1940-12-02

PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 6, to incorporate the Alberta Provincial Bank.-Mr. Blackmore.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours that this house has substituted the name of Mr. Dupuis for that of Mr. Cloutier to act on the part of the House of Commons as a member of the joint committee of both houses on the printing of parliament.
And that the Clerk of the House do carry the said message to the Senate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I have been asked, before parliament adjourns, to speak again on the war in Europe, on the present position of Britain and on Canada's cooperation in meeting the situation with which Britain is faced.
I doubt if there is much, if anything, I can add to the statement I made three weeks ago and to the very complete reviews since made by my colleagues in the government.
The War-Mr. Mackenzie King

The fact, however, that events or the reports of the past week or two should cause the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) to express the opinion that the situation itself has greatly changed within that period of time affords perhaps the strongest of reasons why the house and the country cannot be reminded too often that the present is not a war of weeks or of months, but of years, and that this fact must never be lost to sight in viewing the fortunes of war abroad as they vary from place to place and from time to time. Moreover, as we seek to estimate the significance of our own effort in its relation to the future as well as the present, we must always remember that the demands upon this country and this continent may, a year from now, be vastly different in their application and extent.
As we ponder the magnitude of the struggle and of Canada's contribution, it is more than ever necessary to view isolated events in their relation to the whole, to correlate all the factors of time and place, and to maintain throughout a due sense of proportion and a true perspective. Sunshine and shadow are bound to alternate on the wide horizons of a world war. It is inevitable that there will be periods of success and periods of reverse. We would be foolish if we became unduly elated by an immediate triumph; we would be even more foolish if we became depressed by a momentary loss.
Recently many statements have been made in the press, in parliament, and over the air, by members of the government of the United Kingdom and other leading Britons. Some may seem pessimistic, others may sound optimistic. The truth is, of course, that there are many matters which give us grave concern. There are also many things to cheer us. If statements sometimes sound pessimistic, they reflect the willingness of British leaders to speak the truth, and the capacity of the British people to stand the truth. If to some they appear occasionally almost too optimistic, they reflect the courage, the hope and the determination of the British people and their refusal now, or at any time, to consider the prospect of defeat.
It has been the duty of my colleagues and myself, as it would be the duty of any government, to try to see the war steadily, and to see it whole. We have sought never to lose the ultimate in the prospect of the immediate; always to remember that what may appear best to serve the apparent interests of the present may be of ill service to the future. From the very beginning the policy of the present administration has been

to plan, in cooperation with the government of the United Kingdom, for a final victorious outcome of the struggle.
Let me give an illustration, the force of which will be immediately recognized. Had we been guided by vociferous demands that were made at the outset, we would have concentrated our effort, our wealth and our strength on, recruiting large numbers of men for service in the army overseas, rushing them across the ocean, with conscription as probably the only method of maintaining large supernumerary armies in the field. That might have served to meet a certain clamour of the hour, but, in the long run, it would have made for disunity in Canada, and in meeting Britain's need, proven to be, in large part, wanton waste. Instead of aiding Great Britain, as we are doing to-day, with our forces in the air and at sea, with munitions, with ships and with other equipment, materials and supplies in ever-increasing measure, we would have placed upon a beleaguered island the added burden of feeding numbers of men not required at the present time.
We did not yield to the clamour. The government, instead, laid its plans for a balanced development of all branches. We built up an air force and a navy, as well as an army. We developed war industries, and we conserved exchange for the use of Britain and ourselves. While planning for the battles overseas, we have also been mindful of our own shores, and the dangers with which they may at any moment be beset as the scenes of conflict change and war's terrors become intensified. This type of planning does not lend itself to display. But it brings real results in the end. As it is inevitable that the war will be long, it is equally inevitable that the results of a sustained effort can be realized only with the passage of time.
While it is true that neither Great Britain nor Canada nor the neutral countries which were invaded foresaw the course of events, it still to-day remains an incontrovertible truth that the broad outlines of British strategy for ultimate victory as planned from the outset are and were fundamentally sound. They contemplated a war, not of months but of years. They envisaged an increase in and the extension of the theatres of military operations. They visualized the necessity, not only of preserving freedom, but the necessity and the obligation to restore it.
From the very beginning, in presenting to this house and to the country the situation as I have had reason to view it, I have tried to speak not from impulse but from reflection. It is true I have not sought to be talking all the

The War-Mr. Mackenzie King
time. I have hoped that my words might carry the greater weight because they were not too freely and too frequently expressed. I have attempted, in so far as opportunity has permitted, to assess and to weigh the essentials. In almost every statement I have made about the war, I have said the struggle would be long and hard and terrible. I have told the people of Canada how much more serious the war would be than, in its early stages, many people seemed to realize, or have yet fully realized. I said that it would be a war, not of months but of years; that it would not be confined to Europe, but must inevitably spread to other continents; that at the back of all was the intent of world domination. I said, too, at the very outset that the nations of Europe, by placing their faith in neutrality, would find, as a consequence of their blindness and aloofness, that their own national existence might disappear.
In official pronouncements this house and the Canadian people have been told repeatedly that supremacy in the air was necessary for effective defence, and for the final offence which alone can gain victory. They have been told with equal emphasis that effective blockade, through the maintenance of British sea power, was essential, not only to victory but to survival. Above all, month in and month out, I have said with all the force at my command that freedom on this continent was inseparable from the preservation of British freedom; also that the preservation of British freedom was inseparable from the restoration of human freedom wherever it has been destroyed. I might add that the corollary is equally true. The restoration of human freedom depends upon the preservation of British freedom until the day comes when the forces of freedom, under the leadership of Britain, having mobilized their full strength, march forward to victory.
I have felt impelled to make these preliminary remarks because of the words used by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) on Thursday last in requesting me to make a further statement to the house. My hon. friend said:
In my view, in the view' of many hon. members of this house, and I feel quite certain in the view of many people in Canada, the war situation in Europe is more serious to-day than at any time since the fall of France.
May I say at once, and most emphatically, that such is not my view. My view is rather as I expressed it in my reply to the leader of the opposition at the beginning of the debate on the address. There can be no doubt in the world that the situation for Britain
and her allies is much better to-day than it was, not only at the time of the signing of the armistice between France and Germany, but as it developed in the months which immediately followed the fall of France. Even Hitler was not prepared for the speedy capitulation of Norway, Holland, Belgium and France. While the rapidity of those events shocked us, let it not be forgotten that it surprised Germany as well. If we were unprepared for it, so were the Germans. If Hitler's plans had been in accordance with such a schedule, it is easily conceivable that German armies might have landed on Britain's shores. It is possible that the resistance which could have been offered immediately after the evacuation of Dunkirk would not have been equal to the awe-inspiring task imposed upon it.
When France signed the armistice she believed, and most of the neutral European countries with her, that all was over with Britain as well as with herself. The great tragedy is that France did not know the truth. Believing that the enemy was invincible, she preferred surrender to the prospect of annihilation. In the United States, majority opinion was swayed for a time by the fear that Britain would be powerless to withstand so formidable a foe. It doubted her power to resist. The American people were asking themselves whether it might not be more prudent to retain the weapons of war, even though they were so desperately needed by Britain, in order that they might defend themselves against a peril which would become irresistible once the peoples of the British Isles were vanquished.
All that has changed, and changed completely. During the last three months, unsurpassed in the history of Britain, it has become increasingly clear that German mentality has never really understood the British people. Once again the men and women of the British Isles have revealed their dauntless courage and their ability to fight, and to endure, when their freedom is endangered. Like Cromwell's Ironsides, "They know for what they fight."
When we reflect upon the improved position in the Mediterranean, almost unbelievable three months ago; when we recall the transfer of the American destroyers; the enormous increase in war materials which are flowing from the United States and Canada to the island fortress; when in addition to witnessing the fruits of Canadian planning, we have also the certainty of the continuance of the policy of all possible aid to Britain confirmed by the vote of the American people, how can anyone come to feel, in the light of these



The War-Mr. Mackenzie King
facts-which are not the confidential property of the government, but all a matter of public knowledge-that the situation is more serious to-day than it was three or four months ago? It is true that the war is increasing in its fury. But it is also true that in the months that have elapsed since the downfall of France, Britain's strength has steadily increased.
The leader of the opposition has specified three things which he says indicate the seriousness of the position, and which evidently justify in his mind the opinion he and some others hold in regard to it. He referred first to what he described as "the virtual destruction of the cities of Birmingham, Bristol and Southampton"; secondly, to the loss of shipping as evidenced by press reports; and, thirdly, to the "utterances of the Marquess of Lothian, His Majesty's representative in the United States, particularly with respect to finance."
Let us see whether the facts with respect to these matters justify the conclusion my hon. friend, and those who think as he does, have reached. Here I hope hon. members will also have in mind what I have so frequently stressed, namely, that whatever is said in the parliament of Canada, while intended primarily for home consumption, may also be not without its influence upon Britain's actual or potential enemies. I shall leave hon. members to judge for themselves what the effect here or in Great Britain would be were word to be sent broadcast from a high source in Germany that, through British bombing, three or more of the leading industrial cities of Germany had been "virtually destroyed."
First, then, as to " the virtual destruction of the cities of Birmingham, Bristol and Southampton." May I say to my hon. friend that, even in the most glaring headlines of the more sensational newspapers of this continent I have seen nothing, and in the accents of the most vociferous radio announcer I have heard nothing, v'hich would justify either the assertion or the assumption that the cities of Birmingham, Bristol and Southampton have been virtually destroyed. Much less will the press dispatches themselves justify a belief in anything of the kind. Certainly nothing in the official reports w'hich have come from Britain to Canada supports such statements. There have been, of course, within the last few weeks, serious air raids upon each of these, and other British cities, notably Coventry. Birmingham is a city of 1,055,000 people, Bristol of 415,000 people, Southampton of 178,000 people. Coventry is a city of
204,000	people. The figures published in the press in the case of Coventry, about 400 dead
JMr. Mackenzie King.]
and 1,S00 injured, are correct. I am able to say that the casualties in the other cities are relatively much lower. What is most important, there was, in these raids, surprisingly little damage to military and industrial objectives.
It is true that night bombing presents a problem which has not yet been solved. It is true that darkness, while it denies to the marauder the opportunity of discriminate destruction, adds to his opportunity of indiscriminate murder. Against the successes which the enemy may claim for his ruthlessness, there must be offset what it has cost him in men and in planes. The percentage of British losses, both in the British Isles and in Europe, has been many times less. Moreover, Germany, by pursuing the policy of frightfulness, has greatly challenged the spirit of the British people. In the final analysis the war will be won by national character. By his murderous tactics, Hitler has succeeded in showing to the world that a German victory is impossible.
It is true, as Sir Walter Citrine said the other day in New Orleans, that the continuous bombing of British cities is having an effect upon British industrial output. But the damage to British towns and industry can be exaggerated, just as the damage to German military objectives can be minimized. Night after night for months the Royal Air Force, flying, it is true, much greater distances, in smaller numbers, and carrying fewer bombs, have been nevertheless resolutely following a clear line of effective destruction.
It was announced from London some weeks ago that the bomber command of the Royal Air Force had been following a " master plan " in aerial attacks upon targets of strategic and industrial importance in German and German-occupied territory. A glance at the map [DOT]will at once make it clear that the area open to attack by British planes is large, it extends in fact from the coasts of Norway to the Spanish frontier, and far inland to the industrial heart of Germany, and that the flying distances are correspondingly great. British heavy bombers have in fact flown single journeys of as much as 700 miles from their home bases, carrying them beyond the heavy industries of the Rhine valley to the important Skoda armaments establishments at Pilsen. They have crossed the Alps to bombard the industrial capitals of northern Italy, at Turin and Milan and elsewhere. They have attacked repeatedly

eighty or one hundred times since midsummer-synthetic oil refineries such as Gelsenkirchen; aluminium factories, railway marshalling yards-that of Hamm is one of the largest on the continent- docks and shipbuilding yards-the port of

The War-Mr. Mackenzie King
Hamburg is reported now to be unserviceable -the naval bases at Kiel and Wilhelmshaven, power stations, and a variety of other objectives.
Nearer at hand, since the coast line of the low countries and of most of France fell into enemy hands, the Royal Air Force has smashed repeatedly and relentlessly at the "invasion ports" of Lorient, LeHavre, Boulogne and Dunkirk. In these ports, submarine establishments and concentrations of barges intended for troop transport on a large scale have been steadily attacked, and on at least two occasions the unceasing vigilance and rapid striking power of the bomber and coastal commands defeated German attempts to launch a sea-borne invasion from this part of the channel coast.
I have said that the area open to British attack is large, and that the flying distances involved are great. By contrast, the area for German attacks is much more limited, and, since the channel coast affords nearer bases for German aircraft, the flying distance is considerably less. Partly for this reason, very large numbers of German planes have been employed in recent raids, and it is a tribute both to the fighting skill of British pilots and to the increasing destructiveness of ground defences that so small a proportion of German planes have actually succeeded in penetrating outer defences to attack key targets in Britain. German losses in operational planes have been large, but the more serious loss has been in terms of pilots and air crews. It can, of course, be argued that even numerically, superiority in bombing and fighter aircraft will not provide a guarantee against aerial invasion and aerial bombardment. What is certain is that as British aircraft production, aided by a steady flow of pilots from Canada and planes from the United States and Canada, succeeds in narrowing the gap in effective strength between the Royal Air Force and the German air force, the effect of German attacks upon Britain will be diminished, and the scale of British attacks upon enemy and enemy-occupied territory will be correspondingly increased.
Much the same is true of "the loss of shipping as evidenced by press reports," and of the limitation upon financial resources. To view these factors in their true perspective, their extent has to be measured first of all in its relation to the whole, and, secondly, in comparison with losses and shortages which the enemy has experienced and may reasonably be expected further to experience.
The shipping situation is serious, but. that does not mean it has suddenly changed the outlook. It is true that, in recent weeks, shipping under British ownership and control
has been lost at a rate greater than the present capacity of British shipyards to build new ships. Nevertheless, thousands of ships remain, and men and supplies are freely carried where allied necessity calls. British shipyards are working at full capacity, and in addition to British shipyards, Canadian, Australian and American shipyards are building merchantmen and other ships for Britain. The House of Commons has already been told by the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) that in addition to the naval construction under way in Canada for the British admiralty, eighteen merchant vessels are also to be built here for the British government.	[DOT]
In his speech on November 5, Mr. Churchill spoke plainly about the growing shipping problem. Since then, the British Minister of Shipping, Right Hon. Ronald Cross, said in a broadcast on November 26:
I am not going to hide the fact that the rate at which we are building ships does not make up for our losses.
Mr. Cross was, however, careful to add that orders were being placed in the United States. The real significance of his words is to be found in the sentence with which he concluded:
We must have ships. We cannot make too sure of our shipping in the months and years that may elapse before victory is assured. We must have a safety margin.
The result of the frankness of Mr. Churchill and Mr. Cross is reflected in our own present commitments, and in the additional keels that will be laid down every month in the shipyards of the United States and of the British commonwealth.
Let it not be forgotten that Germany, too, has suffered considerable shipping losses. Almost daily we hear of another German supply ship sunk off the coast of Norway, in the North Sea, or in the channel. German shipping and German barges have been bombed repeatedly in the channel ports. The great German shipyards at Hamburg and Bremen, and even in the Baltic, have been visited again and again by the bombers of the Royal Air Force. In the Mediterranean the Italian shipping losses have been heavy. On the high seas, German and Italian merchantmen have disappeared. I do not think they will take any part in the world's commerce until this war is over.
The British navy is still supreme on the seas of battle. Although the British navy in this war, single-handed, enforces the blockade, and although the coasts to be blockaded are more extensive, nevertheless the blockade is proving its effectiveness. Apart from Russia,

The War-Mr. Mackenzie King
there are no neutral countries to which Germany can turn with confidence for imported supplies.
The vast quantities of supplies which Britain requires from north America to supplement the deficiencies of her own production must, of course, be paid for, and, when ordered from the United States, they must be paid for in American dollars. The problem of providing United States exchange which faces the British government is a very real one.
To view in its true light the statement by Lord Lothian to which the leader of the opposition has specifically referred, it must be recalled that what the British ambassador said about Britain being near the end of her financial resources and about the need she would have for financial aid, had reference to British purchases in the United States.
The problem of providing United States exchange which faces the British government is a problem which also faces our own government; for we too must provide for vast outlays of United States dollars to pay for our purchases of essential war material. Later this afternoon, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) will propose certain measures which, at this juncture, seem to the government necessary in order further to conserve our supply of exchange for this purpose.
It may help us to view the financial problem in a true perspective if, as with bombing and with shipping losses, we make comparison with the situation as it is in Germany.
While it is true that Britain and Canada are faced with the problem of providing exchange to pay for their purchases in the United States, it is also true that in the United States we have access to the greatest industrial resources in the world.
What is the German situation? Germany, of course, has acquired the industries and resources of France, Belgium, Holland and Czechoslovakia, but outside the borders of Germany and the territories she has conquered she can look to only two important outside sources of supply-Sweden and Russia. The capacity and the willingness of Russia to spare supplies to Germany is very doubtful. In the conquered territories she must keep the workers alive if they are to continue to produce. She must face, too, the ever-present hazard of sabotage.
In many essentials Germany has, through sacrifices of her standard of living and through conquest, made herself self-contained. But, as the British Minister of Economic Warfare, Right Hon. Hugh Dalton, pointed out in a broadcast yesterday, the blockade has imposed upon the enemy "serious shortages of rubber,

copper, ferro-alloys needed to harden steel, and textiles." As for oil, Mr. Dalton had this to say:
So long as the British navy continues to command the sea, including the eastern Mediterranean, as it will; so long as our air force continues, as it will, to bomb the enemy's oil plants, oil stocks and oil refineries; and so long as the enemy continues to fight at all-and he cannot fight without using up oil-then in a period measured in months and not in years the enemy's oil position will be one of great and growing scarcity.
Mr. Dalton also stated that the stocks of supplies looted from the conquered nations had been used, and that, through the blockade, the Germans were "now back where they were six months ago, or worse."
Nor would Germany's position be materially , improved even if she could command the financial resources to which Britain still has access. Germany is in fact unable, except at the cost of fighting and the loss of the men and materials of war, to obtain some of the essentials of war.
Despite these weaknesses, no greater mistake could be made than to minimize the economic gains which have resulted from the German conquests. They can be balanced and exceeded only by the economic and industrial resources of this continent. Whatever difficulties of a financial nature we may be facing, Germany is denied all access, both financial and physical, to the potentially decisive North American sources of supplies.
Perhaps, before concluding, I should say one word about the situation in the Balkans and the Mediterranean. As I pointed out at the beginning, we must keep constantly before us the conflict as a whole. The accession under duress of Roumania, Hungary and Slovakia to the axis adds no new strength to the pre-datoiy powers. Even if it did, the abstention of Yugoslavia and of Bulgaria has far greater significance.
It will be recalled that in his statement to the House of Commons on November 5, Mr. Churchill mentioned that the balance of forces on the frontiers of Egypt and the Soudan was far less unfavourable than at the time of the French collapse. So far as subsequent information has been made public, it can be said that the British position has been strengthened on all fronts.
The amazing success of the heroic Greek people, reviving as it does the memory of their ancient glories, has not made the European situation more serious than it was. The successes of the Royal Air Force and the British Navy in cooperation with the Greek forces have not advanced the cause of Italy and Germany. The state of affairs in Albania,

The War-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
the disorder in Roumania, and the reluctance of Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, have not greatly aided Hitler in the creation of his new order for Europe.
While what I have said may help us to keep a truer perspective as regards immediate happenings and dangers, what I wish most of all to emphasize is that this is only the picture as it presents itself at the moment, and that no one can foretell to what proportions of danger, peril and frightfulness it may develop at any time. Like the ostrich which hides its head in the sand to escape realities, we shall completely err if for a moment we fail to recognize how appalling is the danger which threatens, not only Britain, but civilization, and be tempted thereby to relax any and every effort to put forth the utmost of our strength.
Above all else, let us remember how formidable is Germany's present military strength. There has never been anything hitherto comparable to it. Let us remember, too, that her great armies are undefeated; that they are equipped with all the machines of modem warfare; that, excepting Switzerland, all of Europe west of the Vistula, and extending from Sweden to Portugal and Spain, lie under her control. Her own resources of factory and of mine, of men and materials, have been reinforced by the material power of the nations which she has conquered; to her millions of soldiers and workmen has been added the man-power of the lands she occupies, however reluctant the men of Norway, of Holland, of Belgium, and of France may be to turn their spears against the breast of freedom. To adopt the graphic words of Mr. P. J. Philip, the Ottawa correspondent of the New York Times, who speaks from knowledge gained in the very smoke of the battle of France:
... we also know, and every man and woman making munitions, and every man in training as private and as officer should remember every morning, that that terrific force of men and machines which broke the French and Belgian armies last May, and sent us scurrying home from Dunkirk is still intact, possibly stronger than ever, and it is that force which we are fighting now almost alone. It is going to take all, that all of us can give, to beat it.
Upon the forces of Britain has been placed the greatest task in the history of the world. She has to watch and fight, she has to fight in the British isles and in the seas that surround them, she has to fight in the Mediterranean, in the middle east, in Africa; she has to watch the far east, in Hong Kong, in Singapore; she has to keep India constantly in mind. Anywhere, at any time, she may find it necessary to send ships and men to
meet a new threat to her lines of communication and supply, or to face fresh horrors in some distant quarter of the globe.
This bare recital of facts proves, of course, that the situation is serious, but certainly not more serious than it has been during the last three months. The only difference is that people themselves in all parts of the world are beginning to realize more of the truth. The situation is bound to become increasingly serious as warfare spreads to new seas and shores and as mutual destruction continues, as it most certainly will, with ever-increasing fury. It is wholly probable that we shall witness much of anarchy as well as of war ere the death-grapple between totalitarianism and democracy has told its tale.
No one can say that the world, even now, may not be heading for Armageddon. The one thing that, under the providence of God, may save the world this supreme tragedy is the might of Britain, strengthened, supported and sustained by the power of the British dominions and India, the help of the United States, and such aid as it may yet be within the power of other liberty-loving peoples to give. To use words I have just quoted: In order to overthrow the enemy and to save mankind "it is going to take all, that all of us can give."


Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we have all listened with the greatest of interest to the recital which has just been made to the house and country by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). When on Thursday last I ventured to suggest to him that we should have a report from the government as to the war situation, I had in mind, as I indicated, the seriousness of the reports that were coming to us, and I also had in mind the fact that he as the Prime Minister of Canada, being in intimate communication with the mother country, would of course have information which he might deem to be available to the public of Canada in order to give us a true picture of what the situation was. That was the primary idea I had in mind. I asked the Prime Minister to divulge information to the house and the country.
To-day the right hon. gentleman has made a long statement, with most of which I may say we were already familiar through press reports. He has not given us anything of a confidential character-and it may be that he is not able to do so. I make no complaint on that score. Nor do I make any complaint as to the manner of his presentation of the report. He rather scolded me; but I must say what he said on that score left me cold, and I am not going to discuss that phase.
550	COMMONS
The War-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
What did I say on Thursday last? I said, as the Prime Minister has quoted:
In my view, in the view of many hon. members of this house, and I feel quite certain in the view of many people in Canada, the war situation in Europe is more serious to-day than at any time since the fall of France.
I then indicated what I have already suggested, namely, that he should give to the house and country such information as was available to him, and which he felt he might with safety reveal to the Canadian people. I went further and said that having regard to the premises which I had laid down I should like him to outline what, if anything more, Canada could do at this juncture toward aiding and assisting the mother country in her war effort, whether it be in the nature of men, materials, supplies or equipment. There has been absolutely no answer to that inquiry.
What was the attitude of the Prime Minister on Thursday last, as contrasted with his position to-day? To-day he told us in emphatic terms that he does not agree with the premises which I then laid down. Well, what did he say on Thursday? Speaking without any notes, and speaking evidently the truth as he then saw it, and expressing the views which were then in his mind, he said:
I would say to my hon. friend that I have had in mind making a statement to the house before adjournment with respect to the situation.
The Prime Minister was of course referring to the war situation. He continued:
I should like to have a little time to think over what it would be best to say. I agree with my hon. friend in his view that the situation is a serious one.
He concurred in that view. He concurred in my statement that the situation was more serious than at any time it had been since the fall of France. Then he continued:
I think anyone reading the press would gather that opinion. I would also say that such information as the government itself is receiving the press would appear to be reflecting accurately.
I suggest, with all due humility, that the two points of view do not agree.



RADIO BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. KARL K. HOMUTH (Waterloo South):	Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask
the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) if he has anything further to report as to the attitude of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation with regard to Transradio news? Have they come to any definite decision?
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: My understanding is that at
its last meeting the board appointed a special committee to make further investigations and to deal with the matter. Certain official information came to the attention of the board while it was in session which seemed to require special consideration, and it was decided that a committee should deal with the situation.



TRADE AGREEMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Burpee Hanson: May I ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) if he will table the bacon agreements at once? On November 14, as reported on page 101 of Hansard, I asked the minister if these agreements would be available and he said that they would be tabled as soon as they were in shape. On November 27, thirteen days afterwards, I addressed a question to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture asking when this year's and last year's agreements would be tabled. The Minister of Justice promised to convey my request to his colleague, but these agreements have not yet been tabled.


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: 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.



