1940-05-24

[Stage Direction]
Mr. WILFRID LaCROIX (Quebec-Mont-morency) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 16, to amend The Dominion Elections Act, 1938.
He said: The German reich being at war with Canada, and Russia having allied herself with the German reich, it is fit and proper that the communists and nazis, representing the ideologies of Russia and Germany, should not be allowed to spread throughout Canada the doctrines of these revolutionary or totalitarian states, and should not be allowed to run as candidates at elections.
It is quite true that in a recent judgment of the Supreme Court of Ontario Mr. Justice Chevrier has declared that under the War Measures Act and regulations made thereunder the communist party in Canada is an illegal association. The regulations made under the War Measures Act are, however, of temporary character, and it seems preferable under the ciroumstances that an act of parliament should declare for all time that the communist party and the nazi party have no place in a democratic country like Canada, whether Canada be at war or at peace. Norway, Holland, Belgium, and many other countries have learned by bitter experience that the activities of the fifth column are just as dangerous and fatal in peace time as during the war.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. WILFRID LaCROIX (Quebec-Mont-morency) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 17, to amend the criminal code.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the same general explanation would apply to this measure as to the former.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. HARRIS (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called I should like to bring to the attention of the house a news item appearing on page 4 of the Toronto Evening Telegram of May 23. My inquiry is directed to the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power), to whom I have already sent a memorandum respecting the news item. It is dated at Montreal, May 23 and is as follows:
Canada's new fighting plane can dive 572 miles per hour. The Gregor FDB-1 dive bomber, newest Canadian-built fighting plane, was flown into Montreal yesterday on its way to Mexico and South America for demonstration purposes.
I shall not trouble the house with the rest of the item, but would proceed to ask this question. Are Canadian-built fighter aeroplanes being sent to Mexico and South America for demonstration purposes? If so, how many have been sent, and when will they return to Canada?


Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of National Defence for Air):: Mr. Speaker, with respect

194	COMMONS
Defence-Third Canadian Division
to certain Canadian made fighter aeroplanes which it is alleged are being sent to Mexico and South America for demonstration purposes, I received notice of this question a few moments ago and was able to obtain somewhat sketchy information from the technical officers of the department. I understand that only one Gregor FDB aeroplane has been made in Canada up to the present time. This machine was produced some time in 1938. In May, 1939, the officers of the air force tested the aeroplane and found that it was not suitable for their purposes. I am not quite familiar with all the technical details, but I understand that this machine is a biplane and at the moment the latest developments are in connection with the monoplane type of aeroplane.
Only to-day the Department of National Revenue asked the Department of National Defence whether it was prepared to release this aeroplane to South America. Instructions were given to have the application made in writing so that it could be considered. My view is that in this crisis the engine at least would be valuable to us whether or not the rest of the machine is, and it is entirely unlikely that permission will be given for this aeroplane to leave the country.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Joseph Henry Harris: Coupled with the question I have just asked is another which perhaps the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) will feel disposed to answer. I sent a memorandum to the minister of defence for air (Mr. Power), but I see that he and the Prime Minister have been together on it and perhaps one answer will do for the two questions. Are Canadian fighter planes being sent to Great Britain in accordance with the report from London to the effect that Viscount Caldecote, dominions secretary, had sent a message to the dominion government pointing out the importance of supplies and aeroplanes?


Charles Gavan Power: With respect to the question dealing with the appeal broadcast by Viscount Caldecote, I take it that my hon. friend is referring to a press release pointing out the importance of supplies and aeroplanes. I understand that no message of this kind has yet reached the Department of External Affairs or any other department of this government.
fMr. Power.]
However, I will say what is perhaps already ' known to the house through the statement made yesterday by the Prime Minister, that some ten days ago the government of Canada offered to place at the disposal of the government of Great Britain all the equipment in the way of aeroplanes which it might require and which were available from Canada. The government of Great Britain is fully aware of the supplies and equipment which we have here and some days ago it requested a certain number of various types of aeroplanes, the particulars of which I do not think I should give to the house. This was received on Tuesday last, and on Tuesday evening a reply was sent to the effect that these aeroplanes would be available and would be sent forward at once.



