would mean that all acts passed since the War Measures Act was passed in 1914 would be limited in their application by that act, and the hands of the government tied accordingly.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It raises a very nice legal point, but I am not going to give an expert opinion.


John George Diefenbaker: What impelled the government to ask for these powers when the governor in council had them already under the War Measures Act? They are being extended and granted to a minister of the crown.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It was done out of respect for parliament. It was well understood by the government that this could be done under the War Measures Act. When the debate on the address ended two or three days ago the house could have been adjourned and then, any time after, we had the power to act under the War Measures Act, because if ever there was a war measure, this is one. We did not think, however, that would be acting in the true spirit of the constitution of this country. We thought that when parliament was here we ought to lay the matter before parliament and state what we intended to do. We must have wide and inflexible powers. It was thought we should tell parliament that we intended to take the powers and then work it out. As I say, parliament can wrestle over these clauses and tie the minister down a little tighter or make it clear that it is only in respect of one thing that he has certain
powers and so on, but I do not think that is the thing to do as a practical matter. If we run into a situation which requires correction we may have to refer to the War Measures Act, and certainly we will refer to it in order to correct such a situation. If anyone finds that the government is being unjust, that it is treating a supporter differently from the manner in which it is treating someone who is not a supporter, then he will just have to bring the case to the attention of the government. That would be a disgraceful thing, and it will not happen.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I congratulate the minister upon having realized that it is time to get back to the authority and supremacy of parliament. We have gone too far in the other direction in Canada. I have been harping on this off and on for six months, and I am glad that we have made the government do this.


Jean-François Pouliot: Do not make my speeches.


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister give the committee a rough idea of the total importations in the last fiscal year and how they will be affected by the two parts of schedule I, and also let us know from which different countries these importations came?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The volume of imports
from non-empire countries of goods covered by schedule 1, including the estimates in connection with items where records are not available, was $52,840,000 for part I, which can be termed the prohibited goods, and $71,150,000 for part II, the goods subject to licence. The annual loss in revenue resulting from schedule 1, part I, is estimated at $12,000,000 for customs duties and $5,000,000 for war exchange tax. No estimate is possible for the revenue loss which will result from part II of schedule 1. Imports from the United Kingdom of schedule 2 goods were valued at $13,343,000, on which a duty of $1,950,000 was collected in the calendar year 1939.


Howard Charles Green: How much will be collected under the changed schedules?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Quite a number of the items are free from the United Kingdom.


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister give us
the imports by countries, from the United States and Japan, for instance?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am sorry, but I have not that information.


Howard Charles Green: Could the minister have
that for us to-morrow when we are considering the bill?
728	COMMONS
War Exchange Conservation Act


James Lorimer Ilsley: If the hon. gentleman really wants it, although I cannot see the purpose of it myself.


Howard Charles Green: We should like to know
the value of imports from the United States, Japan and other non-empire countries.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I will get it. The prohibition applies to a whole lot of them.


Howard Charles Green: We want to see what is
being shut out.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is the title
War Exchange Conservation Act a happy thought? Would not Foreign Exchange Conservation Act be better? I am not just clear as to what is meant by war exchange.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is a war act.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It could be stated in the bill that it would terminate with the cessation of hostilities. In his speech the other day the minister referred to the possibility which we all must see of this prohibition of the entry of certain articles being likely to cause an increase in the price of similar articles produced in Canada. This legislation virtually amounts to protection for certain commodities and there is an immediate advantage to the manufacturers of those articles. I am sure that in drawing up this legislation the government must have had some specific steps in mind.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is covered by resolution 4.