WAR MATERIALS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. NICHOLSON (Mackenzie):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Munitions and Supply. The Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of November 28 carries an Ottawa dispatch to the effect that the government is considering establishing a six million dollar chemical plant at Blad-worth, Saskatchewan. Has the minister any statement to make in connection with this report?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I said in the house a few days ago that I knew nothing about this project. I received a notice of my hon. friend's question a few minutes before I

War Budget-Mr. Ilsley
came into the house, and I telephoned to two or three of my officers, but they knew nothing about it. I am afraid I cannot give my hon. friend any information.



WAR BUDGET


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved:: That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I wish this afternoon to propose certain measures having for their purpose the conservation of foreign exchange for the purchase of essential war-time imports.
The house will remember that in the last budget a careful review of our foreign exchange position was given and certain measures were recommended for the purpose of increasing our receipts of foreign exchange and cutting down our use of it for non-essential purposes. At that time it was indicated that certain other measures would have to be adopted as and when circumstances seemed to make them necessary. Some further action has already been taken but the time has now come when other substantial measures are required. In order to enable the house to appreciate their necessity, it will be desirable for me to run briefly over our foreign exchange policies since the war began and to indicate the position at which we have now arrived.
First, however, let us recall the nature of the problem. Foreign exchange means, essentially, the money of other countries, with which we can buy goods in those other countries or make payments to people there. It is not like our own money, subject to the control of our national government. We can only obtain it by selling things to other countries, or by getting payments from them for services rendered, or by borrowing it. We cannot simply go and buy it with our own money. People in other countries cannot use Canadian money for their own internal transactions and naturally they do not want it merely to keep or to hoard-they want it only to buy things in Canada, or to make payments in Canada for services rendered to them by Canadians. Consequently, if we face a shortage of foreign exchange as a result of normal commercial and other transactions, we must bridge the gap between receipts and payments temporarily by using up our reserves of accumulated foreign exchange, for example, our bank balances in foreign countries or our gold reserves, or by selling foreign assets for foreign exchange. We can only reduce this drain
upon our reserves, this gap between receipts and payments, either by selling more to those in other countries, or by buying less from them, or by suspending payment of our obligations to them or by borrowing from them. There is no other or easier way. The individual who wants foreign exchange can go and buy it- if he wants more he pays for more-but the total amount available to other Canadians is correspondingly diminished. The country as a whole can obtain more only in the ways I have described.
Formerly, one could freely convert one kind of foreign money into another so that we could, for example, use a surplus of pounds sterling to get American dollars merely by selling the sterling exchange in New York. We used to do that before the war but it is no longer possible. We cannot to-day convert our surplus supplies of sterling into the American dollars we require. For that reason, as you will recall, a large part of our surplus sterling has been used to repatriate Canadian securities held in Britain so that Britain could get Canadian dollars, in exchange for sterling, without sacrificing too much of her precious reserves of gold and American dollars. Because we cannot convert funds from sterling into American dollars, our foreign exchange is now really divided into two fairly separate fields: sterling currencies, including sterling itself and other empire currencies-with minor exceptions-and, on the other hand, what we call "hard currency", including mainly American dollars and the other foreign currencies which in practice we have to buy with American dollars and which we can sell for American dollars. It is the "hard" currencies I mean to-day in talking about foreign exchange. They constitute the problem, and not sterling of which we have plenty from the proceeds of our exports to Britain and the empire.
Turning now to a review of our exchange policies it will be recalled that exchange control was instituted on September 16, 1939, within a week of our entry into the war. It was introduced primarily because the nature of our war-time foreign exchange difficulties- the scarcity of American dollars and the surplus of sterling-was foreseen and it was realized that control would be necessary to solve this problem. Furthermore, and of greater immediate importance, it was vitally necessary to guard against the danger of a substantial outward movement of capital from Canada. Residents of other countries have very large investments in this country, and neither in their best interest nor in ours could a large volume of such investments be allowed to be dumped on the Canadian market under war-time conditions. Even Canadians
War Budget-Mr. Ilsley

themselves might have been tempted to invest part of their funds abroad as a personal hedge against the risks of war, or to speculate on the New York market. Any substantial export of capital, whether by Canadians or others, would have had two bad effects, both very serious. First of all, it would have used up our reserves of foreign exchange, as it is necessary to buy foreign exchange in order to export capital. We needed that foreign exchange to buy war-time imports from the United States. Secondly, it would have used up Canadian savings during the war, because someone in Canada would have had to buy the securities or other assets that were sold in order to export capital. We needed all our Canadian savings to help us finance the war.
The foreign exchange control board was established to carry out the control. The success of this control owes a great deal to the efficient organization which has been built up and to the very wholehearted cooperation that has been forthcoming from businesses and individuals both in Canada and in the United States, nearly all of whom have striven to observe both the letter and the spirit of the law.
The general policy followed in exchange control, up to June last, was simple in essence, though necessarily complex in application. It involved no restriction of import or export trade, of tourist trade, of the payment of interest or dividends or other current buisness transactions as distinguished from those on capital account. On the other hand, the board refused to provide exchange for the export of capital from Canada except within certain narrowly prescribed limits, and with certain exceptions for capital that had been invested in Canada after control was established. In order to carry out this restriction of capital movements it was of course necessary to scrutinize all dealings in foreign exchange and foreign trade by Canadian residents.
The board has attempted to avoid placing direct restrictions on the Canadian assets of persons living outside Canada and has not, for example, blocked the bank accounts here of non-residents, but has continued to permit non-residents to transfer them from one to another. It has been necessary, however, to place restrictions upon transactions between residents of Canada on the one hand and non-residents on the other hand, and this has restricted the sale of Canadian securities to Canadians by non-residents.
I should like to interject here that in dealing with the problem of foreign exchange and in administering foreign exchange control, we have tried at all times to accord fair and honest treatment to the residents of friendly

countries. The paramount consideration is and must remain the effective prosecution of our war effort; and we have inevitably had to adopt certain measures which adversely affect the interests of non-residents. But we have avoided that type of measure which could be characterized as "taking it out of the foreigner". Callous disregard of the interests of friends who have trusted us would not only be bad in principle; it would be contrary to our own interests in the long run. I hope and believe that when the war is over all who have a stake in Canada, whether they are residents or non-residents, will be able to say that the war burden was fairly apportioned and that Canada is a country with which anyone might be proud to march into the new fields of development and constructive endeavour which we hope will open before us when peace returns.
At the end of April a further important step in exchange control was taken in order to place all our available liquid supplies of foreign exchange-but not such foreign assets as securities-directly under the control of the foreign exchange control board. This was done by the foreign exchange acquisition order which required residents of Canada to sell their holdings of foreign exchange to the board for payment in Canadian dollars. This included the Bank of Canada, which sold its gold and exchange to the board. Those who required a stock of exchange to carry on their normal business were permitted to retain enough for this purpose.
It was as a result of the budget in June last that the first measures were taken to restrict the use of exchange for other than capital transactions. By that time our imports from the United States had increased a great deal and the total payments made in hard currency for imports and other purposes was greater than the supply of hard currency that we were obtaining from our exports, tourist trade and sale of newly mined gold. The means adopted at that time to save exchange were the war exchange tax of 10 per cent on all imports except those from sterling countries, and the special progressive excise tax on automobiles. The war exchange tax, the principal measure, applied to all imports for which hard currency exchange was required and did not attempt to discriminate between essentials and non-essentials. The tax on automobiles applied to those produced in Canada as well as to those imported, but fell particularly upon the more expensive types which were made up much more largely of imports.
In July, shortly after the budget, a further measure was taken in the form of a decision

War Budget-Mr. Ilsley
not to sell foreign exchange to Canadians for pleasure travel abroad. We were reluctant to do this, because we naturally wish to promote as much contact as we can between Canadians and their friends in the United States. Nevertheless, at this time the flow of American tourists to Canada was seriously disturbed by the confusion attending the sudden introduction in the United States of strict regulations concerning the entry even of tourists to that country and it was also disturbed by what appear to have been malicious rumours, spread possibly by enemy agents, concerning the restrictions and inconveniences they might experience in war-time Canada. With this reduction in our receipts of foreign exchange from the tourist trade coming on top of our previous scarcity of American dollars, we felt it was necessary to ask Canadians to give up the use of foreign exchange for non-essential pleasure travel outside of Canada.
It is estimated that this measure alone will save us approximately sixty million dollars in a full year, a figure which indicates its importance.
These were the measures taken to restrict the use of foreign exchange. We have also acted on the other side, by trying to increase our supplies of foreign exchange. First, in regard to exports in general, the Department of Trade and Commerce has been persistently searching for markets in the United States and elsewhere for Canadian goods, both primary products and manufactured products. Their efforts in this field are most recently exemplified by the present trip of the trade delegation, headed by my colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) to Latin America and the West Indies. In addition, the foreign exchange control board has gone to great lengths in arranging its controls so as to facilitate export trade as much as possible.
We have also stimulated the provision of exchange by gold production. My own department as well as the Department of Mines and Resources has kept closely in touch with the gold mining industry since the beginning of the war, and has impressed upoh the industry the need of maintaining and increasing gold production. Particular provisions were made in the Excess Profits Tax Act to ensure that that tax would operate in such a way as to encourage the expansion of gold production. My predecessor in his June budget speech made a special appeal to the industry to increase its production. Finally, in July, I arranged a conference between representatives of the industry and several other ministers and myself to see that everything was being done which could be done to ensure
maximum production, including the recognition of gold mining as an essential war industry.
Finally, and probably most important, we have endeavoured to maintain and extend our tourist trade, which is a very large source of foreign exchange. The work of the Canadian travel bureau has been expanded. A much larger and I think more effective advertising campaign in the American press was carried on. Strenuous efforts were made to coordinate and assist the work of the various organizations in Canada dealing with the tourist trade. And last but far from least we obtained the enthusiastic support of a number of local organizations, which helped a good deal not only to attract tourists to Canada in the first place but to promote realization of the need to see that they enjoyed themselves when they were here. I can assure hon. members that during the next twelve months no stone will be left unturned to assure the maximum receipts of foreign exchange by the promotion and development of this important industry.
The various measures we have taken have held down the deficit between our receipts and payments of foreign exchange but they have been outweighed by the continuous pressure of war-time demands increasing our imports from the United States. During the months preceding the outbreak of war our imports from the United States were in the neighbourhood of $40 million a month. For the past six months they have averaged $65 million, and in October they reached as much as $74 million. Our exports to the United States have increased from a level of around $27 million a month preceding the outbreak of war to the neighbourhood of about $40 million a month in recent months. Consequently, we have now a very large surplus of imports over exports, though the extreme figure of $35 million in October is undoubtedly abnormal. This deficit in our trade with the United States will this year be offset only to a small extent by a surplus on current account with other hard currency countries.
Of course there are other items in our balance of payments on income account which have to be considered in addition to merchandise trade. We are producing and selling to the United States newly mined gold in an amount which will probably reach or exceed two hundred million dollars this year, and I make no excuse for laying it as a patriotic obligation upon our gold-mining industry to increase that amount next year by every means known to the able and experienced operators of that industry. Then we have a substantial net balance of receipts from the tourist trade which is more difficult to estimate. In this connection I may say that the experience of the foreign exchange control board appears to indicate that in the

War Budget-Mr. Ilsley

past our net tourist receipts have been overestimated. But even after making a substantial allowance for such' overestimate, it is now quite clear that our net credit resulting from this trade during the present year will be substantially smaller than last year. We must, and I am sure we can, do a great deal to increase it by a very substantial amount during the coming year. On the other hand we have a substantial net debit on account of interest and dividends, amounting to something more than the value of our gold production. We have also a net payment of about fifty million dollars to make for freight charges and miscellaneous services.
While the inclusion of these four additional items may alter somewhat the picture presented by the balance of trade itself, nevertheless it is clear that we have a substantial debit balance in our current account transactions with hard currency countries, which under present conditions we cannot hope to see offset, except to a small extent, by the normal credits on capital account resulting from, say, the purchase of Canadian securities by foreign investors.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has the minister made an estimate of what the deficit will be?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No. I do not feel that I should indicate that to the house or to the country.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We shall have to guess at it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Very careful consideration has been given the question of the desirability or the possibility of giving that information to the house. It would involve stating exactly what our loss per month is in foreign exchange, which it is not desirable to make public.
For a complete understanding of the problem, the current drain on our exchange should of course be considered in the light of existing resources. You will not, however, expect that I should disclose the amount of our accumulated resources of gold and foreign exchange, a piece of information which would be of obvious interest to the enemy. These resources are being used and will continue to be used to ensure that our war effort is at no point thwarted. In the opinion of the government, however, they cannot reasonably be used to facilitate the continuance of non-essential imports. Nor do we believe that we would be justified in mobilizing and liquidating the substantial volume of foreign securities which are owned by our people, until at least a serious effort has been made to restrict our consumption of such non-essential imports.

From this review of the problem as it exists to-day and as it has developed, it will, I think, be clear to all hon. members that we must immediately take further steps to curtail the use of hard currency exchange in the purchase of non-essential imports.
I wish to emphasize, however, that we have no desire or intention in the measures which we must take for war purposes, of implying any permanent change in our normal trade policies, the principles of which are well-known.
I must also point out that while we are temporarily compelled to restrict certain imports from our friendly neighbour to the south, this does not mean that our total trade with, or our total purchases from, that country will be reduced. On the contrary, our imports from the United States will certainly show a large increase next year over this year, and will be larger than ever before in our history. All that will happen will be a shift in the character of our imports-a reduction in non-essential imports for non-war purposes in order to make possible a substantial increase in our purchases of vitally needed war equipment and supplies. We regret the disruption which will necessarily occur in certain established trades across the border, but we are confident that any loss of a direct Canadian market which certain United States producers will suffer will be more than made up by an expansion in domestic purchasing power resulting from our purchases of war equipment and supplies in the United States market.
Having determined that the restriction of imports and non-essential goods is necessary, we must answer two further questions. What method shall be used for this purpose, and what imports shall be selected?
Regarding the methods to be used, the various possibilities have been the subject of study for some time. The method of tariffs or even of the type of tax which was used in the last budget was not considered appropriate for the drastic type of restriction programme which is now required. A second method is that of quota restrictions, which has been used a great deal in other countries, and notably in Europe, but by Canada scarcely at all. This method has much to be said for it when restriction must extend to essential goods and to raw materials which are to be used in industrial processes. In these cases some imports must be permitted and complete prohibition is therefore out of the question. Nevertheless, the use of quotas requires an enormous amount of administrative work and machinery, and a considerable degree of arbitrary action in awarding quotas to various importers. We considered it for a time in connection with a number of products. We

War Budget-Mr. Ilsley
have finally decided not to use it in any formal manner but to apply the principle in some degree temporarily in connection with two or three classes of imports which are processed in Canada and where some time will be needed for these processing industries to adapt themselves to other materials. We have decided after much consideration to rely for our major savings upon the method of outright prohibition of a large number of what we consider, and I think the house will consider, imports that are not essential under present circumstances. This method will not require any elaborate machinery for its administration, nor will it involve any discrimination between importers in the awarding of quotas.
The selection of the non-essential imports is by no means an easy task in a country such as Canada which imports so many thousands of things. Our whole economic structure is dependent on the use of imports in nearly all its parts. Therefore it has been necessary to study very carefully the probable economic and social effects of curtailing the imports of the various articles which might be judged non-essential at first glance. In making up the list of goods to be restricted, the following principles have been borne in mind:
The articles prohibited should be such as consumers can legitimately be expected to do without in war time or for which their requirements can probably be met from the durable goods which they already have on hand.
The list should include finished goods rather than raw materials or parts or equipment for Canadian industries so that disturbance to Canadian industry and to those employed in it will be kept to a minimum.
Wherever possible, goods used by the well-to-do rather than those used by the mass of the public should be restricted.
The items should be such as to require a minimum of administrative machinery and action in order to carry out the restriction.
These principles have been followed in making up the list of imports to be dealt with. I may add that the task of compiling the list has been made somewhat easier by the fact that many of our imports of consumers' finished goods represent not essential supplies of the particular items but rather additional, and in many cases, superfluous varieties.
When we are in committee of ways and means I shall move two resolutions. The first of these resolutions precedes the introduction of a bill which will be entitled "The War Exchange Conservation Act." Appended to the resolution will be found two schedules,
the first of which is a list of items, based on the tariff classification, the importation of which from all countries, except countries in the sterling area and Newfoundland, are to be subject to restriction. In respect of the items listed in part one of this schedule, no permits will be granted for their importation from hard currency countries. These are the really non-esential items and consist for the most part of finished gods. Part II of this first schedule comprises goods for which permits to import from hard currency countries will be granted temporarily but on a decreasing scale. This list includes, as I shall point out in a moment, several classes of materials which are used by Canadian industries. It is hoped that eventually the industries using these materials can change over to the use either of domestic materials or of other and cheaper imported materials, but it will take time for our industries to accomplish this adjustment, and in the meantime, therefore, imports will be granted but only for normal requirements. It is proposed to restrict the granting of permits only if the possibility of using other materials or materials from other sources has been fully explored.
There has been, perhaps inevitably, a good deal of speculation in recent weeks and months about the measures the government would find itself compelled to take to relieve the growing strain on the Canadian dollar exchange position. These speculations have led to a number of ill-advised and inaccurate forecasts.
I realize, sir, that there will be widespread surprise over the virtual omission of fresh fruits and vegetables from the list of prohibited imports which I am going to table. I realize, too, the difficulties which our fruit and vegetable growers have been encountering during the present year. My own environment, all my life, has been such that I understand and appreciate the problems of the fruit growers. But I should point out to the fruit and vegetable growers, and to members and others interested in helping them, that the measures to be introduced to-day are not for the purpose of assisting any producers, or any industry. They are not designed or intended to protect industry but to protect our exchange position, an entirely different thing.
The government has examined very carefully the possibilities of conserving foreign exchange by restricting imports without undue dislocation of the domestic economy and without jeopardizing the export markets in which we earn the foreign exchange required for the financing of a large part of the national war effort. I may admit frankly that we had
War Budget-Mr. IIsley

been, weighing the advantages and disadvantages of including a number of fresh fruits and vegetables in the schedule to the resolution. It was recognized that cheap and abundant supplies of fresh fruits and vegetables have become an increasingly important element in the nation's diet, not only in the months when local supplies are freely available but pretty nearly all the year round. For a considerable part of our off-season requirements, many parts of Canada are dependent on imports from the United States. There are undoubtedly among these imports of fresh fruits and vegetables a certain proportion which can only be regarded as luxuries and a larger proportion which, while not a luxury trade in the strict sense of the term, represents supplies which under war conditions we could, if need be, do without. At the same time we had to remember our imports of fresh fruits and vegetables represent a very important export market for United States agricultural products and therefore an offset and protection to the even larger export outlets which our agricultural products enjoy in the United States.
I freely admit that, from the standpoint of exchange alone, the position of the government in respect of fruits and vegetables was difficult. While we had to weigh on the one hand the exchange that would be saved by the restriction of their importation, we had to weigh on the other hand the inevitable public reaction which there would be in many of the agricultural districts of the United States, the embarrassment this reaction would cause to a friendly and helpful government which has its own problems of agricultural surpluses, and the danger which would ensue not only to our own trade relations with the United States, not only to the market which our trade agreement with that country gives to so many of our primary producers, but to the whole trade agreement policy of the United States, a policy which affects the people of all nations and with which this government has consistently cooperated.
This aspect of the fruit and vegetable question was, I may say, forcefully brought home to us last week by the consequences of the publication of the Canadian Fruit Wholesalers' Association's circular communication to its members. On its publication, the United States government felt compelled to point out that prohibition of the importation of fresh fruits and vegetables would gravely prejudice the position of the Canada-United States trade agreement, and, under it, the tariff concessions assured to certain Canadian agricultural exports. These representations, coupled with the considerations of consumer interest which 
had made us hesitate about recommending the prohibition of the importation of fresh fruits and vegetables, have resulted in the decision to exclude fresh fruits and vegetables from the schedule which is to be placed before the house. With a deep sense of responsibility we weighed the one set of considerations against the other, with the result that I have announced.
The list of articles which are included in part 1 of the first schedule and the importation of which will be prohibited may be summarized as follows:
Prepared cereal foods; florist stock and cut flowers; processed and canned fruits and vegetables (but not currants, raisins, dates, apricots, or grapefruit juice); preserved fish, oysters and crab; manufactured tobacco; spirits and wines; certain classes of fiction magazines and comics; consumers' paper items; perfumes, etc.; china and glass; silverware; electrical household appliances, stoves, etc; bathroom fittings; automobiles; sporting goods and fishing tackle; cameras; furniture of wood or metal; radios, phonographs; musical instruments; luggage; all finished clothing or wearing apparel; silk fabrics; ornaments; jewellery and precious stones; toys and dolls; and various miscellaneous articles.
I should like to add, immediately, that any of these articles which are the personal property of non-resident visitors to Canada may be brought into Canada by such tourists for their use here, in the same way that such things have always been admitted by our customs regulations in the past.
The second list of articles for which permits will be issued but only in restricted amounts (that is to say, the articles listed in part II of the first schedule) comprises five major categories. These include, first, unmanufactured tobacco; second, automobiles and motor vehicles other than passenger automobiles; third, hardwoods and veneers, and plywood; fourth, raw silk and various partially manufactured forms of natural silk, but not artificial silk or similar synthetic fibres; fifth, all petroleum products.
Let me emphasize again that it is the intention in regard to this second list of commodities gradually to reduce the amount of imports that will be permitted, and it is expected that the Canadian industries using the raw and semi-finished materials on this list will gradually have to adapt themselves to the use of domestic materials or materials from other sources. In the case of tobacco it is expected that the industry will be able to substitute domestic tobacco for the imported types heretofore used. The excise division of the Department of National Revenue will assist in the administration of

War Budget-Mr. Ilsley
this restriction of tobacco imports and the adaptation of the industry to the new conditions.
In the case of hardwoods and veneers it is expected that the furniture industry, with the assistance of the timber controller, will be able to replace a substantial part of their imported hardwoods with domestic woods.
In the case of silk we are dealing with a very important textile import, and with a quite substantial finishing industry in Canada. When the imports of silk materials have been brought under control, it will be possible to determine the extent to which the silk industry can switch over to the use of artificial silk in place of natural silk.
With regard to petroleum products the whole matter is much more complicated, but I understand that the oil controller is making plans to ensure that all our petroleum requirements will be imported in the most economical form possible, and plans are going forward to ensure that this will be done without burden to consumers or without discrimination against those distributors who are now using imported gasoline. Permits for the importation of gasoline will be restricted only after equitable arrangements have been made by the oil controller for the supplying of these distributors. Through the control placed in its hands by this legislation, the government will endeavour to satisfy the nation's gasoline and oil requirements for the smallest possible amount of foreign exchange.
The prohibition or restriction of imports will in many cases result in a greater demand for domestic products. We desire, however, to prevent this greater demand from resulting either in an expansion of the domestic industry concerned or in enhanced prices and profits for domestic manufacturers. Whatever element of protection there may be in these import restrictions is accidental and temporary. They are intended to reduce the consumption of imported goods and not to increase the consumption of domestic goods. Let me repeat the warning given by my predecessor in connection with the war exchange tax, that action now taken is peculiarly an emergency measure whose operation will end with the war, and no vested interest in it will be recognized.
In order to ensure that advantage is not taken of these restrictions in order to raise prices of Canadian produced goods, there is to be included a provision in the bill to enable the government to suspend these restrictions, and any duties, upon imports of any commodity in respect of which it is found that domestic producers are raising or maintaining prices unjustifiably behind the
protection of this measure, and to enable the government to invoke direct penalties by way of special tax levies on such profiteers.


Mr. MacNICOL:: That applies to the whole industry. How would you take care of one individual who enhanced prices?