STATEMENT AS TO ORGANIZATION OF THIRD CANADIAN DIVISION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of National Defence):	Mr. Speaker, before
the orders of the day are called I should like to make a brief statement regarding the organization of the third Canadian division. I have to-day received details of the organization of the third division, Canadian active service force, and immediate steps are being taken to proceed with this organization in the various military districts. The composition of the division has received the fullest consideration. Selection of the units for every arm of the service in the division is being made after carefully weighing the various factors involved. As is the case with the first and second divisions and ancillary troops which have been previously mobilized, every endeavour has been made to ensure that all parts of Canada are represented in accordance with population, and bearing in mind the forces each province or area has already mobilized.
As in the case of staff and commanding officers of the units of the Canadian active service force already serving, in which fifty-six per cent have had previous overseas service, the same consideration will be given to officers with former service in the Canadian expeditionary force when selections are being made for the third division. Some of our mobilized units which, as a result of changes in war organization, have become surplus will be included in the composition of the third division. Owing to adjustments arising from the decision to form the third division immediately, it will be necessary to postpone the training in camp of units not mobilized in the third division until later in the summer.

War Appropriation-Mr. Kuhl


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, May 23, consideration of the motion of Mr. Ralston that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That sums not exceeding $700,000,000 be granted to His Majesty towards defraying any expenses that may be incurred by or under the authority of the governor in council during the year ending 31st March, 1941, for-
(a)	the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada;
(b)	the conduct of naval, military and air operations in or beyond Canada;
(c)	promoting the continuance of trade, industry and business communications, whether by means of insurance or indemnity against war risk or in any other manner whatsoever; and
(d)	the carrying out of any measures deemed necessary or advisable by the governor in council in consequence of the existence of a state of war.
With provision also, empowering the governor in council to raise by way of loan under the provision of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, 1931, such sum or sums of money, not exceeding in the whole the sum of $700,000,000 as may be required for the purpose of defraying the aforesaid expenses, the principal and interest of any such loan to be a charge upon and payable out of the consolidated revenue fund.
Mr. W. F. KUHL (Jasper-Edson):: Mr. Speaker, I am quite well aware that because of the gravity of the hour the government wishes to proceed with all haste with the measure now under consideration; consequently in whatever remarks I have to make I shall endeavour to be as brief as possible and to avoid repetition. I shall try to say something in connection with this resolution which has not yet been said. While many aspects of Canada's war effort have been discussed, it is amazing to realize that what in my opinion is the most important aspect of this resolution has been touched upon only slightly, and in the short time I shall devote to discussion of the resolution it is to this aspect that I shall particularly refer.
It is a foregone conclusion that all hon. members are agreed that Canada must make the most effective contribution she can in order to preserve the democracy of our empire. If Canada is to make her most effective contribution I believe it will require the combination of the best ideas that can be put forth by all the parties in this house. I do not think any party has a monopoly on the best ideas for the prosecution of this war and the preservation of democracy. While we in this corner are a minority group we do represent a substantial part of the electorate who
95826-13 i
have definite ideas as to the methods by which Canada can make her most effective contribution to the struggle in which we are engaged at the present time.
The circumstances in which the people of Canada find themselves to-day are indeed grave, but so far all the causes for the gravity of the situation have not been advanced in this debate. We are faced with an external enemy and we must exert all the power we have to defeat that enemy. But in my opinion the problem that we face is doubly difficult because I am quite convinced that the people of Canada are fighting on two fronts and are facing two enemies. We, the common people, are engaged not only in an armed conflict with an external enemy but also in a conflict with an internal enemy. We find ourselves in the same position as that in which that great champion of democracy and freedom, a president of the republic to the south of us, at one time found himself. I refer to Abraham Lincoln, who, when engaged in the civil war, made this statement with regard to the enemies with which he was faced:
I have two great enemies, the southern army in the front of me and the financial institutions in the rear. Of the two the one in the rear is my greatest foe.
That is the enemy, the financial institutions, with which I believe the common people of this country are also in conflict, and it is an enemy which I think is being almost entirely ignored. My greatest fear in connection with the prosecution of Canada's war effort is that as a result of the methods we are going to use, particularly the method involved in this resolution, we shall permit to grow up in this country a dictatorship which no doubt will prove to be as menacing and as devastating to the national life of Canada as the one with which we are in armed conflict. I refer to the dictatorship of debt.
All who have observed the progress of debt in this country must admit that already we have well nigh succumbed to the ravages of this dictatorship in our national life. How much more will that be the case when possibly double or treble will be added to the almost overwhelming burden of debt we carry to-day! One of the most oft-repeated statements we have heard in the debate on this resolution is that we are fighting for democracy and all that it implies. That is very true. But we ought to be careful that in the process of doing so we do not undermine for ourselves and the generations who will come after us the very principles for which we are fighting. In my opinion, to approve the principle involved in this resolution is to deny one of
War Appropriation-Mr. Kuhl