James Lorimer Ilsley: We take full powers in a later resolution to restrain them.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would the minister prefer to leave the discussion of this until we come to resolution 4?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think it would be better.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
2.	That notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding resolution, the Minister of National Revenue may, in his discretion, exempt any goods from the operation of the preceding resolution for such periods of time as he may deem desirable and notice of any such exemption shall be published in the Canada Gazette and the exemption shall take effect on and after the date of such publication or any later date fixed in such notice.
Resolution agreed to.
3.	That for the purposes of these resolutions "sterling area" means the territories under the sovereignty, protection, suzerainty or mandate of His Majesty (except Canada, Newfoundland and Hong ICong) and such other territories whether or not under the sovereignty, protection, suzerainty and mandate of His Majesty as may be designated by the governor in council.
Richard Burpee Hanson: We will register the same objection and let it go at that.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What is the significance of including Hong Kong with the excepted countries?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The currency of Hong Kong is not tied to sterling.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
4.	(1) That in the event of producers of goods taking advantage of the prohibition of imports to increase the prices of such goods to the consumer or to maintain such prices at levels deemed by the governor in council to be higher than should prevail, having regard to changes in the cost of production of such goods, the governor in council may, in addition to permitting entry of such goods, reduce or remove the duties of customs imposed upon such goods.
(2) That in the event of any such producer taking advantage of the prohibition of imports as aforesaid, the governor in council may impose upon alii the products of such producer, or any of them, an excise tax equivalent to the amount of customs duty which would be paid by such goods if the same were imported into Canada under the provisions of the general tariff and the same shall be collectible as a tax, and the provisions of the Special War Revenue Act as to the collection of taxes shall be applicable thereto.
James Lorimer Ilsley: I have an amendment to move to this resolution, as follows:
That the resolution of December 2, 1940, introducing a measure to be called the War Exchange Conservation Act, 1940, be amended by striking out resolution No. 4 and substituting therefor the following:
"4. (1) That in the event of any person taking advantage of the prohibition of imports to increase the prices of goods to the consumer or to maintain the prices of such goods at levels deemed by the governor in council to be higher than should prevail, having regard to changes in the cost of production of such goods, the governor in council may, in addition to permitting entry of such goods, reduce or remove the duties of customs imposed upon such goods.
(2) That in the event of any person taking advantage of the prohibition of imports as aforesaid, the governor in council may, for such period of time ae he may determine, impose, levy and collect upon all the products of such person or any of them, an excise tax of 25 per cent of the sale price thereof payable by such person at the time of delivery of such goods to the purchaser thereof and the provisions of the Special War Revenue Act as to the collection of taxes imposed by Part XIII of the said act shall be applicable thereto."


Richard Burpee Hanson: The change is from "producers" to "any person". The resolution is being made all-inclusive, whereas before it was just confined to producers.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is correct. The reason for this amendment is that the original resolution was taken verbatim from section 17 of

War Exchange Conservation Act
the customs tariff. The amended wording should accomplish the purpose of this resolution rather more effectively.
The amendment will enable the government to proceed against any person, whereas section 17 applied only to producers of goods. It also provides for an excise tax of 25 per cent on the sale price of the goods, whereas under section 17 the tax is equivalent to the amount of customs duty which would be paid by such goods if imported into Canada under the general tariff.
These prohibitions relate to goods some of which are free. We just made a mistake there when we provided for imposing customs duty as a penalty.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This is the first time I remember hearing the minister admit making a mistake..


Ernest Lapointe: I move the amendment, Mr. Chairman, that has been read by the Minister of Finance.


Thomas Miller Bell: Before that is put, I raise again the point I raised yesterday. Instead of this procedure being followed, I think it would be better if the house enacted that the prices of goods shall remain at the prices in existence say on the 2nd day of December, and in the event of producers desiring an increase in prices on account of changed conditions they shall make application to the war-time prices and trade board, which will consider the application.
I do not think the method suggested by the government is sufficiently effective. I believe that we should stabilize prices as of, say the 2nd day of December, and then in the event of changed conditions an application may be made to the proper board for consideration of a proposed price increase. I think that suggestion should be considered. I believe it would be much more satisfactory to the public who already feel that some price increases have been permitted. It is difficult for the general public to appeal to a board, whereas a producer who felt he was penalized by changed conditions could easily make application and get consideration of his case. I want to place that point of view before the minister.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would suggest to the minister that my hon. friend, I think, has not thought his suggestion clear through. If prices were pegged as of December 2, it might work a great hardship if costs of production were increased by abnormal conditions.


Thomas Miller Bell: The producer could
apply to the board.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is regimentation. A price increase might be justified by increased costs of production or by other factors. I think my hon. friend's suggestion would not be workable. I prefer the penalty.