James Lorimer Ilsley: By the penalty of an excise tax. If the hon. gentleman had followed my last words he would note that I said:
. . . and to enable the government to invoke direct penalties by way of special tax levies on such profiteers.
In the case of a number of the goods whose import is to be restricted, it is particularly desired that domestic protection shall not expand to fill the demand created by the restriction of imports. This group includes the mechanical type of consumers' durable goods.	The experienced labour, the steel
and certain other materials used in making these products are required for war industries, or will be very shortly. Furthermore, a eud-stantial amount of parts or materials required in producing them are imported. It might, of course, be possible to limit the production of these goods in Canada by direct regulation of the industry. If this were attempted in the face of rising demand, it would, however, involve either higher prices and profits, or else the rationing of these durable goods, which would be exceedingly difficult because individual demands are so irregular. Consequently, we have decided to impose new or increased excise taxes on this type of article. A detailed list of the articles so affected is contained in the schedule appended to the second resolution which I am going to move and which precedes the introduction of a bill to amend the Special War Revenue Act.
I will summarize this list briefly. The excise tax on automobiles will be raised and
the new rates will be as follows:
On the value (i.e. manufacturer's
price) up to $900	 20 per cent
On the excess over $900 and up
to $1,200	 40 per cent
On the excess over $1,200	 80 per cent


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is in lieu of the present rates?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, in lieu of the present rates.
An excise tax of 25 per cent of the manufacturer's price is also proposed on the following items: radios and radio tubes, phonographs, cameras, slot and vending machines; electric or gas stoves, refrigerators, water heaters, light fixtures and lamps; and the
War Budget-Mr. Ilsley

following electrical appliances:	washing
machines, vacuum cleaners, toasters, grills, etc., irons and ironers, coffee makers, curlers, razors and several minor items.
The rates of these taxes are not so heavy that they should curtail production beyond the degree that is and will be required by the labour and material requirements of the Department of Munitions and Supply. In this connection, I should remind the house that a tax of twenty-five per cent on manufacturer's value will amount to a considerably smaller proportion of the retail value of these commodities, as distributors' margins must be taken into account. The demand for nearly all these types of durable consumers' goods, automobiles perhaps excepted, is higher because of higher wartime incomes. Most of the companies producing these articles are already engaged in the production of war supplies and the others will now be enabled to devote part of their facilities and labour force to war work.
I come now to the last of the measures concerning imports, and one which I believe will be much more welcome than the others. It is a measure by which we will be able to assist Britain in a direct and substantial way. The house is probably aware that Britain has been trying to increase its exports particularly to North and South America in order that it may be able to exchange these exports for products from this continent which it requires. British producers have faced special obstacles in export markets in war time because of the higher costs of production consequent upon air raid dangers and other conditions in Britain and also because of the greatly increased shipping freights and insurance costs. From our own point of view, there would be advantages in increasing our imports from Britain at this time, quite apart from the natural desire we have to help Britain in every way possible. We have plenty of sterling exchange to pay for such imports. In so far as we increase our imports we can spare more labour and more money to assist Britain in obtaining Canadian products.
Under these circumstances the government has come to the conclusion that we should wherever possible remove or reduce the tariffs 'mpeding the entry of British goods into Canada. Therefore, we are proposing that all customs duties shall be removed on
FMr. Ilsley.]
imports from the United Kingdom of the following list of goods specified in schedule 2 of the first resolution which I shall move:
All cotton items (except those at present free under the British preference).
All artificial silk items (except those at present free under the British preference).
Bituminous coal.
Jellies, jams and marmalades.
Furniture of all kinds.
Gloves and mitts of all kinds, and a number of miscellaneous items.
In addition, this schedule includes a list of imports from the United Kingdom on which the existing duties will be reduced. In this list will be found such items as medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations, soap, earthenware tiles, stoneware and earthenware, table cutlery, bicycles, electric generators, transformers and motors, rugs and carpets, oilcloth and linoleum.
In case some domestic producers should be alarmed at this action, let me remind them once more of the increased costs * facing British exporters to Canada. Most of our industries concerned have enjoyed very greatly increased demand because of war conditions and are quite able, I believe, to stand during war time whatever additional competition may be involved as a result of this measure. I might also point out that the goods affected by this action are more in the nature of necessaries than most of the other products with which we are proposing to deal, and the effect of our action in this case should be to increase the supplies available with resulting benefit to the consumer. At the same time our expenditure of hard currency on these classes of goods should be reduced by this action.
There is one other measure included in the. proposed legislation which is intended to increase our supplies of foreign exchange rather than to decrease our use of it. I have already referred to the emphasis we have placed and will continue to place on the expansion of export and tourist trade as a means of alleviating our exchange problem. The purpose of the new proposal is to enable the government to take advantage of any special opportunities that may arise to facilitate the expansion of exports that would not otherwise take place. It is extremely difficult to deal in general with the cases we have in mind by legislation, since each case is likely to involve special circumstances and to arise at fairly short notice. We must be prepared and empowered to seize whatever chances of increased trade present themselves. Therefore, the measure proposed is essentially an enabling measure to permit the government on

War Budget-Mr. Ilsley
the recommendation of the Minister of Finance, to enter into agreements with individuals or corporations in order to assist them in developing new or expanded export trade that could not otherwise be attained.
The methods to be followed will have to depend to a large extent on the circumstances of each case. We are not requesting the power to subsidize exports. Such subsidies would be useless anyway for increasing exports to the United States, because subsidized goods are subject to special countervailing duties. After due consideration it has 'been decided that the safest and yet most efficient and economical way to give such assistance will be by arrangements for special allowances for depreciation or depletion of capital assets under our tax laws, such as we are already giving to war industries. As in the case of war industries there are special risks attached to the investment of capital in certain export industries under war-time conditions, and they fully justify, from the viewpoint of the national interest, the more rapid amortization of these investments. Of course, once the assets are fully depreciated, we will gain in our tax revenues by that fact if the assets are still in use. In the instances which cannot be handled in this manner, we request the power to safeguard the potential exporter by the use of credits against future taxes such as was used in the tax credit plan for stimulating private capital expenditures which was introduced in the last peace-time budget. Great care will have to be taken in the use of these powers because we must avoid giving any sort of special assistance or indirect subsidy to our normal export trade, or to export trade which is able to develop without assistance.
While it is difficult to make any precise estimate of the amount of foreign exchange which the conservation measures forecast by these resolutions will save, it appears probable that on the basis of current trade the savings will amount to from $5,000,000 to $6,000,000 a month. It is still more difficult to estimate the receipts from the taxes proposed and I shall not even venture a figure.
The measures we are taking are measures for the conservation of exchange but they have more than a monetary significance. By denying ourselves a wide range of imports and by these reductions and removals of duties on British goods, we once more say to Britain and to the world that we are with her and that we have faith in her ultimate success.
What we have done since the outbreak of war leaves no doubt as to our attitude and our determination. We entered the war as a
united nation by the free and virtually unanimous vote of this parliament and we have gone far in the training and arming of a peace-loving population and the speedy and efficient reorganization of our industry for war.
Conscious as we are of our responsibilities as part of the western hemisphere, we say to mankind that we are prepared to go to the very limits of our power and capacity in aid of the people of that island in the North Sea whose heroism has stirred the hearts of all lovers of liberty, that her cause is our cause, that her reverses serve but to rouse our fighting spirit, and that her final victory, whether it be soon or long deferred, will be a victory in which we, the people of Canada, will have a share.



RESOLUTION S

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Speaker, I wish to give notice that when we are in committee of ways and means I shall move the following resolutions:

[Stage Direction]
Resolved, That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Special War Revenue Act and to provide-
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.
(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
(c)	by adding to the said schedule as paragraph 6 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
(e) The following electrical appliances adapted to household use:
Food choppers and grinders; irons and ironers; washing machines; garbage disposal units; floor waxers and polishers.. 25 per cent
War Budget-Mr. Ilsley
[Stage Direction]
(d)	The following electrical appliances: Vacuum cleaners and 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 (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
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.

[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 a.nd 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.
_ 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.
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 Kong) and such other territories whether or not under the sovereignty, protection, suzerainty or mandate of His Majesty as may be designated by the governor in council) *
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 gods, 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 all 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.
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 be exempt from the rates of duty set out in 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.
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.
7.	That any enactment founded on these resolutions shall be deemed to have come into force on the second day of December, 1940, and to expire on the date of the issue of a proclamation under the War Measures Act declaring that a state of war no longer exists or on such earlier date as may be fixed in a proclamation of the governor in council.

rariff
[tem
umber
21
23
ex 45
65
67
79
79a
79b
82 (<
82 (i
89
ex 99b
99f
ex 99g
ex 101

War Budget-Mr. Ilsley

[Stage Direction]
Description
[Stage Direction]
Cocoa paste or "liquor" and chocolate paste or "liquor", not sweetened, in blocks or cakes.
Cocoa paste or "liquor" and chocolate paste or "liquor", sweetened, in blocks or cakes, not less than two pounds in weight.
Preparations of cocoa or chocolate in powder form.
Preparations of cocoa or chocolate, n.o.p., and confectionery, coated with or containing chocolate.
Prepared cereal foods, in packages not exceeding twenty-five pounds weight each.
Prepared cereal foods, n.o.p.
Biscuits, not sweetened.
Biscuits, sweetened.
Macaroni and vermicelli, containing no egg or other added ingredients.
Florist stock, viz.:-Palms, ferns, rubber plants (Ficus), gladiolus, cannas, dahlias and paeonias.
Florist stock, viz.:-Azaleas, rhododendrons, pot-grown lilacs; hydrangeas and other pot-grown plants, n.o.p.; rose stock and other stock for grafting or budding, n.o.p.; seedling carnation stock, araucarias, bulbs, corms, tubers, rhizomes and dormant roots, n.o.p.; Dwarf Polyantha rose bushes imported or purchased in bond in Canada by florists for bona fide forcing purposes in their own greenhouses prior to disposal; laurel and holly foliage, natural or preserved, whether in designs or bouquets or not.
Rooted carnation cuttings in their first year of introduction.
Flowers and foliage, natural, cut, whether in designs or bouquets or not, n.o.p.
Rosebushes, n.o.p.
Trees, shrubs, vines, plants, roots and cuttings, commonly known as florist or nursery stock, n.o.p.
Mushrooms and truffles, fresh, dried or otherwise preserved.
Vegetables, prepared, in air-tight cans or other air-tight containers:
(a)	Beans, baked or otherwise prepared.
(b)	Corn and tomatoes.
(c)	Peas.
(d)	N.o.p.
Vegetables, prepared or preserved:
(a)	Dried, desiccated or dehydrated, including vegetable flour, n.o.p.
(b)	Pickled or preserved in salt, brine, oil or in any other manner, n.o.p.
(c)	Vegetable extracts or juices, liquid mustards, soy and vegetable sauces of all kinds.
(d)	Pastes, hash and all similar products composed of vegetables and meat or fish, or both, n.o.p.
Apples, dried, desiccated, evaporated or dehydrated.
Figs, dried.
Nectarines, pears and peaches, dried, desiccated, evaporated or dehydrated.
Mandarins and tangerines.
Limes.
War Budget-Mr. Ilsley
[Stage Direction]
Tariff
Item
Number
Description
104
| Fruits preserved in brandy, or preserved in other spirits.
104a
105 105a 105b 105c 105d 105e
Fruit pulp, other than grape pulp, not sweetened, in air-tight cans or other air-tight packages. Fruit pulp, with sugar or not, n.o.p., and fruits, crushed or frozen.
Lemon, orange, grapefruit and citron rinds, sulphured or in brine.
Olives and cherries, sulphured or in brine, not bottled.
Fruits and nuts, pickled or preserved in salt, brine, oil or any other manner, n.o.p.
Jellies, jams, marmalades, preserves, fruit butters and condensed mince meats.
Fruits and peels, crystallized, glace, candied or drained; cherries and other fruits of creme de menthe, maraschino or other flavour.
Fruits, prepared, in air-tight cans or other air-tight containers:-
(a)	Apricots, peaches and pears.
(b)	Pineapples.
(c)	N.o.p.
ex
108 109 114 121
123 123a
125
127
128 141
143 143a
145
147 147a
151
153
Preserved ginger.	.
Honey in the comb or otherwise, and imitations thereof.
Nuts of all kinds, n.o.p., including shelled peanuts, n.o.p.
Nuts, shelled, n.o.p.
Fish preserved in oil, n.o.p.
Salmon and all other fish, prepared or preserved, including oysters, n.o.p.
Crabs, clams or shrimps in sealed containers.
Oysters, shelled, in bulk.
Oysters, shelled, in cans.
Oysters in the shell.
Sugar candy and confectionery, n.o.p., including sweetened gums, candied pop-corn, candied nuts, flavouring powders, custard powders, jelly powders, sweetmeats, sweetened breads, cakes, pies, puddings and all other confections containing sugar.
Cigars.
Cigarettes.
Cut tobacco.
Manufactured tobacco, n.o.p., and snuS.
Ale, beer, porter and stout, when imported in casks or otherwise than in bottle.
Ale, beer, porter and stout, when imported in bottles.
Beverages in the manufacture of which malt, rice or corn is used, when containing not more than two and one-half per centum of proof spirit.
Lime juice and fruit juices, fortified with or containing not more than twenty-five per cent of proof spirits.
Lime juice and fruit juices, fortified with or containing more than twenty-five per cent of proof spirits.
Lime juice, fruit syrups and fruit juices, n.o.p., (but not including grapefruit juice)
Lime juice, raw and concentrated, not refined.
[Mr. Ilslev.l

War Budget-Mr. Ilsley
Tariff
Item
Number
Description
ex 156
Gin of all kinds, n.o.p.; whisky and all spirituous or alcoholic liquors, n.o.p.; absinthe, arrack or palm spirit, brandy, including artificial brandy and imitations of brandy, n.o.p.; cordials and liqueurs of all kinds, n.o.p.; mescal, pulque, rum shrub, schiedam and other schnapps; tafia, angostura and similar alcoholic bitters or beverages; and wines, n.o.p., containing more than forty per cent of proof spirit.
156a
Rum.
Alcoholic perfumes and perfumed spirits, bay rum, cologne and lavender waters, lotions, hair, tooth and skin washes, and other toilet preparations containing spirits of any kind:-
(a)	When in bottles or flasks containing not more than four ounces each.
(b)	When in bottles, flasks or other packages, containing more than four ounces each.
ex 162 163
181a
ex	184d I
ex	169
ex	170
ex	171 ,
	194
	195
ex	197
ex	197b
ex	198
ex	199
ex	181
ex	509
233
284
287
288 289
326 (ii)
ex 353 \ ex 353a/
Vermouth.
Wines of ah kinds, n.o.p., including orange, lemon, strawberry, raspberry, elder and currant wines, containing twenty-six per cent or less of proof spirit, whether imported in wood or in bottles.
Champagne and all other sparkling wines.
Pictorial post cards, greeting cards and similar artistic cards or folders.
Periodical publications, unbound or paper bound, consisting largely of fiction or printed matter of a similar character, including detective, sex, western, and alleged true or confession stories, and publications, unbound or paper bound, commonly known as comics, but not including bona fide supplements used with newspapers.
Provided, that the decision of the Minister of National Revenue as to whether or not any publication is included in the foregoing description shall be final and conclusive.
Playing cards in packs or in sheet form, n.o.p.; cards and sheets partly lithographed or printed, for use in the manufacture of such playing caras.
Paper hanging or wall papers, including borders or bordering.
Towels, napkins, table covers, tray covers and doilies, of paper; fancy shelf and lace papers; paper handkerchiefs; facial tissues and toilet paper, not including such materials in jumbo rolls; cups, dishes or plates; forks, spoons and drinking straws, made of paper, cardboard, or of vegetable fibres; paper envelopes; correspondence and printed letterhead papers, not including plain unprinted typewriter or copying papers; creped tissue paper and manufactures thereof; wrapping paper, including box covering paper and wrappers, printed, embossed or otherwise decorated; Christmas seals, stickers, tags and enclosure cards, printed, embossed or otherwise decorated; card and other games, score reckoners, score pads, tallies and place cards, of paper or cardboard; festivity, carnival and celebration supplies and decorations of paper or cardboard, including costumes, hats, caps, headbands, masks, horns, serpentines and confetti.
Soap powders, powdered soap, mineral soap, and soap, n.o.p.
Pomades, French or flower odours, preserved in fat or oil for the purpose of conserving the odours of flowers which do not bear the heat of distillation, when imported in tins of not less than ten pounds each.
Perfumery, including toilet preparations, non-alcoholic, viz., hair oils, tooth and other powders and washes, pomatums, pastes and all other perfumed preparations, n.o.p., used for the hair, mouth or skin.
Drain pipes, sewer pipes and earthenware fittings therefor, chimney linings or vents, chimney tops and inverted blocks, glazed or unglazed, n.o.p.; earthenware tiles, n.o.p.
Tiles or blocks of earthenware or of stone prepared for mosaic flooring.
All tableware of china, porcelain, semi-porcelain, or white granite, but not to include teapots, jugs and similar articles of the type commonly known as earthenware.
Stoneware and Rockingham ware and earthenware, n.o.p.
Baths, bathtubs, basins, closets, closet seats and covers, closet tanks, lavatories, urinals, sinks and laundry tubs of earthenware, stone, cement, clay or other material, n.o.p.
Silvered glass, bevelled or not and framed or not, n.o.p.
Opal glassware, glass tablew are, cut glassware and illuminating glassware, n.o.p.
Aluminum foil, including aluminum laminated oi combined with paper or paperboard.
War Budget-Mr. Ilsley
[Stage Direction]
Tariff
Item
Number
362b
ex 415 415a
ex 415b 425 429
ex 438a
ex 438g 439
ex 439b ex 440a 440j
ex 443
444b ex 445
ex 445d ex 445j 450 451e ex 462 465
508
Description
Articles consisting wholly or in part of sterling or other silverware, n.o.p.; manufactures of gold or silver, n.o.p.
Toilet articles of all kinds, including atomizers, brushes, buffers, button hooks, combs, cuticle knives, hair receivers, hand-mirrors, jewel boxes, manicure scissors, nail files perfume bottles, puff jars, shoe horns, trays and tweezers, of which the manufactured component material of chief value is sterling silver.
Electric vacuum cleaners and attachments therefor.
Refrigerators, domestic or store, completely equipped or not:-
(i)	Electric.
(ii)	Other than electric.
Electric washing machines, domestic, with or without motive power incorporated therein.
Lawn mowers.
Cutlery of iron or steel, plated or not:-
(c)	Penknives, jack-knives and pocket knives of all kinds.
(g) Razor blades; razors and complete parts thereof.
Baths, bathtubs, basins, closets, lavatories, urinals, sinks, and laundry tubs of iron or steel, coated or not.
Automobiles adapted or adaptable for passenger use, with seating capacity for not more than ten persons each.
Motor cycles or side cars therefor.
Bicycles and tricycles, n.o.p.
Trailers designed for use with passenger automobiles.
Pleasure boats of all kinds including sail boats, skiffs, row-boats, canoes and launches.
Trawls, trawling spoons, fly hooks, sinkers, swivels, sportsmen's fishing reels, bait, hooks, and fishing tackle, n.o.p.
Apparatus designated for cooking or for heating buildings, (but not including parts):
(1)	For coal or wood.
(2)	For gas.
(3)	For electricity.
(4)	For oil.
(5)	N.o.p.
Lamp shades, n.o.p., and shade holders.
Electric light fixtures and appliances, n.o.p., (but not to include such fixtures and appliances specially designed for industrial purposes).
Radio receiving sets and cabinets and chassis therefor.
Electric dry shaving machines for use in removing human hair.
Skates of all kinds, roller or other, and parts thereof.
Slide, hookless, or zipper fasteners.
Cameras.
Signs of any material other than paper, framed or not; letters and numerals of any material other than paper.
Bird, squirrel and rat cages, of wire, and metal parts thereof.
Mouldings of wood, plain, gilded or otherwise further manufactured.
Walking sticks and walking canes, of all kinds; golf clubs and finished parts thereof; skis; racquets and racquet frames and baseball bats; balls of all kinds for use in sports, games or athletics, n.o.p.
[Stage Direction]
	War Budget-Mr. Ilsley
Tariff Item Number	Description
511b	Fishing rods.
512	Picture frames and photograph frames, of any material.
514	Coffins and caskets, and metal parts thereof.
515	Show-cases, of all kinds, and metal parts thereof.
518	Billiard tables, with or without pockets, and bagatelle and other game tables or boards, cues, balls, cue-racks and cue-tips.
519	House, office, cabinet or store furniture of wood, iron or other material, and parts thereof, not to include forgings, castings, and stampings of metal, in the rough.
ex 532	Clothing and wearing apparel, wholly or partially manufactured, composed wholly of cotton, n.o.p.
ex 5321 ex 548 [* ex 555J	Articles made from woven fabrics and textile manufactures, wholly or partially manufactured, composed wholly or in part of cotton, flax, wool or other textile fibres (except silk and artificial silk or other synthetic fibres), as specified, namely: sheets, blankets, quilts, counterpanes, bedspreads, comforters and other bed coverings; hassocks, pillows, cushions, including pin-cushions filled or not, pillow-cases, cushion covers and similar articles; tablecloths, napkins, tray cloths, dresser scarves, doilies and similar articles; diapers; towels, wash cloths, bath mats, bathroom mats, seat covers, curtains, drapes, window runners, decorative panels and similar articles; automobile rugs, steamer rugs and similar rugs or coverings; canopies, awnings and tents; removable coverings for automobile and furniture upholstery; textile manufactures composed in part of embroideries or lace.
532a \ ex 548 /	Handkerchiefs of cotton, flax or other vegetable fibres.
ex 548	Clothing and wearing apparel, wholly or partially manufactured, composed wholly or in part of vegetable fibres but not containing wool, n.o.p.
ex 555	Clothing and wearing apparel, wholly or partially manufactured, composed wholly or in part of wool or similar animal fibres, but of which the component of chief value is not silk nor artificial silk, n.o.p.
560	Woven fabrics wholly or in chief part by weight of silk in the gum, not degummed nor bleached, not less than twenty inches in width, weighing not more than seven pounds for each hundred yards thereof, imported for the purpose of being degummed, dyed and finished in Canada.
560a	Woven fabrics wholly or in part of silk, not to contain wool, not including fabrics in chief part by weight of artificial silk, n.o.p.
560b	Woven fabrics, wholly of silk, twenty-six inches in width, or less, n.o.p.
560d	Woven fabrics with cut pile, generally known as velvets and plushes, with pile wholly of silk or artificial silk, but not containing wool, exceeding twenty-four inches in width.
560e	Woven fabrics with cut pile, generally known as velvets and plushes, with pile wholly of silk or artificial silk, but not containing wool, twenty-four inches in width or less, n.o.p.
562	Woven fabrics not exceeding twelve inches in width generally known as "ribbons", whether with cut pile or not, wholly or in part of silk but not containing wool.
564	Woven fabrics, of a kind not made in Canada, wholly, or in chief part, by weight, of silk or artificial silk, or both, imported in the web in lengths of not less than five yards each by manufacturers of neckties, scarves, or mufflers, for use exclusively in the manufacture of such articles in their own factories.
565	Embroideries, lace, braids, cords, chenille, gimp, fringes and tassels, whether containing tinsel or not, nets, nettings, and bobinet, n.o.p.
567	Clothing, wearing apparel and articles, made from woven fabrics and all textile manufactures, wholly or partially manufactured, n.o.p., of which silk is the component of chief value.
567a	Clothing, wearing apparel and articles, made from woven fabrics and all textile manufactures, wholly or partially manufactured, n.o.p., of which the component of chief value is artificial silk or similar synthetic fibres produced by chemical processes.
568	Knitted garments, knitted underwear and knitted goods, n.o.p.
568a	Socks and stockings:- (i)	of wool. (ii)	n.o.p.
War Budget-Mr. Ilsley
[Stage Direction]
Tariff
Item
Number
Description
568b
568c
ex 569 (i) ex 569 (ii) ex 569 (v) 569a (i) 569a (ii) 569d
597
ex 597a
ex 598 598a
603 ex 604 605a 611b 622 623
624 624a
624b
625 629 634
647
648a
653
[Mr. Ilsley.
Gloves and mitts of all kinds, n.o.p.
Women's dress gloves of kid, elbow length.
Hats of fur felt or of wool-and-fur felt.
Hats of wool felt.
Hats, n.o.p. (but not to include distinctive head coverings for use in public services).
Berets of wool, knitted and fulled.
Caps, bonnets and berets, n.o.p.
Woven fabrics, not exceeding three inches in width, in lengths of not less than eighteen yards, of a class or kind not made in Canada, generally known as "single, double or four shot corded ribbon," imported by manufacturers for use exclusively in their own factories in making the bands on hats or in binding the edge of the hat brim.
Regalia, badges and belts of all kinds, n.o.p.
Pianofortes and organs.
Musical instruments of all kinds, n.o.p.; phonographs, graphophones and gramophones, n.o.p., (but not including cylinders and records therefor).
Brass band instruments, n.o.p.
Brass band instruments, of a class or kind not made in Canada; bagpipes and complete parts thereof.
Fur skins wholly or partially dressed, n.o.p.
Patent, japanned or enamelled leather and finished upholstery leather.
Genuine pig leathers and genuine Morocco leathers; so-called roller leathers.
Leather garments, lined or unlined.
Trunks, valises, hat boxes, carpet bags, tool bags, and baskets of all kinds, n.o.p.
Musical instrument cases and fancy cases or boxes of all kinds, portfolios and fancy writing desks, satchels, reticules, card cases, purses, pocket-books, fly books and parts thereof.
Bead ornaments, and ornaments of alabaster, spar, amber, terra cotta or composition; fans of all kinds; statues and statuettes of any material, n.o.p.
(i) Dolls; toys of all kinds, n.o.p.
(ii)	Mechanical toys of metal.
(iii)	Juvenile construction sets of metal, consisting of various stampings, punched, and connections therefor; parts of the foregoing.
Statues and statuettes of porcelain or earthenware.
Caps, hats, muffs, tippets, capes, coats and cloaks of fur, and other manufactures of fur, n.o.p.
Umbrellas, parasols and sunshades of all kinds and materials.
Feathers and manufactures of feathers, n.o.p.; artificial feathers, fruits, grains, leaves and flowers si itable for ornamenting hats.
(ii) Materials, when imported by manufacturers of artificial feathers, fruits, grains, leaves and flowers, for use exclusively in the manufacture of sucti articles, in their own factories.
Jewellery of any material, for the adornment of the person, n.o.p.
Precious stones and imitations thereof, not mounted or set; and pearls and imitations thereof, pierced, split, strung or not, but not set or mounted.
Diamonds, unset.
Toilet or dressing combs, n.o.p.; fancy combs, not being jewellery.
Brushes of all kinds.