the most sacred and conspicuous prerogatives that democracy can possess, that of creating and issuing the medium of exchange.
The part of this resolution to which I wish particularly to refer is contained in the concluding paragraph:
With provision also empowering the governor in council to raise by way of loan under the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act-
The method by which this money is to be raised is the point I wish to discuss. In my opinion, and we have urged this from our corner of the house during the last four years, there is no legitimate and honest reason why a government should finance either its war or its peace efforts through debt. We often hear it said in conversation that it costs so much money to carry out peace-time enterprises or to carry on war-time activities such as those in which we are engaged to-day. I believe that our understanding of the real cost involved in carrying out peace-time enterprises and war-time activities has been obscured, and it must be simplified in order that the general public may grasp what is really involved. After all, the only cost involved in carrying on peace-time enterprises or in prosecuting war is human energy and physical materials. The cost of waging a war is in a real sense blood, sweat and tears. That is the real cost. Surely it is obvious to everyone that when the real costs of a war are met-that is blood, sweat and tears-the costs are paid by the people as a whole as the war is waged. Canada's part in the last war as well as in this war was paid and is being paid day by day as the war is carried on. There is no other real cost; that is the only real cost.
In peace-time the only cost of carrying on enterprises is the extent of human energy and physical materials consumed.
The question I have to ask in this regard is: If we provide all the real costs; if the people of Canada, including the soldiers abroad and all others who participate in the war, provide all the real costs as the war progresses, why must we be told after the war is over that we are still in debt? Is there any other cost in a real sense besides the blood and sweat and tears?
AVhat is wrong is that our financial policy is not such that it reflects facts. Our monetary policy should be such that it reflects, rather than conceals, physical facts. Our monetary policy should be such that when the nation as a whole has expended energy and consumed materials, the national accounting system, our money system, should indicate that the bills are all paid. We are still obliged to pay financially for the last great war. Yet
[Mr. KuhlJ
in a real sense that war was fully paid for when the last shot was fired and the last soldier yielded his life. This war in a real sense is being paid for day by day in the expenditure of energy and the consumption of materials, in broken hearts and agony of soul. We in this corner have urged in season and out of season that the government should adopt a financial policy which will reflect facts. Notwithstanding the fact, to judge from what was said in 1935 by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and those associated with him, that there was an undertaking that Canada's monetary policy would so be altered that it would reflect facts. It has not yet been done. If the crown's prerogative, the most sacred and conspicuous it can enjoy, had been restored to parliament in 1935 we would not find ourselves in the embarrassing situation we are in to-day. I do not suggest that we would be any better prepared in the way of providing the materials which are needed to prosecute the war, but industrially our nation would be ready to turn without much trouble to the production of the necessities of war.
The question of creating and issuing and controlling the medium of exchange is most important in relation to our war effort. As we are now carrying on, we limit -the physical and economic activities of our nation to the amount of money which is made available by those who control the issue and the policy of money. The reverse should be the case. In my opinion we ought to restore to parliament, even at this late stage, its most important prerogative, and the government should exercise it in such a way that whatever is physically possible becomes financially possible. I should like to quote a couple of passages from Abraham Lincoln with regard to the importance of the state's prerogative of creating and issuing -the medium of exchange. Lincoln, one of the world's greatest champions of freedom, had this to say on the subject of money:
Money is the creature of law, and the creation of the original issue of money should be maintained as an exclusive monopoly of the national government. Such needs can be served by issuing national currency and credit through the operation of a national banking system.
The government should create, issue and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the government and the buying power of consumers. The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of the government but it is the government's greatest creative opportunity. The people can and will be furnished with a currency -as safe as their own government. Money will cease to be the master, and will become the servant of humanity. Democracy will rise superior to the money power.