James Lorimer Ilsley: On some occasion, I cannot remember when, because it was not in my department, I had a discussion with the wartime prices and trade board as to the two methods they might follow. One was to make a stand-still order on prices and to let everyone apply for an increase in prices. The objection to that was that the board would be swamped with applications. That plan would not be administratively possible. There are a great many prices in Canada and a great many people charging prices.


Thomas Miller Bell: They are doing that in Great Britain.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know about that.


Thomas Miller Bell: That, I understand, is their method.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is a question of principle involved.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The civil service required
to attend to that effectively would be very extensive because the ramifications are tremendous. The board could not with any sense of responsibility be issuing permissions to increase prices unless they went into the matter carefully because every increase in price that persons could persuade the board to permit them to make would be justified by the authority of the board. The board would be cited as the reason why the price was increased. It was therefore considered much more desirable for the board to require everybody to report to them when they intended to increase prices or when they did increase prices, and for the board to get a reasonably large staff which, if they saw any price increase which prima facie appeared to be unwarranted or unreasonable, would investigate and require the person increasing the price to justify it. That was considered a much more practical way, and I think it is. I do not think there has been much complaint about it either. I believe it has worked well.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: There is a
danger on the other hand that the public may get swamped. There are two provisions in resolution 4. First, if it is discovered that a man is taking advantage of this measure of protection, the prohibition will be removed. But if it is removed, the whole purpose of the legislation, which is to conserve exchange,

War Exchange Conservation Act
will be defeated. Therefore that rules the first out, because it would defeat the purpose of the measure.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Only for that item.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes, but what if the same thing happens in connection with other items? The government's measure, will no longer be operative.
The second provision is that where a person has been found to be taking advantage of the prohibition of imports, the 25 per cent excise tax will be applied. But would a 25 per cent excise tax be sufficient to offset the advantage of an industry that is now given a complete monopoly by virtue of the fact that certain lines of goods from non-empire countries are completely shut out? The 25 per cent tax may not be a sufficient penalty to offset the protection they are going to enjoy. I do not think in either case the minister is giving us sufficient assurance that prices will be kept at a moderate figure and that advantage will not be taken of this virtual monopoly which is now going to be given to certain industries in Canada.
May I point out further that we do not know what machinery will be set up to decide whether or not an industry or a particular firm is taking advantage of the situation. Who will decide, for example, and inform the governor in council that a certain producer is taking advantage of the prohibition of imports? Will it be the Department of National Revenue or the war-time prices and trade board?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The government holds itself free to use any agency it wishes.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Or none at all.


James Lorimer Ilsley: My hon. friend does not give other Canadians as much credit as he should. That is his trouble. I have listened to him a great many times. He feels that people who have a chance to make a lot of money are going to do it. He goes on that principle. But there are such things as public opinion and patriotism in this country, and such things as a sense of decency and a sense of responsibility on the part of the government of the country, and all these things work together at a time like this.
I have seen people under the pressure of public opinion here and there in connection with government activities, and they want to do the right thing. They want their fellow Canadians to feel that they are doing the right thing. They want to do it in their own interests, in the interests of their reputation, and in the interests of the way they and their families will be treated. There is not just

this one narrow idea of gouging the last cent out of people all the time. All these factors I have mentioned are going to work together.
In the national revenue department I found that 95 per cent of the sales taxpayers-the sales tax was the largest-were honest, and there was only about 5 per cent with whom we had any trouble. Most of these taxpayers were honest and decent. I do not anticipate that there is going to be any mad rush to put prices up to the limit behind the shelter of this prohibition. If there is, we shall hear about it; do not make any mistake. When a person sells goods, somebody buys the goods; it is well known when people begin profiteering, and we can get after them and in various ways take action to see that they bring their prices down. We have not, I admit, set up any machinery here, but we have left ourselves free to use any agency or all agencies. If there is any profiteering out of this, we shall hear of it and we shall do something about it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister has certainly strengthened the resolution. Does he say that these provisions are adequate to maintain a decent standard of prices without profiteering? If the minister believes that, and the government intends to carry it on that way, I am quite satisfied. They must use any agency they can use; I agree with that statement.


Mr. KINLEY:: Really we are only prohibiting the import of these goods from nonsterling countries?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


John James Kinley: Practically everything which is on the list can be imported from one or other of the empire countries?