War Budget-Mr. Ilsley
Tariff
Item
Number
Description
Pens, penholders and rulers, of all kinds.
ex 655a
Lead pencils.
Tobacco pipes of all kinds, pipe mounts, cigar and cigarette cases, cigar and cigarette holders, and cases for the same, smokers' sets and cases therefor, and tobacco pouches.
Torpedoes, fire-crackers and fire-works of all kinds.
ex 695a
Paintings in oil or water colours and pastels, valued at not less than twenty dollars each.
ex 711 ex 362c ex 427 ex 446a et al
Goods enumerated hereafter, not including goods entitled to entry under Tariff Items 690a, 700, 700a, 702, 703(a), 704, 705, 706, 707, 708 and 709, namely:
Soda fountains; bars; ice-cream cabinets and beverage cabinets; beverage dispensing and mixing equipment; gasoline pumps;
Punch boards and pin-ball games; vending machines, games, amusement devices, phonographs, radios, musical instruments, scales, parking meters, locks and lockers, coin-, disc- or token-operated;
Cigarette or cigar lighters (but not to include lighters provided for in Tariff Item 438(c) );
Air-conditioning units and apparatus designed for household or office use;
Electric mixers, ironers and dish-washers, designed for household use;
Cases, boxes, bowls, baskets, bottles, dishes and trays adapted for personal, household or office use, or for the packaging of goods for retail sale, of which the component of chief value is copper, brass, bronze, or electro-plated metal, not including industrial containers unsuitable for retail sale;
Ash trays and receivers; desk sets and bases or holders for blotters, pens or pencils; book-ends; paper weights and paper knives; andirons, screens, tongs and other furnishings for fire-places; door knockers; Christmas tree decorations of all kinds, including lights and fittings therefor; vases and jardinieres;
Precious and semi-precious stones, including pearls, and all imitations or simulations thereof; articles composed wholly or in part of precious or semi-precious stones and imitations or simulations thereof.

[Stage Direction]
20a
77a
109a
267
267a
267b
268 269 269a
Cocoa shells and nibs.
Butter produced from the cocoa bean.
Cocoa beans, not roasted, crushed or ground.
Peanuts, green, in the shell or not further processed than shelled.
Tobacco, unmanufactured, for excise purposes under conditions of the Excise Act, subject to such regulations as may be prescribed by the Minister:-
(a)	Of the type commonly known as Turkish:-
(i)	Unstemmed.
(ii)	Stemmed.
(b)	N.O.P.:-
( i) Unstemmed.
(ii) Stemmed.
Crude petroleum not subjected to any other process than natural weathering and removal of foreign matter and water, when imported by oil refiners to be refined in their own factories:-
( i) -8155 specific gravity (42-0 A.P.I.) or heavier at 60 degrees Fahrenheit.
(ii) Lighter than -8155 specific gravity (42 0 A.P.I.) at 60 degrees Fahrenheit.
Crude petroleum, n.o.p.
Petroleum tops; blends of petroleum tops or petroleum products with crude petroleum; all the foregoing -7249 specific gravity (63*7 A.P.I.) or heavier, at 60 degrees Fahrenheit, when imported by oil refiners to be refined in their own factories.
Natural casinghead, compression or absorption gasoline, lighter than -6690 specific gravity (80-0 A.P.I.) at 60 degrees Fahrenheit, when imported by refiners of crude petroleum for blending with gasoline wholly produced in Canada.
Products of petroleum, n.o.p.-
(i)	Lighter than -8236 specific gravity (40-3 A.P.I.) at 60 degrees Fahrenheit.
(ii)	*8236 specific gravity (40-3 A.P.I.) or heavier at 60 degrees Fahrenheit.
Petroleum oil known as engine distillate *8017 specific gravity (45-0 A.P.I.) or heavier at 60 degrees Fahrenheit.
War Budget-Mr. Ilsley
[Stage Direction]
Tariff Item Number	Description
271	Lubricating oils composed wholly or in part of petroleum:- (a)	valued at less than 25 cents per gallon. (b)	n.o.p.
272a	Petroleum greases and lubricating greases, n.o.p.
ex 438a	Automobiles and motor vehicles of all kinds, n.o.p., (but not to include passenger automobiles); electric trackless trolley buses; chassis for automobiles and motor vehicles of all kinds.
ex 500	Railway ties.
ex 503	Planks, boards, clapboards, laths, plain pickets and other timber or lumber of hardwood, not further manufactured than sawn or split, whether creosoted, vulcanized, or treated by any other preserving process, or not.
ex 504	Planks, boards and other lumber of hardwood, sawn, split or cut, and dressed on one side only, but not fu.ther manufactured.
ex 505	Planks, boards, deals and other lumber of hardwood, not further manufactured than planed, dressed, jointed, tongued or grooved, n.o.p.
505a	Hardwood flooring, tongued and/or grooved, or jointed, viz.:-beeoh, birch, maple and oak.
507	Single-ply, sliced or rotary-cut veneers of rosew'ood, mahogany or Spanish cedar, not over five-sixteenths of an inch in thickness, not taped nor jointed.
507a	Single-ply, sliced or rotary-cut veneers of wood, n.o.p., not over five-sixteenths of an inch in thickness, not taped nor jointed.
507b	Veneera of wood of any kind, not over five-sixteenths of an inch in thickness, taped or jointed.
507c	Plywood made of two or more layers of veneer or lumber of wood, glued or cemented together, but not further manufactured.
507d	Veneers, viz.:-Australian blackwood, walnut, silky oak, silkwood, blackbean, maple, Tasmanian myrtle, and eucalyptii, single-ply and not over three thirty-seconds of an inch in thickness.
507e	Plywood made of two or more layers of wood glued or cemented together and faced with metal on one or both sides.
ex 557	Silk cocoons, raw silk, rags and waste of silk (but not to include material of artificial silk or similar synthetic fibres).
ex 557a	Waste portions of unused fabrics or used garments, wholly of silk (but not to include material of artificial silk or similar synthetic fibres).
ex 557b	Garnetted material wholly of silk; silk filaments or loose fibres not more advanced than sliver; waste portions of unused silk fabrics n.o.p. (but not to include artificial silk or similar synthetic fibres).
558	Yarns and warps wholly of thrown silk, in the gum, n.o.p.
558a	Rovings, yarns and warps wholly of spun silk, generally known as schappe and bourette, not more advanced than singles, n.o.p.
558c	(i)	Rovings, yarns and warps, wholly or in part of silk, n.o.p., including threads, cords or twist for sewing, embroidering or other purposes. _ . (ii)	Silk yarns wholly or partially covered with metallic strip, one pound of which shall contain not less than 10,000 yards.
558e	Yarns and warps, wholly of thrown silk in the gum, rovings, yarns and warps, wholly of spun silk, not coloured, imported by manufacturers for use exclusively in their own factories for knitting underwear, for weaving, or for the manufacture of silk thread.
600	Fur tails, in the raw state.
601	Fur skins of all kinds, not dressed in any manner.
602	Astrakhan or Russian hare skins, China goat plates or rugs, and China goat skins, wholly or partially dressed, but not dyed.
[Stage Direction]
War Budget-Mr. Ilsley

[Stage Direction]
Tariff Item Number	Description	Rate of Duty	Former Rate103d	Jellies, jams, marmalades, preserves, fruit butters and condensed mince meats	Free	2 cts. per lb.220	All medicinal, chemical and pharmaceutical preparations, com-	pounded of more than one substance, including patent and proprietary preparations, tinctures, pills, powders, troches, lozenges, syrups, cordials, bitters, anodynes, tonics, plasters, liniments, salves, ointments, pastes, drops, waters, essences and oils, n.o.p.:- (a) When dry	10 p.c.	17J p.c.(b) Liquid, when containing not more than two and one-half per centum of proof spirit	10 p.c.	20 p.c.228	Soap powders, powdered soap, mineral soap, and soap, n.o.p	10 p.c.	20 p.c.281b	Firebrick, n.o.p	5 p.c. 20 p.c.ex 284	Earthenware tiles, n.o.p	15 p.c.	288	Stoneware and Rockingham ware and earthenware, n.o.p	10 p.c.	20 p.c.429	Cutlery of iron or steel, plated or not:- (b) Table knives and table forks	10 p.c.	15 p.c.(e) Spoons	10 p.c.	15 p.c.439	Bicycles and tricycles, n.o.p	15 p.c.	20 p.c.439a	Articles, of iron or steel, wholly or in part of nickel or electroplated, when imported by manufacturers of bicycles or tricycles for use exclusively in the manufacture of bicycles or tricycles, in their own factories, under regulations prescribed by the Minister	10 p.c. 10 p.c.	15 p.c. 15 p.c.445f	Electric dynamos or generators and transformers, and complete parts thereof, n.o.p	445g	Electric motors, and complete parts thereof, n.o.p	10 p.c.	15 p.c.445k	Electric apparatus and complete parts thereof, n.o.p	10 p.c.	15 p.c.451b	Pins manufactured from wire of any metal, n.o.p	10 p.c.	17£ p.c.519	House, office, cabinet or store furniture of wood, iron or other material, and parts thereof, not to include forgings, castings, and stampings of metal, in the rough	Free	15 p.c.520b	Garnetted material wholly of cotton, obtained by disintegrating yarns or fabrics, prepared for use; cotton wiping rags and wiping waste; waste portions of unused fabrics, machine-cleaned waste, wholly of cotton, n.o.p., not to include remnants nor mill ends	71 p.c. 5 p.c.521	Carded sliver wholly of cotton, not bleached, coloured nor impregnated; cotton fibres, bleached or coloured, n.o.p	Free	522	Rovings, yarns and warps wholly of cotton, not more advanced than singles, n.o.p	Free	121 P-c.522a	Rovings, yarns and warps wholly of cotton, not more advanced than singles, when imported by manufacturers of knitted goods, to be used in their own factories in the manufacture of knitted goods	Free	12£ p.c.522b	Yarns, wholly of cotton, coarser than number forty but exceeding number twenty, not more advanced than singles, when imported by manufacturers for use exclusively in their own factories in the manufacturing of cotton sewing thread and crochet, knitting, darning and embroidery cottons	Free	71 p.c.522c	Rovings, yarns and warps wholly of cotton, including threads, cords and twines generally used for sewing, stitching, packaging and other purposes, n.o.p., cotton yarns, wholly or partially covered with metallic strip, generally known as tinsel thread.. .	Free	15 p.c.
War Budget-Mr. Ilsley
[Stage Direction]
Tariff
Item
Number
522e
523a
523b
523e
523i
523j
523k
524a
529 529a
531
532a
532b
533 ex 536
ex 553
Description	Rate of Duty
Cotton sewing thread yarn and crochet, knitting, darning and embroidery yarn, in hanks, when imported by manufacturers for use exclusively in their own factories in the manufacturing or spooling of cotton sewing thread and crochet, knitting, darning and embroidery cottons		Free
Woven fabrics, wholly of cotton, not bleached, mercerized nor	
coloured, n.o.p., and seamless cotton bags		Free
Woven fabrics, wholly of cotton, bleached or mercerized, not	
	
Woven fabrics, wholly of cotton, printed, dyed or coloured, n.o.p.	Free
Woven fabrics wholly of cotton with cut pile, n.o.p		Free
Filter cloth, wholly of cotton, with cut pile, in the web or made up, imported for use exclusively in mining and metallurgical opera-	Tree
Shadow cretonnes, wholly of cotton, with printed warp and plain	
	Free
Gabardines, wholl v of cotton, with not less than 280 ends and picks	
of ply yarn per square inch		Free
Woven fabrics, wholly of cotton, composed of yarns of counts of not less than 80 and not more than 99, including all such fabrics in which the average count of the warp and weft yarns is not less than 80 and not more than 99		Free
Fabrics with cut weft pile, wholly of cotton or of cotton and	
	Free
Embroideries, lace, nets, nettings, bobinet, n.o.p., fringes and	
tassels, wholly of cotton		Free
Lace and embroideries, wholly of cotton, not coloured, when imported for use exclusively by manufacturers in the manufacture of clothing, in their own factories		Free
Lace and embroideries, wholly of cotton, coloured, when imported for use exclusively by manufacturers in the manufacture of clothing, in their own factories		Free
Knitted fabric wholly of cotton, in the wreb, imported by manufacturers of rubber boots and shoes for use exclusively in the manufacture of such articles in their own factories		Free
Clothing, wearing apparel and articles made from woven fabrics, and all textile manufactures, wholly or partially manufactured, composed wholly of cotton, n.o.p.; fabrics wholly of cotton, coated or impregnated, n.o.p		Free
Handkerchiefs, wholly of cotton		Free
Woven fabric, wholly of cotton, for covering books		Free
	
Batts, batting and wadding of cotton, n.o.p		Free
Clothing, wearing apparel and articles, made from woven fabrics, and all textile manufactures, wholly or partially manufactured, composed wholly or in part of vegetable fibres but not containing wool, n.o.p.; fabrics coated or impregnated, composed wholly or in part of vegetable fibres but not containing silk, artificial	Free
Blankets wholly of cotton, artificial silk, or cotton and artificial	
silk, but not containing silk or wool		Free
Former
Rate
7h P-c.
15 p.c.
20 p.e. 20 p.o. 15 p.c.
10 p.c. 12J p.c.
12j pc..
12i p.c.
5 p.c.
20 p.c.
7j p.c.
71 p.c.
10 p.c.
25 p.c. 15 p.c. 15 p.c. 15 p.c. 121 P-o.
25 p.c.
20 p.c. and 5 cts. per lb.
[Stage Direction]
War Budget-Mr. Ilsley
Tariff Item Number	Description	Rate of Duty	Former Rate558b	Rovings, yarns and warps wholly of artificial silk or similar synthetic fibres, produced by chemical processes, not more advanced than singles, not coloured, with not more than seven turns to the inch, under such regulations as the Minister may prescribe:- (a) Produced from cellulose acetate	Free	5 p.c.20 p.c.558d	Rovings, yarns and warps wholly or in part of artificial silk or similar synthetic fibres produced by chemical processes, n.o.p., including threads, cords or twist for sewing, embroidering or other purposes, not to contain silk; artificial silk yarns wholly or partially covered with metallic strip, one pound of which shall contain not less than 10,000 yards; under such regulations as the Minister may prescribe:- (a) Produced w'holly from cellulose acetate	Free	7* p.c.(b) N.o.p 	Free	25 p.c.ex 560d	Woven fabrics with cut pile, generally known as velvets and plushes, with pile w'holly of artificial silk, but not containing silk or wool, exceeding tw'enty-four inches in width	Free	171 P-c.ex 560e	Woven fabrics with cut pile, generally known as velvets and plushes, W'ith pile wholly of artificial silk, but not containing silk or wool, twenty-four inches in width or less, n.o.p	Free	171 P-c.561	Woven fabrics wholly or in part of artificial silk or similar synthetic fibres, produced by chemical processes, not to contain wool, not including fabrics in chief part by weight of silk, n.o.p..	Free	271 P-c-561a	Fabrics, coated or impregnated, n.o.p.:-	(ii) Composed wholly or in part of artificial silk or similar synthetic fibres produced by chemical processes but not con-taming silk	Free	30 p.c.562a	Woven fabrics not exceeding twelve inches in width, generally knowm as "ribbons", whether with cut pile or not, wholly or in part of artificial silk or similar synthetic fibres produced by chemical processes, but not containing silk nor wool	Free	221 p.c.ex 564	Woven fabrics, of a kind not made in Canada, wholly, or in chief part, by weight, of artificial silk, imported in the web in lengths of not less than five yards each by manufacturers of neckties, scarves, or mufflers, for use exclusively in the manufacture of such articles in their own factories	Free	171 p.c.ex 565	Embroideries, lace, braids, cords, chenille, gimp, fringes and tassels, whether containing tinsel or not, nets, nettings and bobinet, of artificial silk or similar synthetic fibres	Free	221 p.c.567a	Clothing, wearing apparel and articles, made from woven fabrics and all textile manufactures, wholly or partially manufactured, n.o.p., of which the component of chief value is artificial silk or similar synthetic fibres produced by chemical processes	Free	25 p.c.ex 568	Knitted garments, knitted underwear and knitted goods, wholly of cotton artificial silk, or cotton and artificial silk	Free	20 p.c.ex 568a	Socks and stockings:-[DOT]	Free	20 p.c.568b	Gloves and mitts of all kinds, n.o.p	Free	20 p.c.572	Oriental and imitation Oriental rugs or carpets and carpeting, carpets and rugs, n.o.p	25 p.c.	30 p.c.573	Enamelled carriage, floor, shelf and table oilcloth, linoleum, and cork matting or carpets	10 p.c.	15 p.c.588	Coal, n.o.p., including screenings and coal dust of all kinds	Free	35 cts. peton.572	COMMONS
War Budget-Mr.. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, we have all
listened with great interest to the speech made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley). May I say to him that, having regard to the advance notices in the press, and what we have heard in the corridors, the proposals are not nearly as important as perhaps I had hoped they would be. I say that because I, too, realize the seriousness of the exchange position, and the necessity for conserving our foreign exchange.
Some very important changes in the trends of business will, of course, be brought about by the resolutions. We have not had an opportunity even to analyse to any degree the items affected, and therefore I hope that unless the necessity is exceedingly great, the government will consent to an adjournment of this debate until the debate on the address is concluded, so that we may have ample opportunity for study.
My first reaction is that these resolutions will be beneficial for the purpose for which they are intended; and such criticisms and suggestions as we may have to make will, I hope, be constructive and helpful, and in no sense be considered as in the slightest degree contravening the government's war effort, which we are desirous to see forwarded with the utmost expedition.
Therefore I beg the leave of the house to move adjournment of the debate. We could confer together as to when it might be resumed. My suggestion is that to-morrow night we should complete the debate on the address in reply, and then we might resume this matter on Wednesday.	I should be
agreeable to that, if it meets with the approval of the Prime Minister.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: So far as may be possible the government is anxious to meet my hon. friend's views. I believe, however, it would be unwise to attempt to conclude the other debate first. These resolutions are very important, and I suggest that the country should know as soon as possible that they have been accepted by the house.
If it would meet the convenience of my hon. friend, I would suggest that we continue the debate on the address in reply this afternoon, and that to-morrow we proceed with the resolutions. I was going to make the further suggestion that it might facilitate matters and perhaps meet the convenience of hon. members if the resolutions were immediately referred to the committee of ways and means, on the understanding that hon. mem-[Mr. IlsleyO
bers would be free to discuss any phase of the matter in that committee. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) would be enabled in that way immediately to answer questions, a course of procedure which it would not be possible for him to follow during the course of a formal debate. If that procedure were followed, I believe it would expedite this week's proceedings.


Richard Burpee Hanson: May I say to my right hon. friend that no one has seen these resolutions except myself, and I have just been able to glance through them. They will not be printed and available to hon. gentlemen until noon to-morrow. How can anyone intelligently discuss the principles involved in these resolutions when he has not had time to study them? I do not think we are asking too much when we request that they be allowed to stand over until Wednesday. That would be the usual thing in a budget debate. As a matter of fact more time would be given. The amount of exchange to be saved is not as large as I had hoped, and I do not think the matter is so pressing that we should be asked to proceed with the discussion to-morrow afternoon. If, however, the government insists, I suppose they can force us to go on.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is no disposition on the part of the government to attempt to force my hon. friend or any other hon. member in the matter of time. Would he deem it wise to have the resolutions referred to the committee at once with a view to having a full discussion later?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think we ought to have a discussion on the general principles involved, which discussion may not take very long. It may be that after hon. members have digested the minister's statement they will feel that they have some observations to make. I fancy that some hon. members will be hearing from the country as soon as these particulars are published. We usually do. I do not like to commit myself to permitting the motion to be carried without any discussion. I do not think the matter is as pressing as that. On previous occasions when war budgets have been quite pressing we have allowed them to go through, but I think this ought to be done in a more orderly way. We should study these proposals before we give approval.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Before the motion is put, I should like to say that I support the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson). I think we should be given time to study these proposals and I object to the procedure suggested by the Prime Min-

The Address-Mr. Rowe
ister (Mr. Mackenzie King). I do this because of what happened during the last budget debate. A similar request was made to which we agreed, but subsequently when it was desired to stray outside the particulars of an item under discussion the Deputy Speaker who was then in the chair reminded hon. members that he could not be bound by any understandings which might have been arrived at between the whips or members of the house. He felt that he was bound by the rules, and therefore the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Ross) and the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) were prevented from discussing certain matters which they wished to bring before the committee. I make this objection not because we wish to delay the consideration of these important matters, with the bulk of which we are in complete agreement, but to ask that we follow the procedure provided for by the rules.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thought I
made it clear that I was not trying to impose any restriction on the house. The suggestion I made was made in the light of experience of debate in this house and also, I confess quite frankly, with a view to helping to economize the time of the government and of hon. members. Speaking on behalf of the government I am quite prepared to have matters follow their regular course without any restriction. Perhaps the house would be agreeable to this debate being now adjourned and our continuing with the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
On motion of Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) the debate was adjourned.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, November 29, consideration of the motion of Mr. Brooke Claxton for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Blackmore.
Hon. W. E. ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, this rather sudden deviation from our usual course emphasizes the tragedy of the present occasion. In resuming the debate which was adjourned on Friday I wish to say that many ably presented and carefully considered speeches have been made in this somewhat prolonged debate. I feel I should compliment the mover (Mr. Claxton)
and the seconder (Mr. Jutras) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I realize that their task was not an easy one. I think the house will agree when I say that despite the crisis through which we are passing, the speech from the throne was very vague indeed. It was more conspicuous for what was not in it than it was for what was in it. I do not think I have heard one delivered in this house which told so little of what had passed and indicated so little as to what we might expect in the future.
It is my purpose to avoid as much as possible repeating what has been said already, it is my desire to restrict my remarks more to a discussion of the general principles underlying the government's policies than to endeavour to go into the details of administration and the difficulties connected therewith. I am confident that no old political differences that exist among us can obscure the problem we all face, that of winning the war. Political distinctions may have existed in the past, but I feel that to-day we stand on common ground, facing a common foe with our eyes turned toward one definite goal, namely victory. It is therefore with deep concern and sincere purpose that I even venture to question the policies of the government with reference to our war effort.
As has been said quite often in this house by members of the government and by other hon. members, these are serious and tragic days through which we are passing. I agree with that, but it appears to me that the people throughout the dominion do not thoroughly understand what must be done to achieve victory. I think it was Kipling who said:
When king and people understand each other past a doubt
It takes a foe and more than a foe to knock that country out.
I doubt if the people and the government of Canada thoroughly understand each other. We must have this understanding if democracy is to survive this terrific crisis. The hour has come when we must throw off the old mantle of what might be termed political camouflage and don the suit of political truth. I urge the government to take the Canadian people into their confidence and tell them where Canada stands in this far-reaching and devastating struggle.
I realize what has been pointed out on more than one occasion, namely, the tragic dangers that lie ahead, and I cannot help feeling that our people have been to some extent misled in the past. The government's
The Address-Mr. Rowe

repeated boast of winning the last election is not good enough to meet the present situation and the terrific task that lies ahead of us now. No one within the sound of my voice will, I am sure, say that any of those old-time political slogans have much bearing on our present situation. Those old slogans about economic appeasement, "our status as a nation," the election slogan of "national unity," and the promise of "no conscription," recruiting for "home defence only," the "pay-as-you-go policy"-all these have indeed been convenient mile-posts on a road which, however convenient in times of peace, is of no more use to-day than last week's dream.
This is not a war between two countries. It is not a war even between two great parts of the world. It is a war between two ways of life, a war between freedom and slavery. Many countries which had much greater military preparations than Canada has ever had, and which were much more strongly determined to hew to a line of home defence only, have one after another fallen before that gigantic dictatorial force which has swept fourteen or fifteen countries to ruin and defeat. Let us not fool ourselves, and much less our gallant soldiers by conscripting them to fight for our common defence in Canada when the freedom and the very life of our' people depend upon the battles that are being fought by the British forces overseas. We are a nation within the empire. We do not stand if that empire falls, and our first concern must be to fight the battle over there, even if our last effort should eventually be home defence here.
May I suggest that a more vigorous policy for Canada of total war for victory rather than the more popular plan of home defence for Canada would do much to encourage our great friends and neighbours, the United States of America, to enter this war whole-heartedly. The only sure home defence of this British dominion is a British victory and our continued protection by the British navy. Indeed, that is, I believe, the only permanent defence upon which our great neighbour to the south depends. I say, therefore, that Canada's front line of home defence and her front line for victory are one and the same, and that line to-day is in the English channel and in the Mediterranean sea, as has been well said already by many hon. members. If by any chance the battle that is being fought over there were lost-and by the way we are proud indeed that we have noble volunteers in that battle-Canada's next line of defence would lie within the protection of the United States of America. Even our great friend, the United States of America, 
is rapidly beginning to realize that her only sure hope rests in an all-out victory 'by the British forces.
May I now be permitted to refer to one or two editorials by an important United States writer. They have appeared in the Chicago Daily News. The Chicago Daily News is a notable paper in the United States and its service is taken by some twenty-five or thirty papers in the United States and by many papers in Canada. Last May, in an editorial headed " The Hour of Decision," it says:
If these vital interests can best be served by aloofness from any participation in the crucial struggle now in progress in Europe, then we should remain aloof and inactive.
If, however, our vital interests are involved and we will be critically and perhaps disastrously affected by a defeat of the allies, and a victory for Germany, then indifference to the outcome and pursuit of a policy of rigid isolation not only is cowardly and despicable, but is as well a betrayal of our vital interests.
Then again:
Here is a life and death struggle for every principle we cherish in America for freedom of speech, of religion, of the ballot and of every freedom that upholds the dignity of the human spirit.
Here all the rights that the common man has fought for during a thousand years are menaced.
The time has come when we must throw into the scales the entire moral and economic weight of the United States on the side of the free peoples of western Europe who are fighting the battle for a civilized way of life.
In another editorial published in the same month of May, and headed " Time to Face the Truth," the Daily News says:
We are already lending aid to the allies: Why?
Because our own national interests demand it, because it is against our vital interests to have Germany emerge from this war with complete domination of both land and sea in the eastern hemisphere.
But this is not all. The conquest of Britain by Gei'many -would destroy the British empire. That empire would disintegrate. Canada is a part of it. Lacking the protection of the British fleet, Canada would be unable to maintain its independence. Would we permit it to become a colony of the German empire? We would not. As an act of self-preservation we would forthwith go to the assistance of our northern neighbour, and forcibly prevent German aggression directed at Canada.
To show that the great majority of the people of the United States feel that they are dependent, as I have said, on the British navy almost as much as Canada is, I quote from another article by a writer who knows the foreign situation very well indeed. Writing in September on the warship deal, he said:
The chief defence of the United States, our real ability to make and keep the Monroe