War Appropriation-Mr. Picard
These words are true words; and I would urge that, even though the hour be late, it is imperative, if we are to make the maximum and most effective contribution to Canada's war effort, we restore to parliament this prerogative and see that it is exercised in the proper way.
Our money system to-day is nothing more than a bookkeeping system. It should reflect facts. All that would be required to change the policy would be to change the bookkeeping methods, and that surely would not require any more than a matter of hours and days. When we consider the production of aeroplanes or any other of the engines and materials of war which we require, we have very difficult technical problems to face, as the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) indicated the other day when he stated that it would be impossible to produce aeroplane engines in less than eighteen months or two years. Enormous technical problems are involved in the production of this type of requirement for the war. But when it comes to our banking system, which is nothing more than an accounting system, nothing is involved but the principle of bookkeeping, and that, certainly, would not take very much time to alter.
If this is not done I fear that, because of the increased debt, a pretext will arise, if not in our time, then in the generation to come, for those who control money to abolish those very democratic institutions for which we are supposed to be fighting. We have in the case of Newfoundland an illustration of the consequence of carrying on the principle which is involved in this measure. Newfoundland enjoyed democratic government, but now it no longer has a parliament. Parliament was dismissed on the ground that the government was inefficient and incapable of handling its financial policy. What guarantee is there that Newfoundland's fate will not be ours if we continue to finance our undertakings, whether for war or for peace, in accordance with the principle involved in this resolution?
Again I say that so long as the materials and the man power are available within our country there is absolutely no reason, according to my conception of logic and common sense, why the government should go into debt either for war services or for peace-time enterprises.
In conclusion, on behalf of those who sent me here to represent their views and their wishes, I desire to protest the method involved in this resolution of financing war, or peace for that matter, as a denial, a negation and a repudiation of the very principles we are seeking to defend and preserve in the present armed conflict. I urge upon the government,
even at this late hour, that they take steps to restore to parliament its most sacred prerogative, that Canadians of the present generation may more effectively do their duty without placing in jeopardy the welfare of generations to come.


Mr. L. PHILIPPE PICARD (Bellechasse) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, it is not without emotion, I must admit, that I rise in this house before the elected representatives of the nation on behalf of those who have accepted me as one of their own and have, sent me here to represent them. The cordial reception given to me at this moment is such as almost to make me imagine that I am still in the county of Bellechasse.
During the contest which ended on March 26th last I frequently exhorted the electors of my constituency to go to the polls in large numbers. Many times did I tell them: "You Should deem yourselves fortunate to live in a country where you have the right to vote and where you are still consulted. There are so many countries in the world where every vestige of liberty has disappeared and where the people would like to have, as you have, the right to choose the men who are to administer their affairs. Be proud to vote, be proud to express your opinion, you who are not obliged to salute with the extended arm or the clenched fist, but who still can, if you are not satisfied with your representatives, get rid of them at an election."
The thought which I expressed then, Mr. Speaker, is present in my mind still more vividly at this moment when I rise to address the house. How many legislative assemblies are there in the world to-day to which the leaders are obliged to render an account of their actions and from which they get their authority.
This thought alone should be sufficient to make us appreciate our institutions, but especially to make us realize the importance of proving by our actions that we understand the seriousness of the present moment and the necessity of acting in such a manner that our conduct may deserve the approval of history.
I will therefore refrain from lengthening this debate unduly by unnecessary words or considerations of minor interest. I should have liked to say, as the mover of the address, my good friend the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Hugues Lapointe) has so well said, how grateful I am to the good people of Bellechasse for having chosen me to represent them in this house. I should have liked to describe to you the beauties of the fertile valleys and picturesque mountains of Bellechasse and to speak to you of the gal-
War Appropriation

Mr. Picard

lant tillers of the soil of my constituency, from the shores of the St. Lawrence to the boundary of the state of Maine; but at this moment our minds are occupied with grave problems, the destiny of the world is at stake, the survival of our institutions is in the balance; I will therefore limit my remarks to a few considerations pertinent to the military appropriations which we are asked to vote at this time.
As a gesture of good-will, Mr. Speaker, and as a contribution to a better understanding between the two great races that settled, pioneered and built this country of ours, I will ask that you, sir, and the House generously excuse my faulty accent and wrong pronunciation-to say nothing of the rest- and I will proceed to make the few remarks I intend to contribute to the present debate in a language which is not mine or that of my ancestors but which is better understood by the majority of this assembly.
First of all, sir, allow me to congratulate you upon your election as Speaker of the House of Commons, an exalted position for which your talent, your training and your ability designated you to the choice of your fellow members and which you will, we are assured, fill with honour, dignity and competence. Allow me at the same moment to express to the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) the satisfaction which we all feel at the choice he has made of the men called to be Secretary of State (Mr. Casgrain) and Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) and the particular pride we have in Quebec to see the confidence which he has placed in the member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) in calling him to fill the most important task of leading the ministry of National Defence for Air. The energy and the wonderful spirit of organization of the New Minister for Air, if he is given the free hand he should have at a moment like this, will undoubtedly be soon manifest in this important branch of war activities. Lest this last sentence be misconstrued or misunderstood, I hasten to say that this in no way means that I do not appreciate at its fullest value the splendid work of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Rogers) and the most valuable leadership he has given his department.
As we are at the moment, Mr. Speaker, considering appropriations necessary for the pursuance of our war effort, it may not be inopportune to analyse some of the opinions expressed by the public about the present conflict. Its consequences at large we all too well appreciate; the world will emerge from it impoverished in men, in wealth, in