James Lorimer Ilsley: A great many of them.


John James Kinley: There is that competition. How can we fix the price when we do not know what the cost will be from empire countries? It is not a complete prohibition. It is only a prohibition from certain countries; that is all.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is true.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I point out to the minister that he is not altogether consistent. I have as much faith, I think, as he has in human nature and in my fellow Canadians. But the minister himself says that it is the five per cent who have always spoiled it for the other ninety-five per cent, and when, just a few minutes ago, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar suggested to the minister that we should fix the prices as from a certain date and the onus would be on those who felt justified to make an

War Exchange Conservation Act
application, the minister said that there would be so many applications that we would be swamped, that it would take a tremendous amount of administrative machinery to handle all the innumerable cases of persons who would be applying to have prices increased.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Well, legitimately in most
cases.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is the very 'point. If there is that large number of people in Canada who will think that the situation warrants an increase in price, there is all the more reason why some machinery should be set up to deal with the matter and see whether or not that increase is justified.


James Lorimer Ilsley: My hon. friend is certainly not talking with his customary clearness of mind, is he? The fact that a great many applicants would make applications does not mean that they would be taking an unjust advantage of the act at all. I would anticipate thousands and perhaps tens of thousands of applications on legitimate grounds. They would all have to be checked, and there would be an extensive civil service to check these legitimate applications. Is there any inconsistency in what I said? I cannot see it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes. The
minister says that there is a great deal of decency in Canada and that there are a great many people who are not going to gouge out the last dollar. That is true. But the minister also knows that there was war profiteering in days gone by. The story of the last war is filled with it. The minister knows that the cost of living has risen. The minister belongs to a party which for half a century in this country has always said that the moment you give to the country a large measure of protection, you give to a small class an opportunity to exploit the public, and that is why they have talked about freedom of trade and have been opposed to high protection. But this is high protection of the very highest sort, because it is a complete embargo on certain goods. And we ask the minister to give us some assurance that, when this is applied, the public interest will be protected and the consumer will not be exploited.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. I will give that.


John Horne Blackmore: Before the resolution as amended carries, I should like to say a word in commendation of the minister's department, on the ground that I believe they have exercised their powers wisely, with restraint and effectiveness. There have been
rises in prices in Canada, but no such extravagant prices as were registered in the last war.
I would say that on the whole the increases have been justified from the producers' point of view, although they have been painful to the consumers, and before very long adjustments will have to be made on behalf of the consumers.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is the Minister of Labour who should be congratulated.


John Horne Blackmore: Well, I don't know. These boards are becoming so bewildering that it is impossible for a person to keep track of them without a guide; but let the credit go to whomsoever it should go. The work has been well done.
But there is one matter which I wish to draw to the minister's attention. The other day, when we were discussing the application of the principles of social credit, we came to the question of price.
The committee will remember how almost hysterical the minister became when he envisaged all the spies in every shop and the tremendous regimentation and all that. He is now confronted with the same kind of problem, and he says, " Well, wherever there is a salesman there is going to be a buyer, and we will hear about it." I would just suggest to the minister-


James Lorimer Ilsley: We were talking about
rationing-price-fixing and rationing.