The Address-Mr. Rowe
doctrine effective has, since 1823, depended upon Anglo-American domination of the Atlantic.
In the absence of a fleet immensely more powerful than ours is now, hemispheric defence, many experts believe, would have proved difficult.
Britain's contribution to America's sea defence was, until we finally built a great fleet, far more important than ours. It consisted and still consists primarily in keeping any other European fleet from entering the Atlantic ocean in force. This is the importance to us of preventing Britain from going under and, what is equally important, of seeing that the British fleet is in a position to control not only the North sea and the channel, but Gibraltar and the west African route as well.
Germany has now taken possession of the low countries, temporarily at least. But friendship with the United States has remained and is apparent in the present exchange of bases for destroyers which may ultimately save Great Britain and, thereby, conceivably the United States as well.
On November 18, he also wrote in an editorial which is of interest in other respects:
Under the terms of our joint defence agreement with Canada, we have an equally clear right to make our southern fields available to the regular Canadian training plan.
The Canadians may wish later to send some of these pilots overseas to fight for Britain. Thus, indirectly, we would be aiding Britain by training Canadians here. But of course we are already committed to a policy of aiding Britain, and that policy rests wholly on the assumption that by aiding Britain we contribute to our own defence and the defence of the hemisphere.
I wish to compliment the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the government upon having secured a joint defence agreement with the United States, because I realize fully, and I hope the country realizes, that if the need for the home defence of this country arises, we can have no hope except in a joint defence by the United States and Canada. We have heard almost daily from an anxious press and from a large department of governmental publicity that old hackneyed slogan of recent months, "Let Us Face the Facts." I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we must face the facts and tell our people that if the battle of Britain is lost in the eastern hemisphere, the only dismal hope that is left to us of security is in a joint defence of the western hemisphere by Canada and the United States.
Our purpose should be, not to place so much emphasis on home defence but rather to follow the leadership of that great British statesman, the Right Hon. Winston Churchill- "on with the war to victory." I am confident that we can achieve victory, but we can do so only by standing together and looking at our problems realistically. Instead of conscripting a vast army for the defence of Canada, in order
to fight only in Canada, when the war is being waged somewhere else, we should rally behind the British in prosecuting the war on the battlefield. I say that in all fairness to the government, and I believe the Canadian people will endorse that view. It is more important to conscript men, if one should wish to use that term, to work in our factories in order to provide the war equipment and munitions essential for the successful prosecution of the war overseas than it is to conscript men on the assurance that they will not have to leave the shores of Canada, that they will merely have to fight in a country where there is no fighting; for we must remember that, as has been said, Canada is a peaceful country; and when the battle comes to Canada the victory is lost. If we want to win the war, if we want victory, then we must not put the emphasis on home defence in the sense of having armed forces over here.
We are thankful for all those noble men who have volunteered to serve their country without any regard whatsoever to government policy. These men have been only partly equipped by Canada. The war has been going on now for fifteen months and we have only
50,000	men overseas. Canada wrote a glorious page in the history of empire progress in the years from 1914 to 1918. The Royal Canadian Air Force, composed of the best air men in the world, is writing as glorious a page in our history to-day. I hope that when the war is over, we shall not be charged with having prepared an army for the purpose of fighting where there is no fighting while we have neglected to support those who are bearing the burden of the struggle. There are other factors of vital concern if we are to achieve victory. The sudden and spectacular deviation this afternoon from ordinary procedure is. further evidence of these other vitally important issues; for we see the necessity of maintaining our basic industry, the business and commerce of the nation, and all that contributes to the prosecution of this terrific war..
We are told in history-I do not know what gold standard they had in those days-that war in Caesar's time cost seventy-five cents a head. In Napoleon's time the cost was $375 a head. As nearly as we can estimate, it was $20,000 in the last war, and it is estimated by some leading economists to-day-I have heard many of them talk in this house- that the per capita cost in this war will be $50,000. That being so, surely we can face an additional cost which the government estimates at something like $1,500,000,000 a year. The old policy of pay as you go, which we heard so much about a year ago, and which sounded so politically popular at the time, is of little
The Address-Mr. Rowe

use to-day. Indeed, it sounds as foolish now as if a man whose house was burning down refused^ to turn the water hose on the fire until he had paid his water rate. We realize that there are enormous obligations on the government, and these obligations will become still greater. In meeting them it is at -times as dangerous to pay as you go and to collect taxes for the purpose as it is to mortgage the future. There is a limit beyond which the government cannot go without completely strangling industry and destroying the initiative which makes for industrial expansion.
Another very important phase of our war policy, has, in my opinion, been to some extent neglected. I refer to the present position of agriculture. The other day we listened to the speech delivered by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). We expected him to bring down some information that would be of use to us. He told us a good deal about his trip overseas and it sounded as if, while he was over there, he had found an old Liberal campaign handbook. He told us that the farmers will be expected next year to produce more for less. He told us that there was an agreement, which he has not yet presented to the house although he has been asked for it on many occasions, which would enable us to sell over $100,000,000 worth of agricultural products.
I agree with my hon. friend, my colleague and desk mate (Mr. Bruce), in what he said the other day, namely, that we should not bargain too much with the old land at this time when she seeks credit from foreign countries. Our government should ask the people of the mother country how much she requires-not how many hundred million dollars worth, but how many pounds of foodstuffs-and how much they can pay for those foodstuffs. If they cannot pay more than eighty cents on the dollar, then let us give them those foodstuffs at that lower price and pay the farmer the difference. We are giving them little that they are not paying for now.
I suggest that this government would be well advised to add to the $1,500,000,000 a year war programme a little more in order to carry on the war properly. We are not encountering the obligations which the old country has to face; we are not enduring the bombing that the people over there have to put up with; we are not separated from our children as they are; we are not paying the taxes that they are paying.
We have wide-open spaces, idle farms that can be made productive; and there is no more loyal class of people in Canada than our farmers, who have struggled through adversity in the years that have gone. Many of these people are from the mother country; others 
have come from other lands, but they have been assimilated and have come to respect our British traditions. They are proud of the freedom that they now enjoy under the British flag. Well, this freedom must be paid for now; it must be safeguarded; and I submit that if the government is to carry out its full duty in this war, it should make possible the disposal of foodstuffs to the mother country at reasonable prices.
But the government have a responsibility to the great basic industry from which that supply must come, and if they understand the public, as I know that many of them do, they must realize tha-t during the last ten years Canadian farmers have gone through very difficult times. Canadian agriculture might well be called the "loss leader" of Canadian prosperity. -Our farmers have produced at cost-and, if they had the capital, they would produce at less than cost-until thousands of farms have slipped away from underneath their feet.
I know what our rural people have endured and are now enduring-great hardships and losses-and I can tell the government that they have been greatly disappointed. Last year they were assured that they would receive certain prices for their products. Several boards were established to safeguard the production of vital foodstuffs for the war requirements of Britain. Some of the boards set up were: the agricultural supplies board, the fertilizer supply committee, the fruit and vegetable committee, the dairy products board and, last but not least, the bacon board. I have no doubt that prominent and capable men were named on these different boards.
The farmer was given to understand, through the bacon board, that he could figure on around nine cents a pound live weight for his hogs. But what happened? The Minister of Agriculture the other day said that the farmers were quite capable of marketing their own products successfully. Yet we find that on these various boards-there are twenty-five or thirty men on them-there is not a single farmer or producer representing our great basic industry. Is it any wonder the farmer now says, with a great deal of justification, that he is the forgotten man in this new type of Canadian politics? I do not wish to suggest that a sop was not thrown out to him. He was told, "We will name a couple of you on the advisory board." But what did that really mean? That board has no authority but sits merely as an advisory board to advise other boards that have the authority.
I would point out that there are many other processors, such as the meat packing interests

The Address-Mr. Rowe
of Canada, who are named on these boards, and rightly so. The meat packers of Canada should have representation on the board. The canning factories should have representation. But the meat producers of this country have an equal right to be represented on that board with the meat processors.
I want to leave a few suggestions with the Prime Minister, who has extended to me the courtesy of bearing with me for these few minutes. There should be a full-time minister of agriculture. That does not come as an original suggestion from me; it has been put forward by several other hon. members. I say that with all respect for the ability of the present Minister of Agriculture; it is a full-time job. If agriculture is a basic industry of this dominion; if our war effort depends as much on the foodstuffs as on the munitions and war equipment we produce, as we were told by the Minister of National War Services the other day, then the agricultural industry is entitled to the attention of a full-time minister, no matter how capable the present holder of that office may be.
It has also been suggested, and I agree with the suggestion, that the government should give serious consideration to changing the control of the marketing of agricultural products from the Department of Trade and Commerce to the Department of Agriculture. The other day the Minister of Agriculture said that this would not be as good as the dual control which they have at present, but that statement seemed strange, especially in view of the fact that he as Minister of Agriculture had just returned from overseas where he had been trying to market our farm products. It certainly is not in keeping with the evidence and recommendations of the Shaw report of two or three years ago when a group of men were sent to the old country for the express purpose of finding out how this dual control worked. On their return they reported to the government by the Shaw report that they were not in favour of dual control. We have seen many clumsy examples of this dual control, and I am not sure that those inside the government have not seen more than clumsy handling of the department, because I do not believe that at all times it runs as smoothly as may appear on the surface.
I realize that the minister has already told this house that he has secured an agreement for some 112 million pounds of cheese required overseas. I do not intend now to take much time in discussing what might be done in that regard. I have strong convictions as to many things that could be done to help cheese production in this country and the H873-37
consumption of it elsewhere. I find that the price for this increased amount is going to be something like two-fifths of a cent higher than it was last year. It is going to be 14-4 cents a pound. If there is an hon. member in this house who has had anything to do with dairying, I would ask him, does he not think the government might give careful consideration to the small encouragement that this offers the farmer in producing milk at $1 per hundred pounds-and less, as it represents.
In view of the fact that Canadian farmers received less last year than they were assured for their bacon; that they have been told they are going to receive less this year than last, and that although they are engaged in the only basic industry in Canada that is important to our war effort, that has been asked to produce more for less and pay 13 per cent more for the products they require for the operation of their farms, the government should give careful consideration to the measures for making the farmer prosperous.
May I clarify my position, if it needs clarification. I am not appealing for war profits for the farmer, but I am appealing on behalf of our empire war effort and the war services that the farmer is ready to give, but cannot continue to give indefinitely by producing at less than cost of production. Therefore it is essential to the security that we owe to Britain, essential for the foodstuffs that may be required sooner than we expect, even though we 'have a few surpluses, to place agriculture in a position where it will have some incentive to produce to capacity. Consequently I suggest that the government, whether it be by way of a subsidy or a bonus -call it what you will-a war subsidy, a war bonus or war assistance, give assurance to the farmers that they will not be asked to produce essential war commodities, the foodstuffs that are vital to our own life, the life of Britain and, indeed, to the life of Europe later on, at less than cost of production, but that they should be on a basis with the munitions manufacturers, on a cost-plus basis rather than a cost-minus basis.
It is unsatisfactory for the farmers in my riding and elsewhere when they know that under our present plan for victory amateur carpenters, some of whom can hardly drive a nail straight, have been getting ninety cents an hour with double pay for overtime, while the farmer is told that if butter goes any higher the price will be fixed. I think it was only the other day the Prime Minister himself assured labour that any concessions they give now will not be forgotten, that they will not lose anything by their contribution to the war effort. With that I heartily agree; the

The Address-Mr. Rowe

labouring man is entitled to his hire; it is essential for him to be satisfied and that we shall not have strikes but have a real effort on the part of labour to achieve maximum production.
I submit in all sincerity that it is equally essential that the great basic industry of Canada be given some assurance of economic security, not for the sake of the profits the farmer may make but in order that he may give still greater service to the empire and further justify his place in the economic life of this country. That is essential also to the future prosperity of this dominion, because one cannot realize that we have in Canada over 750,000 farmers without realizing also that increased purchasing power in the hands of the farmers generally would go a long way toward solving the very problem with which the government is confronted to-day. Without that purchasing power I do not see that there would be much hope for prosperity even if we did not have a war.
I know there are those who will say that this is a drastic proposal, but we have paid peace-time subsidies on many products. We have fixed the price of wheat; I think it is fixed too low, but I am not going to state the figure that I think should be set. I would ask the government, however, at least to give serious consideration to putting agriculture on a war basis, though not for the benefit of war-time prices. If they think the price is going too high let their boards function in order to keep it at a reasonable level. I know something about agriculture; at least for a long time I have been trying to learn something about it, and I submit that under present conditions we are in grave danger of a curtailment in the production of pork, cheese and other vital commodities. Unless some action is taken or unless these prices rise without governmental action, we may find ourselves unable to furnish the quantities that the Minister of, Agriculture has assured Britain.
I hope I have not laboured this point too greatly or delayed the house too long while dealing with it. I had not intended to speak at this length, but I should like to tell the government once more that in my opinion we have placed too much emphasis on home defence and to no small extent have let that idea becloud our real war effort. I believe we must develop, not only in the minds of those who may be conscripted but also in the minds of those who stay behind, the mothers and close relatives, that a man may be just as useful in a factory, producing essential supplies for the carrying on of the war overseas, as he may be while waiting for a war that we pray to God may never come here.

In conclusion, if the government can place agriculture on a firmer war basis and give the farmers greater security than they have at the present time; if we stand together with one common purpose in mind keeping victory first and home defence second, then I am confident that we shall win over there a victory that will make unnecessary Canada's home defences over here.


Mr. J. M. DECHENE (Athabaska):: It is with a good deal of diffidence, Mr. Speaker, that I rise to speak at this stage of this debate, which has been going on for quite some time. I am deeply grateful for the opportunity that is given me at this time to be, for a few moments, the voice of a part of Alberta which for the first time in many years is represented in this assembly by a Liberal supporter. In listening to the young members who moved and seconded the address this year, as I listened to those who moved and seconded the address last session, I was struck with the ability displayed by the young men who have joined the Liberal forces. It occurred to me that it must be very gratifying to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), who for so many years has led the Liberal party in this country, to see attracted to the party young men of this type, who can present their ideas to this house and to the country in such impeccable language and with such force and conviction. It must be consoling, not only for him but for the people of Canada as well, to see these young men active in the ranks of the Liberal party, which as a result will remain a living force in the affairs of Canada not only during this war but also after the war is over.
As the lone representative of the French-Canadian race from Alberta may I be permitted at this point to address a few words to my compatriots who form such an important part of the representation in this assembly.
(Translation): Mr. Speaker, allow me, on
behalf of my compatriots of the province of Alberta, to bring a message to imy colleagues, so numerous and influential, who represent the mother province, the ancient province of Quebec, and the other eastern provinces. While we love the -province of Alberta as a well-bom man loves his wife, we love the province of Quebec as a well-bom man loves 'his mother. I bring you this message from my compatriots who inhabit an immense area where, in the parishes as in the villages, although the French Canadians are in a minority, the language of

The Address-Mr. Dechene
their fathers has been religiously preserved and remains in high honour. I thank the hon. members of this house for the generous reception they have accorded to a representative of a part of the Canadian land where our French-Canadian compatriots can use their mother tongue and continue magnificently to defend their rights and preserve the language which has come down to them from their forefathers. I trust that the Frendh-Canadian members from eastern Canada will, when the occasion arises, use the influence which I have just referred to for the benefit of their compatriots from Alberta.
(Text) May I be permitted to say a few words respecting the constituency which has honoured me with membership in this chamber? My constituency runs west from the boundary of Saskatchewan, where it adjoins the one represented by the lady member (Mrs, Nielsen). It follows the Saskatchewan river between the fourth and fifth meridians, and extends to the extreme north of Alberta to a point near Fort Smith, the capital of the Northwest Territories.
Listening the other day to the observations of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Claxton) in moving the address in reply, I was reminded that in my constituency even to an extent greater than in his we have a cross-section of the population of Canada. That population was well and ably described the other day by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Thorson). In Atha-baska we have peoples from almost every nation in the world who carry on peacefully in that vast country. Some are engaged in farming, some in ranching, some in mixed farming, some in trading and trapping, some in lumbering, some in fishing-all producing a great share of wealth to help this nation while engaged in her war effort. In addition, a large percentage of the young men in that constituency have enlisted in the forces of Canada to fight overseas.
I am not one who believes that democracy will die. I was not pleased to hear the leader of a party in this chamber repeat the unfortunate words allegedly stated by a man living across the border line.
In this session, and particularly during the last session, we have been shown that the people throughout the commonwealth are engaged in a fight described by all as a fight for liberty and freedom. We are fighting not only for freedom of religion and thought, but for freedom by representation in parliament, as exemplified in this chamber. During the progress of the war the Canadian people gave their clear and emphatic decision 14873-371
as to leadership. I have been astounded, however, to note that no sooner had the votes been counted than a number of those who claimed to be the greatest patriots and the greatest defenders of democracy in Canada proceeded to attempt to interfere with the will of the people. There was an attempt to deny the people their right. After they had chosen their Prime Minister and a government formed by him, an attempt was made by some hon. members and through the press-and there is still talk of the kind- to have another man and another government lead the country in its time of war.
I have said that the votes were hardly counted when that happened. The reason given for advocating a change in government a few weeks or months after the election was that the situation overseas had changed greatly since the time of the election. I remember well the words of the Prime Minister at the time of dissolution in January. It was because he felt that the situation overseas would change vastly, because he was convinced there would be a great offensive by the axis powers on the western front, as he declared openly on the radio and through the press, and because he believed a tremendous offensive would be lodged against Great Britain and France, that he considered it expedient to dissolve parliament so that a new government might be formed, and thereby preclude on the eve of an election the possibility of this house engaging in a debate which might become acrimonious. He believed the people of Canada should be called upon to choose a government. The issue was so clear that I found it surprising that any question arose either in or out of the house as to who should lead the government and the country during this time of crisis.
I have made some brief observations respecting Athabaska; permit me another one. In that constituency we have a large number of farmers and, like the hon. member who has immediately preceded me, because of the farm population in my constituency I have a keen interest in what happens to the farmer at this stage of the war and in view of world markets. I could wish only that my voice might be strong enough and have enough authority to reach many more hearers, not in western but in eastern Canada.
I resent keenly the libelling of the province in which I live and in which for almost fifty years I have made my home. I resent the libelling of conditions in western Canada, as preached in this chamber. I know there has been misery and poverty in some places. We
The Address-Mr. Dechene

must realize that western Canada, compared with the east, is a country of extreme weather conditions. While crops in the eastern part of this country may vary from year to year, the fact remains that in the western part we are exposed to drought affecting not only one part of a province but, indeed, affecting vast territories, as happened in 1937.
When I speak of 1937, despite what has been said by hon. members across the floor of the house, may I say that we in Alberta, and particularly the people in Saskatchewan, are thankful for the rescue of the vast numbers of farmers-nearly 66 per cent of the population of Saskatchewan-through the extremely precious help extended by the government and the Canadian people generally.
It is in that spirit that I approach the matter of farm prices. In the time at my disposal I would find it impossible to discuss in full the production of bacon, butter, wheat, live stock and other commodities of western Canada. The subject would be too great, complicated and diversified to be treated amply in a few minutes. As an hon. member from Alberta, however, I appeal to the goodwill and good feeling of hon. members and other persons from other parts of Canada in effecting a settlement of western problems.
May I repeat what I have said on other occasions, namely, that western Canada is not a land of IOU's; it is not a land of paupers; although it may have been for some time past, it is not a land of men who refuse to meet their just debts. It is a land of men and women of honour and integrity. May I point out to eastern Canada that under anything like normal conditions the farmer of the west is just as honourable, and just as anxious and desirous to meet his obligations as the farmer or any other person of any part of this dominion.
While there have been extreme weather conditions, and while a bad situation has arisen in some parts of western Canada, a situation which was made worse by the depression, I do know that a large number of farmers are doing well in the west. Many farmers in Athabaska resent being represented, through the observations of some hon. members, as men unable to earn a living, and as men living in a country in which it is impossible to provide the necessities of life. We have heard this sort of thing for twenty years, since 1921. We are on that account sometimes met with considerable antagonism and animosity in the eastern provinces.
Every fair-minded man in western Canada knows there is a difficult wheat situation to face again. The 1940 crop proved difficult,

and the 1941 crop will be difficult unless the east and the west get together in an effort to solve this problem. WTe know we can offer value. Only a few hours ago I was reading an article which brought tears to my eyes. It described conditions obtaining in some of the countries of Europe. Millions are being faced with starvation. In Denmark, Norway and the low countries they will have to kill off their live stock because they cannot import the feed necessary to keep them alive and bring them to market. Starvation will be stalking through the streets and lanes of France. In only a few minutes we shall be going to hotels and restaurants, and I ask hon. members to remind themselves that it is not fair for us to speak as we have been doing. Hon. members talk of the misery we are in, but we do not know what true misery is.


Mr. JAQUES:: No reason why we should.


Joseph Miville Dechene: May I say to my hon. friend that I know more about the situation in Canada than he does. The problem of financing the next crop, should it prove bountiful, cannot be solved by displaying the sort of spirit displayed by the hon. member. This problem should be considered in a national way. This is the thought I want to bring from the vast country of Athabaska. The federal and provincial departments of agriculture will have to get together on this matter. Complete information should be furnished to the farmers of the west. If I am correctly informed, there is no wheat problem in eastern Canada because last year's crop has all been sold. Our farmers should be told of the advisability of and the necessity for leaving greater acreage under fallow. This should be done in order to clean the land. A great deal of western land needs cleaning because it has been badly infected with weeds, and next year would foe a good time to undertake this work. A greater acreage should be planted with hay in order to clean it up and bring back the fertility which has been lost.
I do not think I am divulging any secret when I say that bacon is not considered a necessity by the British government. Great Britain can secure her requirements from other countries at lower cost, and we should be thankful that Britain has consented to renew the bacon agreement and to take a larger amount of bacon although at a somewhat lower price. It may be that this agreement was entered into as partial repayment of some of the sacrifices Canada has made. I was glad to hear the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. DECEMBER 2, 1940
The Address-Mr. Dechene
Gardiner) say-I remind him that we will expect him to live up to this-that better methods of handling and improved marketing will ensure the producers almost the same price for bacon as they secured last year.
I hope I am not taking up too much time in referring to my own riding of Athabaska, but it has been badly neglected in years past. First, I should like to refer to the tremendous undeveloped water power in that riding. There is the Peace river which flows in from the Rocky mountains, there is the Athabaska, there is the Clearwater. The potential water power of those rivers has never been fully estimated by engineers. At present those waterpower sites are too far away. There is a great need for the development of the natural resources of western Canada. The financiers of eastern Canada will not invest their money in the west unless we meet our just obligations. The investment of capital has stopped and our resources are lying dormant.
I should like to give hon. members some idea of the amount of tar sands which are to be found in the vicinity of Fort McMurray. There are billions of tons of these sands, and one of the finest sights one could see is to travel down this river in a boat on a sunny day and see the tar sands on the banks throw back the reflection of the sunshine. Some of these banks are 300 feet high and they extend for miles. Millions and millions of barrels of gasoline, lubricating oils and other by-products could be produced from these sands, and they would provide sufficient paving material to pave the streets of every city in Canada.
The main problem is that of transportation. Within three miles of Fort McMurray there is a modern salt factory, and in spite of the higher freight rates which have to be paid, this industry has been able to compete for the markets of Alberta and part of Saskatchewan. It turns out one of the best table products which can be found in that part of the country, but relief is needed in the form of reduced freight rates between Edmonton and Port McMurray. On a shorter haul by ten miles we pay a forty per cent higher rate. This goes a long way towards retarding the development of our tar sands and other natural resources. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that a small refinery is already in operation testing the tar sands, and their development has been proved feasible. If the transportation problem were settled, we would be producing vast new wealth in northern Alberta.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Joseph Miville Dechene: I regret very much that I was unable to conclude before six o'clock and must therefore inflict myself upon this august audience for a few minutes more. I will, however, try to be as brief as possible.
I wish to make one more reference to the extremely important subject of wheat. I agree with the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) that, in order to enable our farmers to carry on with a smaller acreage, after the campaign which I attempted to describe briefly before the recess, a higher payment for a limited acreage might prove a solution. I have every confidence in the officials of the departments concerned, both agriculture and trade and commerce, and I refuse to get excited by anything that our friends across the way may say. They appear to know more about this subject than those who have been at it for years.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: The hon. member
will know a little more after a while.