means of culture. The best of the world's population, its youth, will have been partly sacrificed; the largest part of its accumulated wealth will have been squandered in building up means of destruction and in using such means to destroy immovable assets such as roads, railways, bridges and houses, factories and so on; the means of culture will have been reduced in number and most probably in quality, and a large number of people, having been reduced to poverty and misery, will be deprived of the leisure necessary to the advancement of culture and its spreading throughout humanity. All this we too fully realize; and we may even fear worse: world revolution and the collapse of the present economic system may ensue; and, should our enemies win the war, the most essential liberties which humanity has fought so hard to obtain in the last five or six centuries will be denied to a great part of the world.
As to the immediate responsibility for the conflict there is also no doubt. The wanton attack on Poland, which was the occasion of the start of the war, coming after the rape of Austria and Czechoslovakia, and followed more recently by the invasion of Norway and Denmark and the inhuman attacks on Belgium and the Netherlands, despite the assurances given a few months ago by the same man who later ordered the slaughter of the civilian populations of these countries, are gradual steps in a diabolic programme of ruthless world domination.
The form of idealism which has permeated the structure of Germany is not in itself a cause of this but facilitated it by effacing the rights of the individual and subordinating entirely the individual to the state, which has become a horrid machine dominated by a madman avid of conquest no matter at what cost. We are waging war upon human superrobots whose individual liberties exist no more, whose wills have been abandoned to the guiding hand of a maniac who has equipped them, through years of preparation, with the most advanced mechanized ways of destruction. That we know, and the unfortunate populations of Europe are experiencing it at the present time.
There are those, Mr. Speaker, who go beyond this. There are those who analyse the events of the last quarter century in so far as diplomatic relations between European nations are concerned and who feel that the events of to-day are the consequence of ill-advised policies of yesterday and that the world would not be faced with the horrible situation it is in at the moment if the sacred union which existed between Great Britain and France during the last world war, and which is so vivid and real at the present

War Appropriation-Mr. Picard
time, had not been put into oblivion soon after the Versailles treaty. There are those who remember that at one time Trance through her chain of alliances with Poland, Czechoslovakia and the Little Entente controlled the situation on the continent while Great Britain mastered all the seas of the world. Had Britain at that time supported France and upheld its just recriminations when Germany repeatedly violated the Versailles treaty, Europe might not be in such a mess today. Those in the last year who criticized or even blamed the Chamberlain policy of appeasement do not seem to realize that the Chamberlain regime was the successor of the Baldwin and the MacDonald regimes which had failed to support France when there was still time to save Europe from German domination without having to risk the fate of the commonwealth and to sacrifice so many lives. History will tell, Mr. Speaker, if those who hold these views are justified; but whether they are or not, whether the present state of Europe is due to the failures of British diplomacy and statesmanship between 1920 and 1938 or not, we have now to face facts as they are. We have to live in the present and look to the future and decide how best we can foster the interests and the safety of the country in which we live.
Since this session has begun many words have been spoken in this house, many words have been printed in newspapers, about the necessity of helping the empire, or furthering and speeding our war effort to help save Britain. But strangely enough, only from the lips of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and of his colleagues who took part in the debate did we hear words that seemed to show that those who uttered them took into account the welfare of Canada, the safeguarding and security of Canada, and the future of Canada. In this sort of hysteria which seems to have caught the minds of many people in this country it is comforting to see that those whom the people have elected to guide it have a special consideration for their country in this moment of crisis. For after all we must realize that our country is Canada, and that our first duty is to Canada. The fate of the commonwealth of British nations of which we are a member is of prime interest to us; the fate of Great Britain and France, from which countries have sprung the most numerous elements of our population, is of great concern to us. The previous Liberal government and the one which now leads the country have, with the approval of parliament, taken the necessary steps to supply to our allies all the help possible in the present circumstances. But above all we must be Canadians, and it is the fate and the future of our country that
must be the main source of inspiration of our actions.
If we analyse some trends of public opinion prevailing at the present time we may note that there are people in Canada who consider that we are a north American country and that we must look to the future as a north American country, like the United States and Mexico. Geographically they are right; economically they are probably right. However, the distinct culture of the English and French elements of this country, and the deep attachment of the English-speaking population of this country to Britain, from which the great majority of them are removed by only one to three generations, have made of us more or less a branch of Europe in America. The reason for this may also be the lack of a truly national Canadian sentiment. The majority of French Canadians, we must admit, when speaking of Canada think of Quebec, their province, the land settled by their ancestors, which has become since 1759 their one and only country. English Canadians, or at least a majority of them, when speaking of Canada, think of the British empire, and do not dissociate in their minds the country they should consider as theirs from Great Britain and the other countries of the commonwealth. I believe, sir, that when the Canadian history of this period is written those who have in a moment like this put above all else the interests of the nation will be considered its true patriotic servants.
During the last political campaign I explained everywhere in my constituency the necessity for our participation in this conflict, in order to save the national unity and to preserve harmonious relations in the confederation; and everywhere this was fully understood. I now wish to state to this house that no matter what may happen in Europe in the next few weeks, if we want to preserve national unity and thereby render more effective our cooperation; if we want to preserve harmonious relations in the confederation, our effort should be adequate but it should remain voluntary.
This national unity, sir, is worth saving now that it is gaining more and more momentum. I might even express the hope that it shall extend and develop. The political battle that took place in Quebec last fall and the eloquent answer of the population of that province to the rallying appeal of the right hon. the Minister of Justice was a substantial contribution from Quebec. The result of the last federal election was another manifestation of the same kind. The Liberal party went to the people with the same policies throughout Canada, while our opponents were using some methods in certain parts of Canada