John Horne Blackmore: I would just suggest to the minister that the next time he meditates such references to the principles of social credit and the just price as he made the other day-which I have not had an opportunity to answer, but which I am going to answer some of these days-he should just go back and read this fine statement he made in reply to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. He will then discover that this matter of controlling price is not an insuperable problem, that when the problem is attacked with scientific skill and determination, and on certain scientific principles, it can be controlled, and without a whole lot of spies too. I thought I would just make that comment because I believe the minister needs it.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Resolution, as amended, agreed to.
5.	(1) That goods enumerated and described in schedule two. the growth, produce or manufacture of the United Kingdom, when imported into Canada in a manner and under conditions which entitle such goods to entry under the British preferential tariff of Canada, shall he exempt from the rates of duty set out in
[Stage Direction]
War Exchange Conservation Act
schedule A to the Customs Tariff and shall, in lieu thereof, be subject to the rates of duty set out in schedule two.
(2) That any enactment founded on this resolution shall apply to all goods enumerated and described in schedule two imported or taken out of warehouse for consumption on or after the second day of December, 1940, and to goods previously imported for which no entry for consumption was made before the said date.
Resolution agreed to.
6. That the governor in council in order to increase Canada's supply of foreign exchange may, on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance, enter into agreements with individuals, partnerships or corporations to grant assistance by way of special tax credits and/or special allowances for depreciation or depletion under the Income War Tax Act and The Excess Profits Tax Act, if, in the opinion of the governor in council, such assistance is necessary in order that an expansion of the exports of any _ individual, partnership or corporation receiving such assistance may take place.
Thomas Reid: Regarding resolution 6, I have one suggestion to make to the minister which I believe has a double merit. I believe that if it were carried out it would create more Canadian credit in the United States and would also provide a certain amount of further employment in this country. The facts we received a few days ago were to the effect that some $200,000,000 of Canadian gold had been produced in Canada, came through the mint, was sent to the United States, sold in that country and held in deposit to our credit. In view of the monetary policy of the United States in that, in 1934, they agreed to accept silver as well as gold, I suggest to the minister that he give some consideration to using our silver as well as our gold, and have the silver go through the mint and be sold to the United States and held there also as Canadian credit.
I am not going to-night into the question of monetary reform, but so long as there are individuals and banks holding to the old idea about gold and silver, we should take full advantage of that and start again our silver mines. We produced last year in Canada well over 20,000,000 ounces of silver. It was sold by private individuals, and a great deal of the value of the silver remains in the United States to the credit of United States interests. Last year the United States purchased something like 341,000,000 ounces of silver, 281,000,000 ounces of which came from foreign countries. Altogether, the United States have acquired about two and a half billion ounces of silver; and might I draw this to the attention of hon. members, that the world's supply of gold is estimated at approximately $28,000,000,000, of which the United States hold $23,000,000,000. I mention that merely in passing, in an endeavour to point 
out that there must be some readjustment before very long, because the United States will soon own all the world's supply of gold, and perhaps the greater proportion of its silver.
Only the other day it was pointed out that Australia had sold 8,000 tons of flour to China, receiving silver in payment, which I understand has since gone to Great Britain. If Australia can do business like that why cannot we? Our silver mines are idle and hundreds of men could be put to work. The President of the United States still has the power to fix or to alter the price either of gold or of silver. I would point out that when the millers here are protesting the processing tax, it is interesting to note that the wheat growers of Australia are receiving less for their wheat than the growers in Canada, in terms of Canadian dollars, while flour there is very much cheaper than it is in Canada. There is something wrong there. According to the latest figures, the price of wheat here is 731 cents on the Winnipeg market while our flour is sold at from $3.90 to $4 a barrel, whereas in Australia the price to the farmer is from 52 to 60 cents a bushel while flour there is sold, as it is abroad, at something like $2.90 a barrel. Compare $2.90 with $3.90 and $4 charged here. I am quoting the exact figures as given by the latest bulletin, the barrel being 196 pounds. I am giving the straight comparison in Canadian funds and under similar conditions.
My purpose in rising was to point out something that we are overlooking, namely, that the sale of our silver to the United States would enable us to acquire considerable credit there and at the same time put many hundreds of people to work.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is nearly midnight and resolution 6 has a great many implications. I think we had better adjourn, and I suggest that to-morrow the minister make a statement-I have no doubt he has one ready-as to the implications of this resolution. I am beginning to realize all that it does imply, although I can only visualize a part of it now. We ought to be told frankly all that is intended by the administration with respect to resolution 6.


Thomas Miller Bell: We have not yet passed resolution 5.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, we have.


Thomas Miller Bell: Resolutions 4 and 5 were called so quickly.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Resolution 5 was called.

War Exchange Conservation Act


Thomas Miller Bell: I understood the hon. member for New Westminster was discussing resolution 5.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, resolution 6.


Thomas Miller Bell: I think resolution 5
should stand.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Can it not be taken up on
the bill?


Richard Burpee Hanson: It can be
discussed on the bill.


Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: To add to what the leader of the opposition has said, I would say that resolution 6 involves a matter of tremendous importance. As I gathered from the minister's remarks, the sum involved is equal almost to the gold production of Canada; that is to say, dividends and interest payments due in the United States are of a magnitude almost equal to Canada's gold export to that country. The sum involved is some $200,000,000, a figure that astounds me. It is of tremendous moment to Canada, and when the minister makes his statement to-morrow I hope he will not shut the door on the idea that in the United States at the present time there is not only a vast volume of public opinion, but a sentiment in the hearts of United States citizens who are the recipients of dividends and interest payments on their Canadian investments, that perhaps they should not take the last pound of flesh from the Canadian people in the form of foreign exchange to pay these dividends. They are to a great degree of opinion that confidence is so high in the future possibilities of Canada, taking a long-range view over a period of many years, and visualizing the position of this dominion in world economic affairs, that directors and investors might be advised that it would be well to plough back into Canadian industry the dividends which they are receiving from their capital investments in Canada-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Or into
Canadian war loan.


Joseph Henry Harris: -in order to help to liquidate the position of their business in Canada, so that in turn United States investors might more and more expand their interests here and develop our resources and, from the long-range point of view, receive in the course of years more and more from their investments in this country.
I am not one w'ho is prone to suggest that we should arbitrarily declare that dividends from United States investments in Canada should not be exported. That is an arbitrary position to take and it is perhaps not good
business. But when the minister makes his statement on resolution 6, I can well believe that those who have investments here will appreciate the point that it would be good business for them to expand working capital in our Canadian industries, in their Canadian investments, rather than force us to buy United States exchange to pay these dividends.
Let me put it this way. I know cases today of estates, individual recipients of hard cash, who are living off the interest that they are receiving from dividends which they had previously earned and left in the business, first, to assist working capital and, second, to expand that business, so that their families in days to come may receive more dividends or, if they want to expand their business still further, receive more interest on dividends.
Perhaps my hon. friends to my left will hardly understand how folks could live off interest or dividends, but it is being done in Canada to-day, and in this war emergency and the feeling that is in the hearts and minds of our United States cousins at the present time, perhaps they would not like this government to stop the export of dividends. But in my opinion they would be very happy to leave those dividends in Canada, to expand their interests here and develop our natural resources, so that generations to come might obtain the benefits of the expansion which would occur if the working capital of these companies were helped out by holding the dividends here, and they perhaps could receive the interest from those dividends later. Therefore I hope that when the minister makes his statement to-morrow he will give some thought to the possibility of encouraging a movement of that kind, rather than look to the position into which we may be forced within the next twelve months, of stopping the export of dividends, because his words will be recorded in the New York Journal oj Commerce.


James Lorimer Ilsley: As far as I can see, that
subject is not dealt with under this resolution. I thought the statement the leader of the opposition asked me to make was under resolution 6 of this resolution, which to my mind deals with an entirely different matter. As I understand it, the subject about which the hon. gentleman has been talking is quite away from resolution 6. If hon. gentlemen opposite see some deep meaning in this that I do not see, I wish they would tell me.


Joseph Henry Harris: Under resolution 6 as I understand it, the minister is empowered to enter into agreements to grant assistance by way of special tax credits or special allowances for depreciation or deple-
Special War Revenue Act

tion if such assistance is considered necessary in order that an expansion of the exports of any individual, partnership or corporation receiving such assistance may take place.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It has nothing to do with
the movement of dividends.


Joseph Henry Harris: I would like
the minister, in making these agreements, to keep definitely in mind the idea I have tried to enunciate, with regard to those of our United States cousins who are doing a very considerable business here, with the idea of conserving exchange from any dividends which may arise from the conduct of such business.
Progress reported.



SPECIAL WAR REVENUE ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 8, to amend the Special War Revenue Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Vien in the chair.
Grote Stirling: Before we proceed in the committee stage, the undertaking having been given that we would sit until twelve o'clock, surely it would be desirable to defer this stage until to-morrow.


Ernest Lapointe: If it is
the desire of my hon. friend, of course we will report progress. Our idea was to send this to the senate to-morrow afternoon, but if my hon. friend has the slightest objection to sitting any longer, that is quite all right.
Progress reported.


Ernest Lapointe: I desire
to thank hon. members of the committee for their kind cooperation, and I move that the house do now adjourn.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 12.10 a.m. (Friday).
Friday, December 6, 1940.