Joseph Miville Dechene: The hon. gentleman will never learn, it seems. Take, for example, the system of financing which he advocates- and I did not wish to speak about this. Apparently he does not know that any system of financing, no matter whether it be private or public, ultimately rests absolutely upon the integrity of the individual or of those bodies comprising the government.


John Horne Blackmore: What makes the hon. member think that?


Joseph Miville Dechene: Any party which repudiates, in its first act of political power, its sacred obligations without attempting to make any kind of arrangement to meet them, is unable to understand this question and should not be entrusted with the settlement of any financial question.
This afternoon we heard the Prime Minister in another of his comprehensive statements on the war situation. May I be allowed to say a few words with reference to our views-I say "our" as representing the people who sent me here. It was with the deepest of emotions that, a few days ago, we heard Mr. Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of Great Britain, speaking to the people of France; and a few days later, in quite as eloquent an address from this side of the Atlantic, another able man addressed the French people. He is a representative of those who for over three centuries-since
The Address-Mr. Dechene

1632-have played their part in the development of this country. It was at that time that my ancestors came to Canada, and I think I have some right to say that it was with feelings of pride that I heard this able voice from our side of the Atlantic. Many of us believe that it had a great influence on the decision of the Vichy government.
Some of our sons have already made the supreme sacrifice; already many of them lie at the bottom of the ocean. They have shown what this young and virile nation can accomplish on the sea; for now we have a navy. The other day, walking down the street here, I stopped to see a company of soldiers pass by. What splendid men they were! They came from the farms, from the factories, from industry, from every part of the country, free men who had voluntarily enlisted because they wanted to defend something they held dearer than life. I was never so proud of being a Canadian. I realized then that we were out to do our share, that while the British lion was roaring its defiance on the cliffs of Dover, the cub, almost fully grown, was standing by his side.
We may disagree with regard to the work of this government, although I have not heard one real criticism of the way in which it has conducted the war, but when I return home after the house adjourns for the long recess, I shall be prouder than ever of the support I have given to the King government. I am returning home, too, with the thought that now Alberta has an important representation in the Liberal party. After the last election the strength of the Liberal party in that province was greater than that of any other. After all, Liberalism stands for unity and understanding and now there will be no more of fighting between east and west. I must admit, however, that the fault was our own.
I have known the province of Alberta for a long time; I knew it as a boy. What a lovely country, what a marvellous country to a young fellow! The opportunities seemed to appeal to youth, from its plains and forests, its rivers and mountains. Everything in that vast and rich country appealed to a young man. On one occasion an orator expressed this fancy, that when the beneficent Creator had made the universe, after throwing into space stars and planets and suns, and when He decided on the seventh day to rest, casting a look over His work, with which He declared Himself satisfied, He must at that moment have noticed particularly Alberta with its fecundity of soil, its mountains, its vast lakes, its coal mines, that almost limitless province which now

appeals to the whole nation for a better understanding. We know that we cannot carry on as Albertans; we do not want to, we want to carry on as Canadians.
A few weeks before the grand old chieftain of the Liberal party, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, passed to his reward, a group of ten or twelve young men from Alberta visited him. They were students from the university of Alberta and some of our higher schools of education in the west, young men of different languages and different descent representing the typical soul of that province. They came to Ottawa, and before going home they called on that grand old leader of Liberalism just a few days before his death. One of these young men recounted to me his interview with that great man who said to him that day, "I stand speaking to you with a foot already in the tomb." My belief-and I do not fear to express it here; it may sound foolish to some but it does not to me because I believe in something beyond the material things of life-is that when a man has served his people as Sir Wilfrid Laurier and other leaders have served them-I suppose Sir John A. Macdonald had that vision-and has devoted his life, his talents, his soul and the best that is in him to the service of his fellow men, he comes nearer to God. That is democracy, as opposed to any kind of autocracy, whether of a man or of a group.
Such men seem to get a vision of things to come. This young man told me-and he repeated it to me recently-that Laurier foretold exactly what is happening now. He said, "Young men, I am so pleased to see you, to see that you have the training given by our best schools and universities, typically, truly Canadian; that you have been taught the principle that the life that is worth while is founded on sacrifice more than anything else since the great sacrifice." He said, "Before you are of mature age, long before you are as old as I am, you will have lived through such terrible happenings as no one could ever describe. The struggle will be stupendous and terrific." That was more than twenty years ago. He said, "Arm yourselves with this thought, to prepare yourselves for this struggle which will be one for the salvation of humankind."
As we have been told so often, it is a struggle for liberty and freedom. More than that, as the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) said at Toronto, I think, during the adjournment of parliament, it is a struggle for the very soul of things that belong to the inner life of man. The great chief said to these boys, "You are going to see these things; I am too old. I have tried to lead my people, like Moses, at least as

The Address-Mr. O'Neill
far as Mount Nebo where I may see the promised land." Let me express the hope that more than this will be granted to our present leader. Sir Wilfrid said, "Young men, things may look very bad, but do not get discouraged; carry on. Take my word, as a man near the last step; justice and right shall triumph in the end."
Yes, Mr. Speaker, these prophetic words are true to-day; justice and right shall triumph in the end. May I express one wish before I take my seat; I wish that the present leader of the Liberal party, who also has given his life, not to his party but to his country, may not only see the promised land-and not from afar, not in a vision from a mountain top- but after a victory for freedom and democracy may lead his people into the promised land and to better days.
Mr. T. J. O'NEILL (Kamloops):	The
mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne have received well merited praise; may I, however, add my congratulations upon their able speeches?
This debate has been carried on now for about three weeks, and we have listened to some excellent speeches from all sections of the house representing all shades of political opinion, to most of which addresses I listened with interest if not at all times with approval. I feel safe in saying that last fall when we received the news that parliament was to be reconvened on November 5 for the express purpose of formal prorogation and that the next session would be held some time in January, the majority of hon. members in western Canada received that news with approval. Later we were told that this programme had to be abandoned; that we would be convened on November 5 and should come prepared to stay; that the opposition were to ask certain questions and for information for which the vast majority of the public were supposed to be clamouring and that at the same time the government would take the opportunity to give an account of their stewardship.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the vast majority of the people of Canada at the time of the election were quite satisfied with the Mackenzie King administration, and I am of opinion that they have not changed their mind since then; they are still clearly of opinion that the Mackenzie King government could not be improved on very much at the present time, at least from those now seated in this house.
We have heard from some quarters quite a clamour for a national government and a good deal about leadership and about this
being a Liberal war. Such statements and accusations emanating from this house do not help to unite the people of this country. As far as national government is concerned I cannot agree that this is not a national government. With respect to leadership, Canada is very fortunate at the present time, and so is the Liberal party, in having such a leader as the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). There is no parallel to such leadership as his in the British commonwealth of nations to-day. No man has held the leadership of his party longer than our Prime Minister has in Canada. And I can assure hon. members that at times it is a difficult job to hold the leadership of that party.
The other night the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) made an excellent address to which I listened with keen attention. But he made one remark with which I cannot agree. He said that this house should sit almost constantly while the country is at war. I do not agree with that view so long as the government follow the present policy of depending for advice upon a number of high salaried executives recruited from the ranks of industry. In many instances these industrial leaders are not sympathetic to Liberal policies, and some of them are unfriendly and unsympathetic toward the labour class. England has found it a great advantage to take labour men into the cabinet, even though they held different political views, because they understood the viewpoint of the labouring classes, and it helped to give confidence to the labour people if they thought they were well represented in the government. I think it is high -time the government of Canada gave more consideration to the views of labour and the farmers.
At this point I should like to congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) upon the restrictions he is imposing on luxuries and non-essentials of war. Much has been said about equality of service and of sacrifice. The restrictions introduced to-day probably will bring about some of that equality of sacrifice, but I believe we are using the wrong yardstick when we measure that equality. I maintain that equality of sacrifice must not and cannot be measured by the amount of money you take away from a man by means of taxation. It should be measured by how much you have left him when you are through taxing him. That is the yardstick you must use if you are going to have equality.
This brings me to suggest once more to the government the advisability of relieving low paid workers from payment of the national defence tax. I refer particularly to those people who are receiving less than $750 and $1,500 annually, for single and married people
The Address-Mr. O'Neill

respectively. An increasing number of people are asking, who are the financial advisers of the government? Many people consider that salaries far too high are being paid for the belt-tightening advice these financial experts give, especially to people who have had to tighten their belts to the last notch during the past ten years. I have in mind now the farmers and the unemployed. Many reasons have been advanced for the lack of interest and enthusiasm in the last war loan, but it seems to me that very few of those who have dealt with that question have even touched on the real reason why the last loan was not received as enthusiastically as it Should have been. At this time I think the government might well pay heed to the repeated warnings that an overhauling of our monetary system is long overdue.


John Horne Blackmore: Hear, hear.
Mr. O'NEILL: My hon. friend in the far corner says, "hear, hear." Well, I am not in agreement with everything that is advocated by my hon. friend, but I know there are many people-and the number is increasing daily- who ask why we should continue to pay tribute to private individuals and companies for the use of something that already belongs to us; I refer to the credit of the country. Unfortunately, when this subject is broached, we are usually ridiculed by shouts of "funny money," or the authorities take refuge behind the bogy of inflation. A few days ago a very good editorial on this subject appeared in the Ottawa Citizen. I hear someone behind me make a remark not quite complimentary to the Citizen, but that newspaper does contain some admirable editorials, although I do not always agree with them. In speaking of "funny money," however, the editorial asked what [DOT]could be funnier in the way of money than digging gold out of the mines of northern Ontario and then taking that gold and burying it in the hills of Kentucky or Virginia for safe keeping. That seems quite ridiculous, and in my opinion some of the things that are done to-day in the name of high finance are just as silly.
Inflation is a word that is heard a great deal these days, and with regard to which there is a great deal of misunderstanding. I care not how well educated or well informed a man may be, before he can carry on an intelligent discussion of the subject of inflation he must first agree on the definition of that word. In my opinion inflation exists when there are in circulation more currency and credit than are necessary to consume the products and services of any country in any given time. We were told also that inflation could not be controlled. To-day any man

who is a traitor to his country is put to death. In my judgment any man who would do anything to sabotage the finances of this country when we are at war should be put to death in the same way as the man who would give away our military secrets.
I now come to the question of government employees receiving less than a fair wage, with which subject the hon. member for Fraser Valley dealt aptly the other night. In my opinion those receiving less than $60 a month are not receiving a fair wage. The government should consider increasing their wages, and should see to it that industry follows its example. Then there would be no unfair wages paid in this country. A few days ago I saw in the press a paragraph reporting that the civil service commission said it would not be good business to increase these low salaries because then they would be out of line with wages paid by private enterprise. I do not know that anyone has ever suggested that wages paid under the civil service commission in the high brackets are in keeping with wages paid by private enterprise. Certainly I am not of that opinion.
My constituency has not benefited in any way since the war broke out. The people in my constituency do not wish to benefit, but they are definitely of opinion that they are not being permitted to contribute to the war effort the share of which they are capable, so long as so many who are willing and anxious to work are still unemployed. In one of the best newspapers in Canada, the Kamloops Sentinel, I noticed this paragraph:
Increase in transients is noted by city police. A considerable increase in the number of transients travelling from the prairies to the coast is noted in the October report of police activities filed in the city council last week by Corporal E. A. Jarvis. . . .
People in the west do not consider they are being permitted to contribute the share of which they are capable, so long as those people are unemployed. I do not consider that there is any case for unemployment at all, so long as there are people in the east working overtime, as they are doing at present. That time ought to be more evenly distributed than it is.
There is one other matter about which the people of Kamloops would like some explanation, in addition to that forthcoming from the Department of National Defence. According to the records, Kamloops has more hours of sunshine and less precipitation than any other place in Canada. It is on the main lines of both transcontinental railways. It has an airport capable of handling everything, except the very largest bombers. The soil

The Address-Mr. O'Neill
condition at Kamloops is such that in no more than two hours after a very heavy rain the ground would be dry enough for troop marching and manoeuvring.
All these points have been explained to the Department of National Defence, but the reasons given for moving the troops from Kamloops to New Westminster are not sufficient. With all due apologies to the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid), let me point out that ever since moving to that city the troops have been more or less ill. They have not been able to train and drill as they should. We are told by the department that the idea in these days is to get the men in the very best physical and military condition in the shortest possible time. If that is so, then I say that the proper place to keep those men is the place where they can drill the greatest number of hours in the outdoors. That place is Kamloops, British Columbia. I say that we are entitled to some further explanation. The explanation I did receive

and I say it is not good enough-was this: "Selection was made on the considered recommendation of responsible officers who gave due regard to the factors which are considered important in the national training scheme."
In my view the department should consider the arguments we put forward as to why training should be kept at Kamloops. Incidentally may I mention that the first battalion of the Rocky Mountain Rangers- by the way, the oldest battalion in Canada- trained at Kamloops for four months and never had to interrupt their schedule for a single day on account of adverse weather conditions. But since they have moved to New Westminster there have been nothing but interruptions. Of course, they moved to New Westminster at the wrong season of the year. Had they been there in June, July, August or September they would have had fine weather. But from September on, it rains eternally at the coast, just as it snows eternally in Ottawa.


Mr. REID:: Not this year.
Mr. O'NEILL: Ottawa would be a better place in which to train, because training could be carried on once the snow was removed. But nothing can be done in the rain, except keep the men in the huts-and that is what they have had to do.
In corroboration of that, may I refer to an article from another famous newspaper in my constituency, namely, the Salmon Arm Observer:
Pte. George Boutwell of the R.M.R's was home on sick leave over the week-end. A great many of the boys are suffering from 'flu down at the camp in New Westminster.
I now come to the question of Christmas leave for soldiers. This is a matter which I have taken up before. I have letters on my file going back as far as last April, and addressed to the late Hon. Norman Rogers, then Minister of National Defence, calling his attention to the fact that many men on leave were riding freight trains, and asking that something be done. At that time I suggested that these soldiers should be given tickets which would not be transferable and would be good only for men in uniform.
I bring this matter up to-night because I have before me a petition signed by 1,700 citizens of Kamloops, asking that this should be done. Most of the men in camp at New Westminster have come from the interior of British Columbia. Some people will argue that having reduced the fare by half we have already done enough for the soldiers. Well, they cannot come home on a half fare any more than they could if the fare were doubled. They receive $1.30 a day or $39 a month. Most of them send $20 or $25 a month home. The result is that after they buy their tobacco, shaving soap and other necessities they have very little left. They have no money to pay railway fares, no matter how small those fares may be.
When we speak about fares for soldiers we have always been confronted with the excuse that the cost would be too great. Well, for ten years prior to the outbreak of this war, whenever any suggestion was made for social reform we were always met with the same question: Where is the money to come from? Everybody knows that each year we have a heavy railway deficit. May I remind the house that when I make these observations I am not in any way casting any reflection on the railways. Nothing can be said against either the men or the management of either of our Canadian railways. But a good deal can be said about the dead horses for which the Canadian railways are still trying to pay. As a result, each year we are faced with a heavy railway deficit. I maintain that the pajT-ment of fares for soldiers involves only the transferring of an entry from one account to another. It would not entail the outlay of any money. Instead of its being paid by way of fares for soldiers, it would be paid by way of railway deficits.
I maintain, therefore, that the government should give consideration to the question of giving free transportation to soldiers. I quite appreciate that it must give consideration to what military officials may say respecting the number of men who would be permitted to go home. I appreciate, too, that it could not be expected that men now located at

The Address-Mr. O'Neill

Valcartier could in all fairness be permitted to come home. They would have only six days leave, and they would require seven days to make the trip. Therefore there is no use in talking about men going from Valcartier to British Columbia.
But there is no reason in the world for urging that it would cost too much money to send a man from New Westminster to Kamloops, from Calgary to Kamloops, from Kamloops to Calgary, from Winnipeg to Regina, or distances such as those. By no stretch of the imagination can the soldiers be expected to pay those transportation costs, when they make only such a small amount of money.
For many months past hon. members have advocated an increase in payments to those receiving old age pensions. Living costs have increased. I realize that they have not increased to any great extent, and I agree that the government is to be highly complimented upon the fact that it has kept down the cost of living. When we consider the increased cost of living at the time of the last war, we realize what has been done by the government in the present instance. It is to be highly complimented upon the fact that there has been an increase of only 4-6 per cent in the cost of living. But to people receiving S20 a month old age pension, such an increase means that they will have to deprive themselves of some of the necessities of life. Any democratic country, whether at war or not, should be ashamed to have such a condition existing. It might be expected to be found among the people from whom we took this country, but we should not permit it.
I come now to the question of dependents' allowances, and I should like to congratulate the chairman and the members of this board upon the wonderful cooperation they have given to me. I expect that all other hon. members have received the same service in connection with dependents' allowances. I appreciate that when a country changes from peace time to war time and increases its military strength to the extent which we have, it would be an almost insurmountable job for any man or body of men to conduct the necessary investigations in order to have these matters adjusted in the manner we would like. But there are some things which should receive attention.
I have the particulars of one case upon my desk at the present time. The allowance of a widow whose son had enlisted was cut from $20 to $10 because she had an unmarried daughter who was earning $70 a month. I do not see why the government should

attempt to shift its responsibility to the shoulders of an unmarried daughter. Because her work was so far from home it was necessary for this girl to room and board, and she paid $30 for this accommodation. Then she had uniforms to buy, laundry to pay for, carfare and other incidentals to take care of, as well as the dribs and drabs by way of taxation, such as the defence tax and the provincial tax of British Columbia. The result is that this girl has nothing to give to her mother, and very little left for herself. Such reductions should not be made.
In conclusion, I should like to make a few comments with regard to the 30-day training period. To my mind this period is not long enough, although it is better than no training at all. I was glad to note that the Department of National Defence is contemplating increasing the training period to four months. We should look into the future as well as consider the present. There are a number of young men of sixteen and seventeen years of age who are coming out of our schools every year and who, for various reasons, are not intending to continue their education beyond the high school. These young men should have a year in camp, during which time they would receive three months' military training, while the other nine months would be given to vocational training of their own selection. Eventually this war will be over, although that day may be some time away. But we will win because of the determination of our people. When that day comes, there will be a tremendous amount of construction work and trained men are going to be required. Many of these men object to going into military camps, but if they knew they were going to receive vocational training I am sure they would go in willingly, realizing that they would learn something that would be of value to them after the war was over. I think the government should give consideration to some such plan to train our young men.
For the ten years before the war these young men were permitted to drift round the country. Not long ago when it was necessary to build a military camp in British Columbia it was found that carpenters, or even men who could handle a hammer and saw, could not be procured. Yet there were plenty of idle men around. I think these things can be corrected, and they should be corrected. Plans should be made now looking to the future. A country like Canada, richly endowed as it is, should be the last place in the world where a man who wants to work should be out of a job.

The Address-Mr. Furniss,


Mr. S. J. FURNISS (Muskoka-Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, at this time in the long debate it is not my intention to indulge in any preliminaries, other than to join heartily in the felicitations which have been so generously extended by the hon. members who have spoken to the mover (Mr. Claxton) and the seconder (Mr. Jutras) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, as well as to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), and the other ministers of the crown who have spoken in this debate.
May I also say that I am in agreement with the suggestion which has been made so often in this house that free transportation should be provided for our soldiers at Christmas time. I do not think there is any way in which we could better show our appreciation of their services or which would bring more joy to our soldiers and their relatives than by providing them with free transportation to their homes during the Christmas holidays. In connection with transportation there may be difficulties of which we know nothing, but I should like to see the government give every consideration to this suggestion.
Parliament has been called at this time so that the government may lay before members of the house and indirectly the country the record of its war activities since adjournment last August. This has been clearly done by the ministers who are most concerned with war work. It would be expecting the superhuman of any government to have it transform a nation from peacetime work to war-time effort of the present magnitude in so short a time without some possible errors being made. I have no doubt that if the government had to do this work over again, with the knowledge they have gained from experience they would do some things differently. But during all the debate there has not been a single charge of wrongdoing laid against the government. That is a record of which any government might well be proud. It is something which will give the country continued confidence in this government.
Perhaps no other branch of the war service department has done more efficient work than the price control boards According to the last report I saw covering one year of the war, the price of living had gone up only 4-6 per cent, an increase that might well take place in an ordinary year when there was no war incentive to high prices. The work of the price control board has been
conspicuous by the absence of the high prices and profiteering which characterized the last war.
I wonder how many members of the house recollect what happened to the price of sugar in the last war. I am reminded of something that the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Cardiff) said about sugar in his address to the house a few days ago. At page 474 of Hansard he is reported to have said:
I should like to direct a few questions on this point to the government. I do not know the answers, but I should like to know. Did the sugar interests subscribe to their funds?
If exorbitant profits are an indication of where campaign funds come from, then certainly we know exactly where the Conservative party got their campaign funds in the last war. Let me go back to that time. Sugar is a commodity easily controlled between the manufacturer and the wholesaler. When the last war broke out, the price of sugar began to go up and up, and finally the government pegged the price at S12, or a little over, per hundredweight. Then the government undertook to enforce restrictions on the use of sugar. It was doled out in teaspoonfuls, wrapped up in little packages in our hotels and restaurants, and no housewife could get more than twenty-five cents worth at a time even if she had. to drive five miles to the nearest grocery store to get it. Sugar was made to appear very scarce. It was delievered to the retailers in half-dozen bag lots.
When the price control was taken off, sugar sky-rocketed to $24 and in some places to $28 per hundred retail. I know of one merchant who bought a carload of sugar at the beginning of the war. As the price increased, he bought small quantities to get a mark-up from his invoice and when he had sold his carload he had netted a profit of $4,000 on one car. Yet, all the time this was going on, sugar was being piled up to the roof in every available warehouse in the city of Toronto, waiting for the price to go higher, and in the meantime the consumer was forced to pay the higher prices and to suffer from lack of sugar.
Thanks to the foresight of this government in appointing the price control board shortly after the beginning of the war, that cannot happen and will not happen while this government is in office.
The other day I listened with a good deal of interest to the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). These are some
14873-3Si
The Address-Mr. Furniss

of the statements he made. I shall quote only a sentence or two. At page 226 of Hansard he is reported to have said:
Then there is a suspicion-
He does not say there is any evidence.
-that contracts are being awarded in some instances to mushroom companies which have sprung up in recent months, and whose main capital is political fitness.
On the same page he said:
I remember some conditions of 1914-18, but I remember that when there was wrongdoing those who did wrong were punished, under the orders of the then Prime Minister, Sir Robert Borden.
I have some recollections of the war of 1914-18 and I should like to refresh the hon. gentleman's memory. I wonder whether he has any recollection of the fuse contract which the Minister of Militia of that time-not a spurious company, but the Minister of Militia -got from the government. The matter was investigated and it was disclosed that the minister had not a particle of equipment with which to make fuses. He took the contract down to the United States and got the fuses made there, and to obscure his profits from the Canadian people he banked his money in a United States bank. I have no recollection of that gentleman being punished. On the contrary, I think he was knighted for his services during the war.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Has the hon.
gentleman particulars of what he is talking about? He is making quite a charge in the House of Commons.


Stephen Joseph Furniss: I have recollections, just
the same as the hon. gentleman has.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I do not think
the house should be satisfied with recollections when the hon. member is making a charge against a former minister in the House of Commons.


Stephen Joseph Furniss: I am giving the house my recollection. I wonder whether the hon. member recollects what happened to pork in the last war. Water was pumped into it to such an extent that the British government refused to accept the pork, and it stood rotting on the docks at Liverpool because they would not accept it. It gave the bacon trade of Canada such a black-eye that it took years for it to recover its former standing.
I wonder whether the hon. gentleman remembers what happened to about twenty tons of chicken in the capital city of his own province, whether the chicken was held in a refrigerator for higher prices until it spoiled and had to be carted to the incinerator for

destruction. I do not recollect any punishment being meted out to the wrongdoer in that instance. On the contrary, I know of one gentleman who was knighted for his services during that war.


Mr. QUELCH:: He is a Liberal, is he not?


Stephen Joseph Furniss: I do not like talking about these matters, but when hon. gentlemen opposite make such statements I cannot let them pass unchallenged.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has made serious charges and I think he should give particulars to the house so that we can go into the matter.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I do not understand that he was making any charges against a member of the house but rather he was going back into ancient history.


Stephen Joseph Furniss: I am not called upon to answer the hon. gentleman's question.
One of the difficulties with which this government has had to deal is foreign exchange. Owing to our heavy purchases of war materials in the United States and our domestic purchases, notwithstanding the restrictions that have been placed on the latter, the value of our dollar has depreciated considerably in the United States market. Everything must be done to prevent a further decline, and, if possible, to bolster up our dollar.
I was not in the house this afternoon when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) was speaking, and I do not know what he said. But if further restrictions are to be imposed against imports I have just this to say. I believe that the people of Canada are willing to go any length in self-denial, provided that there is equality in that self-denial and that proper safeguards are thrown out so that any interests which might be protected are not in a position to exploit the common people. More and more, as this war goes on, we see that this continent must become a vast arsenal for the British empire.
The other way in which we might improve our foreign exchange situation is by the acquisition of United States dollars through our tourist trade, and I wish to speak for a few minutes about that. Representing as I do perhaps the most popular tourist district in Ontario-and I do not think the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght) or the hon. member for Victoria, Ontario (Mr. McNevin), whose ridings adjoin mine on the north and east, will think I am extravagant in making that claim-I feel I can speak with some knowledge of the tourist business.
Possibly I should ask the indulgence of the house while I say something about Muskoka.

The Address-Mr. Furniss,
Muskoka is a district comprising some twenty-two townships lying about one hundred miles north of Toronto and skirting Georgian bay on the eastern shore. It is a land that was at one time covered with as fine a growth of pine timber as could be found anywhere in Canada. That forest has long since disappeared under the lumberman's axe, but a second growth of greater variety and far greater beauty has come up to take its place. From the time the foliage comes out in the spring, all through the summer, and particularly in the early autumn when the frosts have changed it overnight into a blaze of glory, with all the tints ranging from crimson to golden, it is a land of almost indescribable beauty.
Muskoka has three different lake systems on which steamers of excursion size ply back and forth carrying passengers and delivering freight and mail to different resorts along the shores. On one of these lake systems there is the most popular daily cruise anywhere in Ontario. Twelve hours' sail on smooth waters in and out among the islands, into the bays and round the headlands of three lakes, is a day's pleasure that will long remain in the memory of any tourist.
On one occasion when it was my privilege to be on one of these trips I was in conversation with several Americans and I became curious to know how many there were and where they came from. As soon as the boat landed I hurried to the parking ground and counted thirteen cars bearing United States markers, representing seven different states of the American union, two of them from such long distances as Nebraska and Florida. I mention this to show the distances from which tourists come. Speaking of this, I was at one summer resort when there was a convention of the Woman's Missionary Society and there were representatives from forty different countries including Japan and China.
We can get from our bureau of statistics or from the travel bureau some indication of the value of the tourist business to Canada, but to get a more exact idea I asked a banker who transacts most of the business for a number of United States tourists what they were spending, and he told me that one small group from Pittsburgh, comprising twenty families, spent $100,000 annually in Muskoka, or an average of $5,000 per family. Moreover, there were six groups that spent in the lower thousands and others who spent in the hundreds.
The tourist business does not benefit only those who cater to the trade; there is scarcely a person in Canada who does not benefit in some way or another. A year or so ago I listened to an address by the deputy minister
of game and fisheries of Ontario and he told us that the tourists who came to Canada every year consumed the beef from 60,000 head of cattle. That is about one-third of the quota we are allowed to send to the United States under the reduced tariff in our trade agreement with that country. Besides that, they consumed in like proportions bacon, butter, milk, eggs and all other farm produce, all of which is bound to benefit the farmer to a great extent.	.
My object in saying this is to call attention to the decline that has taken place in the tourist business in the past year. I have some figures from the travel bureau showing the number of people who entered Canada from the United States in the months from January to September, 1940 and 1939, and in every month there is a decrease except in February and March. In these months there was an increase of 69,000 in February and 82,000 in March over the same months of last year, this being due probably to the better advertising of winter sports in northern Ontario and Quebec. All other months show a decline, the heaviest being in July, when there were 1,252,173 fewer tourists from the United States than in July, 1939. That was largely due to misunderstanding about the regulations for getting in and out of Canada, but there was a decline of 17-4 per cent throughout the nine months. Some of that was on account of enemy propaganda in the United States.
What I should like to impress upon the government is that every possible means should be used to combat that propaganda. I understand that the travel bureau have in mind an intensified programme of advertising for this summer. They should begin early and continue it throughout the season. While I am speaking of that, I might mention that I had a letter just yesterday from the proprietor of one of the largest hotels in Muskoka, and he was quite sceptical about restrictions that might be placed on oranges and grapefruit and possibly lemons coming from the United States during the tourist season. He said that United States tourists were in the habit of getting these things for breakfast; that a breakfast without them was not a breakfast at all to them, and that if the first meal in the day was spoiled, the whole day was spoiled. I would urge upon the government then to do everything possible to attract tourists to the Dominion of Canada as a means of increasing our supply of United States dollars.
I am now going to refer for a few minutes to the situation of agriculture relative to the other industries of our country. I am going to quote again a few words from the speech.
The Address-Mr. Fumiss,

of the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Cardiff). He said, as reported on page 474 of Hansard:
We never did get a fair deal from any government, least of all from this one. . . .
I believe I am quite safe in saying that this government has done more for agriculture than any other government that has existed since . confederation. The deal that any industry gets from a government is the way that industry is affected by the policies of the government. And in my opinion the best judges of any policy are the people.
Let us look for a moment at what has happened in the last ten years in Canada. We had an election in 1930; the Right Hon. Mr. Bennett led the Conservative party in that election, and he promised that he would make the tariffs fight for the farmer just as they fought for the industrialists. The people took him at his word and elected him to office with a substantial majority. He immediately put his high tariff policy into effect, and for the next five years the farmers of Canada suffered from the most restricted -markets and lowest prices they had ever had since confederation.
In 1935 we had another election. The present Prime Minister appealed to the country on his agricultural and other policies. The result of the election was that he was returned to office with the largest following that any prime minister in Canada ever had. He concluded trade agreements with the United States and with other nations. After five years he appealed to the country again, and on March 26 last, notwithstanding the roads being in a worse condition than at any election ever held in Canada he was returned to office, again with the largest following a Canadian prime minister ever had. That, I believe, is proof that the policies of the Liberal party are popular policies and that the farmers are not getting from this government the worst deal they ever had.
I do not know whether the hon. member for Huron North is a farmer, but he should know that the agricultural problem is an economic one, or perhaps I might say a problem of organization. The farmer is an unorganized individual living in an organized world. And the higher the degree to which industry and finance-and I include labour-are organized, the more impoverished the farmer becomes. He is like a shorn Iamb, and that is why he must have government assistance if possible.
I would not add the weight of another straw to the burden under which the government are labouring. They are working under tremendous strain. But I believe that the function of a

member of parliament is to represent his people, and if I fail to let the government know what the people at home are thinking I fail in my duty to my constituents and to the government as well.
I come now to a couple of complaints that come to me from my riding. One relates to the high wages paid on ordinary construction work, and the other to the price of bacon in the new contract. These complaints come to me in the form of letters and resolutions, and from the man on the street. The last time I was home, a couple of weeks ago, I met a man and the first words he said to me were: "You are a member of parliament; can you tell me why the government pays such high wages for ordinary construction work?" I said, "Would you complain if you were a workman?" And I reminded him at the same time that labour had had several lean years. "Well," he said, "I am a taxpayer, and I look at it from the taxpayer's viewpoint."
Some time before that I was at a ploughing match and I came across a group of farmers who were in earnest conversation. I knew some of them and joined the group, and the same question was put to me. They said that men were quitting work on the farm, going where they could earn these high wages, and it was creating a serious labour problem. One man said that they expected to be asked even $70 a month for next summer. Put it at $50 a month, which was the highest wage paid during the last war, when farm produce was double the price it is to-day, and add to that $20 for board, for which the farmer should have credit, and you have still $70 a month. Multiply that by seven or eight for the months of hire, and you have about $500. Divide that by what the farmer will get at the prices at which bacon or hogs are going to sell under the new contract, and you will find that it will take between thirty and thirty-three hogs to pay a man's wages for the summer. If you follow that through, you will find that at the average consumption of grain per one hundred pounds of live hog, it will take six to seven hundred bushels of grain to feed those hogs. I have no objection to good wages being paid if the farmer is in a position to pay them. But there will be few men hired next summer on the farm if wages are at that rate.
I have no fault to find with the price of bacon that the Minister of Agriculture got from the British government. I believe he made the best bargain possible. We must remember that Great Britain is sore pressed. All that stands between us and Hitler is the British navy. Britain's soldiers and sailors

The Address-Mr. Bourget
are in the far east, on the Mediterranean, on the Atlantic, and perhaps at many other places that we know nothing about. Britain's financial resources are not inexhaustible. The time may come before this war is over, when we may have to make common cause with Great Britain and help to feed her soldiers and sailors as we are feeding our own. If that time comes, I know that Canada can and will respond. But if industry and finance can enjoy profits and people can enjoy large salaries, then something should be done to see that the farmer gets his just share of the national income. Next summer the farmer and his wife and family will be working harder and for longer hours than any other class of people in Canada. Again I say that he should get a just return for his labour.
There are two ways by which that might be done. The first would be for the government to exercise more of the powers that have been conferred upon it by the National Resources Mobilization Act. That would be a drastic step and I know it would end in the dislocation of industry and the slowing up of our war work. But I cannot conceive of victory coming out of a struggle such as this if the only incentive to battle is monetary gain, whether it be through profits, high salaries or high wages. That should not be the yardstick with which to measure our war effort. Only when every able-bodied man in Canada is either in the army, the navy or the air force, or at work in the factory or the field producing the essentials of war, will it be possible to say that our war effort is at its maximum. It may be that before this war is over, we shall be fortunate if we are well fed, well clothed and comfortably housed, and beyond that looking for nothing but victory. The other step that I might suggest would be further taxation on profits and incomes to reduce the inequality, and the money gained thereby might be used to reimburse agriculture in some measure.
In the meantime the message I would give the farmer, if by any chance it should reach his ears, is that he should carry on. Remember, we are receiving twice as much as we received for our products during the lean years from 1930 to 1935. Even if nothing *can be done I would still say, carry on until victory is achieved, and when that time *comes we can set about the construction of a more just and equitable order.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to read just a few lines from the Magazine Digest for November, 1940. This afternoon I heard the Prime Minister state that the Germans did not understand our mentality.
I quite agree that this is the situation with most Germans, but these are the words of one German who does understand it:
The British nation will be considered the most valuable ally in the world as long as it can be counted upon to show that brutality and tenacity in its government, as well as in the spirit of the broad masses, which enables it to carry through to victory any struggle that it once enters upon, no matter how long such a struggle may last or however great the sacrifice that may be necessary or whatever the means that have to be employed; and all this even though the actual military equipment at hand may be utterly inadequate when compared with that of other nations.
There is just one word in that paragraph that I do not like; that is the word "brutality", but when I tell you, sir, the name of the author of that statement, you will not be surprised at that word being included. At the end of this short article it states that these words were written by Adolf Hitler, and appeared in the original edition of "Mein Kampf". Leaving out the word "brutality", I do not think it would be possible to give a better description of the spirit of the British people; and I do not think we in Canada could do better than to foster and emulate that spirit. It is the spirit that won over the Spanish armada, that won through at Camper-down, at Trafalgar, at the Nile and at the battle of Waterloo; it is the spirit that will win out in this struggle. England has been born again in a welter of sweat and blood. England will live on. There will always be an England.


Mr. MAURICE BOURGET (Levis) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, rising as I do for the first
time in this house, I may be permitted, at the outset, to fulfil a most pleasant duty, in tendering my heartfelt thanks to the men and women of my constituency who have done me the honour of electing me as their representative in the nation's parliament. To the best of my modest ability, I hope to become worthy of their confidence by performing my duties with the utmost sincerity and energy.
I also wish to tender my sincere congratulations to the mover (Mr. Claxton) and seconder (Mr. Jutras) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne for having performed so splendidly on that occasion.
I fully realize, Mr. Speaker, the heavy responsibilities that are mine in these troublous times. In my constituency, at the last election, the electors-and especially the older ones- have recognized the necessity of electing a young representative because, to their mind, it will devolve upon the younger generation to rebuild what is now being laid in ruins and, especially, to find a way of solving the serious problems that will arise after the war.
The Address-Mr. Bourget

As a representative of that younger generation in this house, I wish to make a few remarks upon a matter of special concern to the younger Canadians, and one which affects directly our war effort. During this session and even during the last one, quite a few members of this house have brought that matter to the attention of the government. I know that many others, and among them my good friend and colleague the hon. member for Quebec West and South (Mr. Parent) never lose an opportunity to draw it to the attention of the proper authorities. The question I refer to, Mr. Speaker, is the technical training of the youth of Canada. We have heard it stated on all sides that this country's war effort would consist in supplying the empire and our allies with their requirements in foodstuffs and munitions.
Only a few days ago the newspapers carried a statement of Mr. Arthur Greenwood, minister without portfolio in the British war cabinet, to the effect that Canada had been transformed into an industrial country. He added that the supplies provided by Canada had been precious in quality and in quantity. He stated further that North America would soon become an arsenal. I believe all hon. members have likewise read the statement of the British minister of shipping that England was now losing more ships than she could replace. This is probably what led the Minister of National Defence for Naval Affairs (Mr. Macdonald) to declare that we should have to prepare ourselves to build destroyers and cruisers in Canada. Then, the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) informed us in his able review of the activities of his department that $255,000,000 would be appropriated for the establishment of new war industries.
The necessity and urgency of these industries necessarily brings up the problem of providing skilled workmen. If a lack of skilled labour is already felt, what will it be when all these new industries have been established? It is all very well to have numerous industrial establishments, but they are entirely useless without the trained labour required to operate them. The training of this labour is a question to be considered by the government.
At the risk of being charged with provincialism, Mr. Speaker, I shall very briefly call the government's attention to the situation at present existing in the province of Quebec. That province now has five or six technical schools and a few other establishments called arts and craft schools. According to the information I have been able to gather, these schools cannot fulfill the growing

demand on the part of young men eager to follow their courses. Recalling the statement of the Minister of Munitions and Supply that $255,000,000 were to be spent on the creation of new war industries, I wonder if it would not be good policy, especially in the present extraordinary circumstances, to devote part of this money to the construction and equipment of new technical schools. In addition to providing trained labour for our war effort, the government would thus render a valuable social service in providing the youth of Canada with a technical training which they could use to advantage later on.
I particularly wish to call the attention of the Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty), who is the minister responsible for the administration of the youth training plan, to a question which I have specially at heart, as it directly interests the people of my constituency. In Levis county there are two shipyards where corvettes and mine-sweepers are now being built. According to the statement of the Minister of National Defence for Naval Affairs, they will probably be called upon before long and for many years to come to build destroyers and cruisers. You will readily agree, Mr. Speaker, that the men who are working without respite on the construction of these ships, putting in days of twelve, fourteen and even sixteen hours, cannot continue doing that without endangering their health. In this regard, I wish to congratulate labour in general on their splendid energy and patriotism in working night and day to help achieve the victory which we all so ardently hope for. It will therefore be necessary, perhaps sooner than we expect, to replace these workmen or at least provide them with help in the accomplishment of their arduous task.
If I may be permitted to do so, I should like to offer to the responsible minister a suggestion which I consider applicable to shipbuilding as well as to many other war industries. As the minister said on Thursday last, it is absolutely necessary to provide a supply of skilled labour and to do so quickly. In accordance with the youth training plan, an agreement would first have to be made with those industries that have been given war contracts, so that such industries may employ one young workman for every five or six skilled workers. The selection of these young candidates would be made through a board of examiners that might include one repre-

The Address-Mr. Bourget
sentative from the Department of Labour, one from the company or industry concerned, and one skilled workman having some general knowledge of such industry. Mr. Speaker, I fully realize that it would not be advisable to employ all applicants without first ascertaining that they have the requisite intelligence and the necessary fitness for some particular trade. The selection of candidates having been made, the latter might begin to work in the industry concerned in order to gain some practical knowledge, but they should at the same time be required to sign an agreement to attend, two or three evenings a week, a technical school giving theoretical courses directly connected with the occupation assigned to them. After a period to be determined by the authorities, these young apprentices would have to pass an examination so as to prove conclusively that they have the necessary qualifications to hold their positions and be recognized by the examiners as skilled workers in their respective trades. I sincerely believe that if this suggestion were adopted we would have no trouble to find in a very short time all the skilled labour required by our industries. Naturally, these young men should receive during their training a minimum salary which would cover their living expenses, and in certain deserving cases would allow them to contribute to the upkeep of their dependent relatives. I have often met, especially after my election as a member of this house, parents who claim that they cannot afford to pay the expenses incidental to such training, such as transportation, clothing and the like. Payment of such salaries could be shared equally by the federal and provincial governments and by the firm or industry concerned.
I am convinced that there would be objection on the part of the companies. If they objected, the governments could easily overcome the difficulty through a clause in the contracts which would force the companies to contribute their share. I can assure the minister of labour that he would have the willing cooperation of our provincial government, because our newly elected provincial secretary declared recently that the question of technical education in our province would receive the best consideration from the government. I hope that there will be no delay and that thanks to the help of the central government our young people will soon be given the opportunity of enlarging their field of knowledge and of preparing themselves for the struggles of life.
In these few observations, I have given but a very incomplete summary of this most important question which I wanted to bring
to the attention of the hon. members of this house. Moreover, if my suggestion were adopted, we would not only further the training of our youth, but we would also make an important contribution to our war effort. I hope that it will receive the best consideration.
I also wish to call the attention of the government to a question that has already been brought up in this house, that of the salaries paid to the clerks and stenographers grade 1 in the civil service. In my opinion the salary paid to those employees is ridiculous, and so is the difference of S30 between the minimums of grade 1 and grade 2. It seems to me that a minimum of $75 would only be fair, and it is hard to understand how they can live on a salary of $60 per month from which taxes are deducted.
(Text) Mr. Speaker, I should like to say just a few words with regard to our war effort. Since the opening of this session we have heard it stated many times that the government should have displayed more activity in the prosecution of Canada's war effort. I think every fair-minded citizen will agree with me when I say that our government has put forth a supreme effort to help our allies by supplying them with men and materials. This fact has often been stated and restated by British officials.
Before concluding my remarks, may I say that I consider it a privilege and an honour to extend my sincere appreciation to the English-speaking members in this house who have paid such fine tribute to the Freneh-Canadians. I can assure them that their heartfelt expressions will long be remembered by my fellow citizens. These members have done more for unity than the unjustified statement which can be read on page 409 of Hansard. I quote:
There is just one other mystery upon which I should like to comment. Who will stand in his place in this house and say that to-day our front line trenches are not on the English channel and along the shores of the Mediterranean? No one even thinks otherwise, but I want to recall a statement that was made in this house not so very long ago, in which we ivere told that the Canadian parliament would decide to what extent, if any, Canada would participate in this war. I think all lion, members will recall that statement. Then if we turn to page 225 of Hansard for this session we find a question which was asked and answered; hon. members can look it up for themselves. And the minister hastened-yes, hastened-in reply to the question asked, to assure some unseen minority, a handful of men, wherever they may be in Canada, men who were once described as those who wanted to run to the bush in the event of an emergency, that notwithstanding anything connected with the extension of the training period they would not have to serve outside of Canada. I have no thought but to condemn anybody who does
The Address-Mr. Bourget

not recognize that our front line of trenches is on the English channel and in the Mediterranean. I have no apologies to offer when I make that statement.


Mr. THORSON:: Who made that
statement?


Maurice Bourget: The hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lockhart). I do not think that represents the opinion of all English-speaking Canadians. If it did, we could not even dream of unity, here in Canada. Similar statements were made during the last war and they resulted in creating disunion and in turning Canadian against Canadian. In times like these when unity is so important, we should refrain from making such statements. It is unnecessary to recall the part which was taken in the building of our beloved country by this unseen minority. This has been proven again and again by others than French-Canadians.
I may assure you, Mr. Speaker, that French Canada is doing its utmost to help the government in the prosecution of its war effort. It may be that the people of that part of Canada have different ideas as to the means to be taken to carry on this war effort, and I think we must admit that this attitude cannot be totally condemned. For example, I think the declaration to-day of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) touching upon conscription goes to show that it is often better to base criticism on the long-range view rather than upon the narrow perspective of the moment. I am sure that no true Canadian will for one minute doubt the loyalty and sincerity of the French-Canadian. When the gods of war shall decree again, as they necessarily must, that the sun of victory will again cast its rays of peace upon the whole British empire, it will then be found that every Canadian from Halifax to Vancouver will proudly and justly maintain that he did his bit to carry on to the successful end.


Mr. V. J. POTTIER (Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare):: Mr. Speaker, I am taking advantage
of the first opportunity to congratulate the mover (Mr. Claxton) and the seconder (Mr. Jutras) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
During the few minutes at my disposal I intend to bring to the attention of the house a matter which I think might well be given consideration at this time. This is something which I believe is important in view of the serious situation which is facing us at the moment. I refer to the menace which has resulted from the empire's shipping losses. There seems to be no doubt that this situation has reached serious proportions.

We saw in the last war what a menace this might be. A few days ago the Minister of National Defence for Naval Affairs (Mr. Macdonald) related how the building of ships in his department had increased to 155, and he said that before the end of the next fiscal year that number would be increased by another one hundred. I want to congratulate the minister in that regard. But while we are making great strides in our naval shipbuilding programme, there still remains the question of our merchant marine, the question of making up the losses or, shall I say, of helping Britain to make up the losses in merchant shipping that she is suffering at the present time. I believe the time has come when we should have not only a naval shipbuilding programme but a shipbuilding programme for our merchant marine in such proportions that in some measure at least its effect would be felt in this day of world shipping losses.
I said that we are facing a menace in empire shipping. The Prime Minister of Great Britain, speaking in the British House of Commons on November 5, about three weeks ago, said in part:
The dangers in the air are sudden, but the dangers to our sea-borne traffic mature much more slowly, but they are none the less formidable and if in any way neglected they would touch the life of state. We must expect that next year still heavier U-boat attacks will be made upon us, and we are making immense preparations of all kinds to meet them.
He went on, and this is what I want particularly to draw to the attention of hon. members:
More serious than the air-raiding has been the recent recrudescence of U-boat sinking in the Atlantic approaches to our island.
That was three weeks ago. Last week Mr. Arthur Greenwood, minister without portfolio in the British government, apparently speaking on behalf of that government, said in a debate in the British House of Commons, I think last Wednesday :
It is true that we have suffered very heavily.
It is true that this is much like April, 1917, but though far worse than it should be, the situation is not as bad as it might have been, but for an actual increase in merchant tonnage built here. We have not quite lived up to our shipbuilding programme, but we are not very far from it and that has made an enormous difference. The shipping we have captured and the shipping transferred to us have gone into the pool; and although our tonnage now is slightly below what it was when the war started, the net loss is not considerable.
He promised that everything would be done to increase home production. He admitted further that the home production of ships was not adequate. He said that Britain

The Address-Mr. Pottier
hoped for an increased tonnage from the United States. He outlined the programme of Britain, which was made some time ago when it was planned to produce a gross tonnage of 1,300,000 tons a year. Mr. Greenwood said that they had not been able to reach that production, and he went on to say:
It would be folly to deny that the bombing assaults of recent weeks had damaged essential production in Great Britain.
In other words, not only in the past had Britain been behind, in their production but they were getting to the stage where they could not maintain even that, shall I say, backward rate of production. The shipping losses in the last two weeks have averaged some 50,000 tons a week. Taking the figures given as approximate, that Great Britain was producing some 25,000 gross tons a week, we find that she is going backward at the present time to the amount of some two million tons of shipping a year. But even these figures do not show the situation in its true light, because in addition to that loss in tonnage the shipping hauls are becoming longer. Ships used formerly to go to Norway, to the continent, and others would use the Mediterranean route; but now all that is changed and ships have to make longer hauls, so that not only is Britain going behind at the rate of two million tons of shipping a year but the freight hauls are becoming longer. That is the situation as we find it to-day.
But some members may say that we have acquired from seven to eight million tons of shipping from Norway, Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands and Greece. But the British losses cannot be made up simply by transferring to a pool the continuing traffic supplied by ships from other countries. Moreover, this process of freighters from other countries coming into the pool has practically come to an end. It is not a recurring gain. It is not continuous like a building programme and it does not make up for the losses. That to-day is the all-important question.
Mr. Greenwood, as I said, hinted that Britain had to look elsewhere to make up this deficit, and he referred to the United States. Anyone who gives this matter a moment's thought knows that there are only two places where we can get more tonnage. It has to come, as the Prime Minister said this afternoon, from other parts of the empire or from the United States.
Let me go over for a moment just what can be expected from the United States, and then, if I have time, I shall deal briefly with what we could produce in Canada in the way of wooden ships.
Mr. Hore-Belisha in the debate in the British House of Commons said that Britain can expect only about 300,000 tons of shipping from the United States. I think that was an underestimate; I think it was not reasonable. We can with profit look back to the last war to see just what amount of new tonnage was produced at that time. That is the only guide we have.
In 1917-and remember that the United States came into the war in that year-the United States produced 800,000 tons of new shipping, and in 1918, 2,600,000 tons; in 1919 they produced an all-high of 3,300,000 tons. One must remember that in 1918 and 1919 the United States had been in the war for a certain period and had got into their war stride. They were all-out with regard to their shipbuilding programme.
I do not think we can expect such a production at this time. I think we should rather take their tonnage as approximating the 1917 figure, and in 1917 the United States was in the war for about half a year. Their shipping production increased from 1916 to 1917, and in 1917 they produced 800.000 gross tons. Let us raise that up to 1,000,000 tons, for the sake of argument, and even then we shall still be 1,000,000 gross tons short of making up the annual losses in shipping. Therefore, if we take the United States estimate of production at 1,000,000 tons, it leaves other parts of the British empire the duty to do what they can to repair the sustained losses, to counteract the subtractions that are taking place from time to time. I think the time has come when Canada can well go over its own shipyards to see what its possibilities are and in what way it can help to meet the situation.
Let us see what happened in the last war so far as Canadian shipyards were concerned -because that is the only measure we have to go by. I will give the values in dollars in order to give the house an idea of the expansion that took place in shipbuilding at that time. In 1915 there was a total production in Canadian shipbuilding of $7,000,000. By 1917 this had risen to $35,000,000; in 1918 it was $74,000,000, and in 1919 it was $86,000,000. That represents the possibilities of expansion in Canadian shipbuilding, taking the years from 1915 to 1919.
Perhaps at this time it might be well for us to look over our own shipyards to see exactly what can be done with regard to ships. In 1918 we built 428 vessels with a gross tonnage of 235.000 tons and about the same amount in 1919, besides repairs. At that time we built for the imperial muni-
The Address-Mr. Pettier

tions board, forty-one steam merchantships, having a total of 132,000 tons, and forty-six wooden ships having a total of 90,000 tons.
Someone will perhaps ask what the policy of the government was in the last war. What did they do then? That might be a guide to what we should do now. At that time they were faced with the same menace; submarines were threatening British shipping, and the question necessarily came before this house. It came before the house first on May 11, 1917, when it was brought up by the Hon. E. M. Macdonald, member for Pictou at that time, and again on April 4, 1918, it was discussed. The question was then, as it is now:	Should we as a government go into a shipbuilding programme and build steel ships or wooden ships or both? Let me read from Hansard to show the policy of the government of that day with regard to this matter. I read from page 346 of Hansard of 1918 where the statement of the then Minister of Marine is reported:
I brought the matter to their attention, that the time was opportune for Canada to embark upon the building of steel ships as a national, permanent policy.
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Ballantyne: And, after giving the matter very careful consideration for some months, and working out a comprehensive programme on good, sound, business lines, I brought the proposal before my colleagues in the government, and I am very pleased to state that it was unanimously decided that after the imperial munitions board contracts were completed all the berths in all the shipyards of Canada which are building steel ships would be utilized to the full in building steel vessels for the Canadian government.
That was in regard to steel ships. What about wooden ships? The policy with regard to wooden ships was stated by the same minister, as reported at page 349:
The hon. member for Maisonneuve said something about neutral ships. The Canadian government, of course, are confining their efforts entirely to ships of Canadian registry. We intend to keep our yards busy with Canadian registered ships only-ships for the Canadian government.
A large number of wooden ships have been built by the imperial munitions board for the imperial authorities, but it is not the intention of the Canadian government to have any wooden ships built. I am not prepared to express any opinion for or against wooden ships, except that with the money available for ship building in Canada at the present time, it seemed to the government the wisest policy to invest that money in steel ships only. The wooden shipbuilding yards in different parts of Canada have many opportunities at the present time for building -wooden ships. While they cannot build wooden ships under Canadian registry, they have every opportunity of building wooden ships for our allies and for neutral countries,

and some of these yards are now working on very large orders for wooden ships for allied and neutral countries.
That was the policy in. 1917; that is what happened at that time. They built steel ships only, and as a matter of fact, from that policy developed the famous Canadian merchant marine. In 1919, 1920 and 1921, sixty-three steel merchantships were built.
With that record behind us, I think we can profitably consider at this time what we should do in dealing with one phase of shipbuilding, namely, wooden ships. I am not going to deal with steel ships. Perhaps, before discussing this question further, I should congratulate the government upon the recent appointment of a controller of ship construction and repairs, with wide powers to allocate work and distribute men and machinery. The person named is well qualified, and he comes to his position with experience and ability.
At the present time, in yards for the construction of wooden ships in Canada we have about 5,000 tons of shipbuilding going on, and this, by the way, on the part of private owners, except for such wooden ships as are connected with our naval programme. In my remarks I am discussing merchantships. We have existing facilities for approximately 60,000 gross tons, for the construction of wooden ships. We are using less than ten per cent of our wooden shipbuilding capacity.
As we know, there has been discussed a programme in connection with wooden ships for Britain, and nothing that I shall say must be taken as proposing in any way to interfere with that programme. As I understand, there is nothing definite. There are no wooden ships contracted for and the matter is in an unsettled state. The opinion I urge at all times is that Britain should be given the right of way, and I do not wish my remarks to be construed in any way as interfering with that procedure. The right of way should be given to the old country for whatever ships it requires.
What I am afraid of is that Britain may not decide to build wooden ships, or may decide to build a limited number, and that we shall go back to the policy of 1917 of no wooden ships. We shall be not merely in the same position as at that time but in an immensely worse position, because then we had allies and neutrals for whom we were building wooden ships, as mentioned by the then Minister of Marine. That is what causes me to rise here to-night to make these remarks.
I should be very sorry to see a situation in which we were using perhaps ten per cent of our facilities for wooden shipbuilding,

The Address-Mr. Gauthier
while at the same time British losses were such that her shipping was going behind at the rate of two million gross tons a year. In my opinion our present facilities should be increased perhaps threefold; we could produce 150 thousand tons of wooden ships a year.
I make this reservation, that whether or not that can be accomplished depends on the importance assigned to wooden shipbuilding in relation to other industries. We have only a limited number of skilled workers in this country; if they are used in the steel shipbuilding industry, the aircraft industry, the munitions industry or any other industry, and if these industries are placed before the wooden shipbuilding industry, then that is going to restrict the production of wooden ships. But if we want to restore the wooden shipbuilding industry as one of the first into which skilled labour should be allowed to go, then we can produce in this country 150,000 tons a year of wooden ships. That is a very important contribution to the empire.
To-day ships have to be replaced at the rate of two million tons a year. With the United States producing one million tons there are still another million tons to come from somewhere, and that somewhere must be Canada and other parts of the empire. The wooden shipbuilding industry in Canada could produce 150,000 tons of that quantity. That is an important factor which must be considered.
I know and I should be frank in telling hon. members that there are some arguments against wooden ships. We who come from constituencies by the sea hear them and have to meet them, and in order that I may give the whole picture let me state those that we hear most often.
They tell us that wooden ships are of limited capacity; that is to say, a wooden cargo ship of 1,000 tons is considered a large wooden ship. They also tell us that wooden ships are limited as to speed; also that the personnel is an important factor, because if we have one ship of 1,000 tons and another of 10,000 tons, the latter like the former requires only one captain. They say, therefore, that we should go in for the larger ships because our personnel is restricted in numbers.
To meet those arguments one by one: as to the fact that the tonnage is limited, I would point out that wooden ships cost less. With regard to speed, we can produce proper models which, with the diesel engines of to-day, will maintain convoy speed, which, after all, is all that has to be considered at this time. As to personnel, I have great difficulty in convincing myself that there is much in that argument. I cannot see ships tied up at the
wharves, particularly on the Atlantic coast, because men to take them out are lacking. We have too much of the old seafaring blood in our veins, of the days of wooden ships and iron men. Such a challenge would never fail to be accepted on either the Atlantic or the Pacific coast. We come of a breed of men whose ancestors came here over stormy seas and who have lived by the sea, and when the time comes that we cannot find the men to man our ships the empire will be no more. Therefore I say that argument of lack of personnel is not one to be given any consideration.
We have gone through wooden shipbuilding eras in Canada. It is interesting to note that away back in the eighties we had 1,300,000 tons of wooden ships, over seven thousand vessels, built in the maritime provinces and the province of Quebec. With such a background as I have tried to outline, with the present rate of shipping losses and with the possibilities in regard to wooden shipbuilding that are ours, and with the importance of keeping that life-line of the empire between this country and Britain in being, it means nothing but ships, more ships and still more ships. We must realize that if the time ever comes that this line of ships crossing the north Atlantic is cut off, it means that the empire as we see it is no more. These ships passing back and forth are the pulse of our national war effort. They carry to Britain that which sustains her life and enables her to carry on her war effort. In our wooden shipbuilding industry we have an asset which can help to maintain that life-line. We have a great tradition of shipbuilding; we have the men to man them, the sons of captains who navigated them over the seven seas and made Canadian shipping familiar in every port in the world.
In view of these factors, I suggest that the government consider seriously a wooden shipbuilding programme. I realize, as every hon. member must, that these industries have to be placed in their relative importance. But I assure them that if the time comes that wooden ships are needed, every creek or cove on the Atlantic coast particularly is a potential shipyard. Shipyards will mushroom up over night-they increased from 40 in 1914 to 250 in 1918. That situation can be renewed, and I ask the government to give consideration to making use of that great national facility.


Mr. PIERRE GAUTHIER (Portneuf) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, having followed with deep attention and without prejudice the various speeches delivered during -the debate now drawing to a close, I have been able to appreciate, as many others have, the advan-
The Address-Mr. Gauthier

extent the ups and downs of one or the other belligerent will affect their holdings in war industries.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Shame!


Pierre Gauthier: What does one human life more or less matter to them, providing their pile increases! The sad part of it is that some of these men manage to acquire a reputation for great patriotism.
Such men are to be found in all countries- in the dictatorships as well as in the democracies. They have made of war a permanent industry. After the massacre of 1914-1918 they rested a little, while disposing from time to time of the products their industries continued to manufacture; we have had the Gran Chaco, the Chinese war, still going on, the Spanish civil war, and after a respite of twenty-five years, a new world war.
An author once wrote:
The masses are good-natured; they are not curious. When they find that they have been tricked _ they get angry and want to break everything. A moment later they have forgotten everything and the comedy starts again at their expense.
Should this definition be correct and the people some day cease being good-natured, what would happen?
A country's war effort can be disastrous when one forgets that nations as well as individuals can develop a form of anaemia which renders them incapable of intellectual or manual work. This anaemia declares itself when people are called upon to perform too much work for the food and care they receive. Therefore, in addition to the war effort there should be a conservation effort. Measures should be taken on a permanent basis in view of the years which will follow this effort, when the world will stop for a while to draw breath-those who will still be strong enough to do so-and to repair the losses, if the required materials still exist and especially if there is still in the world sufficient courage to undertake a proper reconstruction.
The Canadian effort, already considerable, will become even greater by force of circumstances. It should continue to be above all rational. Since our allies are asking especially for an industrial effort, it is because that is what they need-what they need more than they need men. I do not think I am wrong in stating that the people of the entire country are willing to give to Great Britain every assistance possible in the way of munitions and instruments of war. Thousands of our young men are already on active service overseas. Those who have remained here have shown their willingness to do all in, their power to ensure the defence of the country.

I shall not discuss, Mr. Speaker, the opinion of those who believe that our boundary line is in Europe. I shall simply tell them that as a citizen entitled to his own views I do not share theirs.
We need men for our industries; we have them here, let us use them. We need men to defend the fairest of the lands belonging to the free association of the countries of the empire; we have them, and I am sure they will know how to behave should Canada be attacked. The other day I heard the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Picard) reply to the question of a fellow-member who asked him whether he was opposed to imperialism. This was the hon. member's answer:
I am opposed to that imperialism which places the empire above Canada. I am for Canada first; I place Canada above all, Canada should play her part in the empire, but we should not lose sight of the interests of Canada.
These words of the hon. member for Bellechasse awakened in me a world of recollections. I thought I was hearing the voice of one of those who were called, scarcely two or three years ago, the group of ten or the dissentients. A good idea always finds supporters in the end.


Mr. PICARD:: Mr. Speaker, will the hon.
member allow me to make an observation with respect to his last words?


Pierre Gauthier: Certainly.


Louis-Philippe Picard: I do not think that in the whole of my speech of November 21 there can be found a single word which could identify me with the position taken in 1937 and 1938 by some hon. members who did not vote for the defence appropriations. The statements which I made and which I shall repeat, my advocacy of the interests of our people which I shall renew whenever necessary, have nothing in common with the attitude taken in 1937 and 1938 by certain persons who did not vote for the armament appropriations. Had I been a member of the House at the time, I should have voted for the budget. In France to-day men are being tried on the charge of not having sufficiently prepared the defence of their country. I say that to my hon. friend, whom I esteem, without the slightest intention to offend him. Had I been here in 1937 I should have voted for the government's budget. I should have approved it and even upheld it.


Pierre Gauthier: I do not wish to discuss the hon. member's present or past views and I take the liberty of telling him that I do not intend to labour the point.
If I might be permitted, I would ask the government to pay no heed to the out and

The Address-Mr. Gauthier
out advocates of conscription. On March 26 last, the people gave a clear cut decision on that question. From the lowliest as well as the wealthiest Canadian citizens comes this unanimous plea: carry out the mandate we have entrusted to you; we are confident that you will fulfil your task unflinchingly.
Forgetting for a moment their great financial problems to indulge, as it were, in some kind of relaxation, those who would like Canada to bleed herself white sometimes raise a clamour against " political patronage." As far as I am concerned, and I am sure many hon. members agree with me, I may say that I am now far from being spoilt as regards the " patronage " I can dispense to my electors. In support of that statement, I wish to quote a few paragraphs from a letter written to us on October 3, 1939, by the late lamented Minister of National Defence, the hon. Norman McLeod Rogers. The second paragraph reads as follows:
If Canada is to contribute her effort most effectively, it is absolutely necessary that _we all move forward in a complete unity of spirit and purpose. Partisan or personal preferences can have no place in our plans for prosecuting the war.
The letter then goes on:
This means that political interference or personal influence can have no effect in the appointment to commissions in various arms of the service, promotions and employment of civilian help by this department. It means also that purchases of wartime supplies will be made by the war supply board in the open market in the interest of economy and efficiency. No special consideration can be claimed by any particular firm. It is specifically requested that no favours be asked for with respect to contracts, appointments or employment. To grant such requests on a political or personal basis would impair the national character of our wartime effort.
A second letter was written to us by the three ministers of national defence on August 8, 1940. It said about the same things, but dealt with a much greater number of details. In addition to stating that preference should go to war veterans, a statement with which everyone agrees, that letter contained a paragraph which some officials have taken quite seriously:
It is the duty of the employing officer to select his help from those sent to him through any of the employment agencies mentioned above on the basis of qualifications to do the work. He shall not allow personal letters of recommendation (other than those written by former employers) on behalf of any applicant to influence him in this selection.
I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that some officials quote that paragraph with an eagerness and a patience that would be most creditable, were those people showing more judgment.
I took the liberty of replying to that letter as follows:
Dear Sir:
I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated August 8th, which is no doubt written for the particular information of members.
I am willing to comply with your request as regards appointments, promotions, transfers, and so on dn Canada's armed forces. I do not wish any action of mine to interfere with Canada's tremendous war effort.
Parliament has decided upon that war effort and, while not agreeing fully with its views, I must bow to the will of the majority.
However, I am the elected representative of the people of my constituency, and I cannot refuse to give a letter of recommendation to any elector who wishes to secure work on the various projects carried on in many places by the Department of National Defence, especially when I know that the man needs work. Those whom I recommend are honest and law abiding. I do not think any one of them guilty of any offence under the acts that have been passed.
_ In my district, most of the work is done in towns and in their close vicinity. I glean for my electors what little work is available for them. I cannot leave them under the impression that I am no longer able to deal with their requests, even in war time.
My letter goes on:
The opponents of the present government protest against political patronage, as they have indeed always done, so as to screen their activities in the various departments of the federal service. My point is sufficiently illustrated by what happens all too frequently in the civil service commission.
It is true that we are at war, but sooner or later peace will come. We shall then he in a position to determine whether our nation's effort has put too heavy a strain on our resources. We shall also be able to see whether priority has always been given to our Canadian fellow-citizens in those services. When the proper time comes, we can easily ascertain the situation and determine the extent of our war effort.
You may rest assured that my remarks are not promoted by the wish to voice any criticism. What makes me uneasy about the future is the fact that I foresee the very serious problems that will confront Canada after the war. I hope you will consider my statement not as a criticism but as a recital of facts.
Yours very truly,
I have had the privilege of an acknowledgment from the Minister of National Defence for Air.
I have therefore continued to give letters of recommendation without any qualms whatever, for, after all, my electors pay taxes like others, they serve just the same as others do. Some of them are even on active service overseas. Whenever they have the chance of earning some extra money and they believe that I can help them to secure employment, I do not wish to disappoint my constituents, and, whatever their political creed may be, I do my utmost, on all occasions, to secure work for them.
The Address-Mr. Gauthier

Before 1931, the great Valeartier camp was in the constituency of Portneuf, but a redistribution having been made, although that camp was normally a part of the county of Portneuf, by a mere pencil stroke it was detached from it and added to the constituency of Quebec-Montmorency. That is the only war industry in which the people from adjacent parishes may obtain occasional employment. I know that letters of recommendation have been ridiculed and even torn up by some officials. I only ask that this be not done in my presence. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that more judgment will be shown in future. I may add that all too often-I have ascertained the fact during the last few days- some kind of secret patronage system is set up among friends and that some of its most faithful devotees are outspoken supporters of the Conservative party. As I have rightly said, their purpose in raising a clamour is to screen their activities.
Some one was pointing out to me the other day that there was some danger for the people in rural areas if we insisted upon securing work for them in war industries. They might thus be attracted to town occupations and we might be unable to bring them back to the land. I have always held that agriculture is indispensable to us and that we should concentrate all our efforts upon making it successful so that it may become the life work of a larger number of people. But there are also, in my constituency, people who look for work because they need it. Paper factories, which had lately been working at their full capacity seem to curtail their production for the time being, and some people who were working a short time ago are now unemployed. They deserve all my support and I hope that employers in war industries will show them some consideration. I had much pleasure in listening to the speech delivered by the hon. member for Bellechasse, especially when he stated that the province of Quebec had not been given her full share of war contracts. I can tell you that my constituency has not been spoiled in that regard.
Huge plants are now being erected. There are in our province some factories of lesser importance which would certainly have proved useful in the production of many kinds of war supplies. I have taken the liberty of bringing them to the attention of the Minister of Munitions and Supply, and I am now awaiting the result of that action.
A distinguished British statesman has recently said: "We have had the audacity to industrialize Canada." I fully agree with him. I do believe that if Europe is now plunged into a war brought about by economic difficul-

ties, it is to a great extent due to the fact that those continents which formerly imported industrial goods from Europe are today so organized as to be able to compete successfully with countries on the other side of the Atlantic. Since the improvement of machinery has enabled workmen to produce with the same amount of labour ten times more than the farmers, it is unavoidable that manufactured goods should glut the market more rapidly, and whereas trading could formerly be successfully carried on with agricultural nations it has now become ruinous on account of the industrialization of the latter. We are facing a similar threat.
Consequently, we will necessarily be compelled-and now is the time to do some planning in that regard-to concentrate our efforts upon a national programme of land settlement and a back-to-the-land movement. All Canadian provinces have for a long time carried on land settlement, but unfortunately they all too often lacked a definite programme. In a vast country like ours, while we should not rely too much on immigration, which is always dangerous, there is room for millions of people whom we should, more than ever, settle on the land. The opening of new rural communities always ensures new opportunities to skilled workmen and even to professional men. I have read somewhere about a settlement plan prepared by the head of the unemployment relief service in the provincial government of Quebec.
Time will not permit me to describe fully that plan, but I may say that it rightly provides first for such things as the opening of roads by the unemployed, the clearing of land, and its subdivision into lots, the building of houses, and it has two ends in view: lessening of unemployment and placing settlers permanently on the land.
I have taken the trouble to find out in the reports of the different federal and provincial departments the cost of unemployment relief work and direct relief from 1931 to 1940. I have found-my figures may not be quite accurate, but they are not far out- that, for the period mentioned, the province of Quebec alone has paid in relief about $49,000,000. The dominion's share is somewhat more than $44,000,000 and the municipalities have paid nearly $36,500,000. The expenditures have thus reached a total of nearly $130,000,000.
It is quite interesting to note the difference between the amounts spent on unemployment relief and the sums devoted to land settlement, including the back-to-the-land movement. For land settlement, the province and

The Address-Mr. Gauthier
the dominion have jointly spent about $8,000,000, the dominion's share being about $800,000 and the province's over $7,000,000. Thus, land settlement and the back-to-the-land movement have together cost $120,000,000 less than unemployment relief. And such a thing happened in a country considered as the richest in the world. If we add the sum of about $80,000,000 spent in the same province on relief work, we have a grand total of more than $220,000,000.
I may have seemed to digress in dealing with relief work and settlement, but my purpose was to give an inkling of the situation and to point out a phase of the problem with which we will be confronted when our war industries cease to operate, partly at least, for some of them will remain in existence, since war has become a permanent industry.
In those plants that will have to be closed, instead of making guns, tanks and machine guns, we shall have to build tractors, trucks and giant plows for tilling the Canadian soil, making it produce to its full capacity and continuing to give to our people the impression, which visitors from foreign lands sometimes gather, that after all Canada is God's own country.
Something has been said in this house about the fixing of prices for butter and other farm products. A farmer gave me, from memory, some prices that were prevailing during last war, from 1914 to 1918. To my mind, they show the great difference between the government of that time and the one we have to-day. That farmer told me that during the last war the wholesale price of butter was 75 cents and even more. That is more than twice the present price. And, if I remember well, prices had not been fixed. In 1917, the wholesale price of pork was 25 cents; to-day it is 10 or 11 cents. It has never entered the minds of our farmers to be war profiteers; they are doing nobly and courageously their share in the general effort. But before any fixing of prices, some notice will have to be taken of the prices they pay as consumers, for they are indeed the most important consumers and they are those who have had most to suffer during the last few years.
I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Bourget) on his splendid speech. He has asked that the salary of grade 1 clerks who are under the civil service commission be raised. I agree with him and I hope that his plea will receive the attention it deserves.
During the visit of our sovereigns, the king and queen of Canada, who are now giving to the world an example of courage that must astonish and confound the enemies of the
empire, I said that our sovereigns, after their passage in our midst, would have the recollection of a flagless country. There are perhaps many who do not believe as strongly as I do in the need of a national flag. It seems that the present time, when we are endeavouring to unite closely all the energies, activities, hopes and the aspirations of the Canadian nation, is perfectly suitable for the carrying out of the plan which has so often been discussed in this house and which would have deserved a better fate. Every country in the world has its flag, even our sister nations of the British commonwealth. Why should Canada have none? We venerate and respect the Union Jack, but it does not symbolize all that makes up the history of our country. We would gladly see it reproduced on a flag alongside the fleur-de-lis and the maple leaf. What stands in the way of the adopting of a national emblem in Canada? I am quite convinced that all Canadians would hail the presence of their flag of the design that was placed on the flag of the first Canadian contingent during the present war. Parliament and the government should not postpone such a necessary and ineluctable task until a movement arises, sooner or later, within the nation. If there are any who believe that the possession of a distinct flag is an unimportant matter for a country, let them take the trouble to observe what happens elsewhere. Does not the Union Jack call forth the admiration of Englishmen? Are the Americans unmoved by the star spangled banner? Why should the sight of our national flag leave us unconcerned? I believe that the citizens of a nation are stirred by the sight of their national flag as much as by the hearing of their national anthem. I should like all Canadians to raise their voices in demanding the immediate fulfilment of that project, and expressing afterwards their gratitude to those responsible for having given to their fatherland a truly national emblem.
(Text) In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, it is a greait pleasure to me to commend the mover (Mr. Claxton) and the seconder (Mr. Jutras) of the address. They had a difficult task to perform, but they mastered it so well that every member of this house, irrespective of his political allegiance, must have found their performance more than satisfactory.
We have been told so many useful and promising things about national unity for many years, and particularly during the last few weeks, that it might seem useless to elaborate upon it. It seems a well established fact. Our unity must not be a make-believe, or smouldering embers only. My belief is

The Address-Mr. Gauthier

that to achieve real unity, the first essential is that every man living in this country must think of himself as a Canadian 'living here not in a temporary but a permanent homeland. Our point of view must be, above all, Canadian.
In this war effort some of us say that Canada must do everything, go to the utmost limit of our resources and man-power. We are at war, and we do not know how far it may lead us. Canada's possibilities and the industrial aid she can give to Britain are great owing to the large number of men we can count on to provide her with all the ammunition she will need.
Prominent British leaders call upon the United States and Canada for more aid. Before the defeat of France, Reynaud and Weygand were imploring for more material- not for men, but for material. Britain is also asking for more material. A satisfactory difference exists between this war and the last war. As far as Canada is concerned, the money is spent in Canada in a much larger proportion. This is a real Canadian action.
To fight for Christianity and democratic liberties is all very well, but we must see that after the war Canada has the strength to assure the survival of our democratic liberties, and keep this Canadian spirit of welfare and prosperity.
Then we will need that national unity, unity built up by unceasing efforts to observe and care for the details as well as for the important things. This country of ours has been built upon the basis of self-sacrifice, devotion, and respect of everyone's rights and privileges. That is the only way to build it up. We must go on in the same spirit.
A few minutes ago, I said that we should care for even the details. In many instances important matters have been forgotten. We know that our unceasing efforts to keep the free and official use of our French language must have wearied the protagonists of the "one language, one school" policy, but we know too, and everyone must realize, that this affection and attachment for our language, our religion, our traditions, made us feel that there was no land in the world, no country, no government as good and as just as Canada's, and our affection for and adhesion to these privileges and rights grew broader and went beyond the boundaries of the province, became nation-wide and Canadian through and through. This was the result of our tenacity.
We kept our mother tongue, religion, institutions and traditions. We fought for that and would fight to the end for these same

rights; and this tenacity we still possess and make use of for the prosperity and defence of our Canada.
Speaking in French I asked the government and the house to give Canada a national flag. Our history, our aspirations, the present circumstances call for a national flag. Canada has been existing, living, growing for four centuries; still she cannot look with pride to her own national emblem. I believe we have waited long enough. A certain class of Canadians may think this a detail, but it must have some meaning since every nation has a flag of its own.
I should like to hear everyone in this country calling for and urging the government and parliament to give our country the flag we need. A national anthem, a national flag, a completed autonomy, a perfect national unity, and Canada will be a real nation.
On motion of Mr. MacKinnon (Kootenay East) the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Crerar the house adjourned at 11.05 p.m.
Tuesday, December 3, 1940.