War Appropriation-Mr. Picard
which they repudiated elsewhere. It is a known fact that so-called independent, nationalist or separatist candidates in Quebec were supported by the National Government party, which was the temporary name of the Conservative party during the last campaign; and in most constituencies where there was such a candidate the Conservatives withdrew their official candidates before polling day and switched their support to the independent, the nationalist or the separatist. The result of this can be seen in the speech made by the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Roy) last night- the discrepancies between his utterances and those of his leader since the beginning of this session have been very apparent. We may wonder what would have happened to Canadian unity had the country fallen for such discordant appeals. The Liberal party, on the other hand, represented uniformity of programme and unity of spirit and action.
This national unity, this spirit of cooperation between all parts of Canada and all races of which our country are composed, is a most valuable asset. It is to be hoped that it will not remain only a form of speech, or be manifested only in time of emergency, but that it will lead to a better understanding between races and as well to a better distribution of civil service posts and of employment by public service companies, such as the two railway systems, the telephone systems and the public utilities corporations. Then and then only will the spirit of national unity have borne its fruits.
It is a source of satisfaction to us of the Liberal party to be able to say that in the last forty-five years those who have done most for the cause of national unity, those who have done most to guide this country out of colonial status to that of an independent dominion and from the latter to that of a sovereign state, have been the leaders of the Liberal party. The first was Sir Wilfrid Laurier, whose prime aim in life was the unification of this country into a harmonious body of men of different origins, understanding one another and working side by side for the greatness of their country. Laurier's call has not remained unanswered. We find to-day in his successor as leader of the Liberal party, and his successor as the recognized leader of the French element in this country, two men who have set for the country at large a most eloquent example of how harmonious cooperation can be established between our two great races.
I do not consider it inopportune, at a time when we are considering the estimates for our cooperative effort in this war, to point to the extraordinary relationship that exists between the two men who are considered the 
true successors of Laurier and the most faithful disciples of his Liberal doctrine. The consideration and respect they have for one another, the total absence in them of that envy or friction which so often exists between men who share the responsibilities of government, are a tribute to their greatness. Their breadth of view and the loftiness of their political and national ideals should serve as a model to all who enter the public life of their countiy. Both are great men, one in that he has given brilliant leadership to the country for over fifteen years and is now proving to be the man who can best steer the ship of state through the tempestuous seas that lie ahead; the other in that he has, after a parliamentary career of over thirty-six years, kept the confidence of all his race, of which he is a living symbol and is to-day, as during the last twenty years, the undisputed leader. They are both great in that one is broad enough to share the limelight with his partner, knowing that it does not minimize in any way the authority of his leadership or the intrinsic value of his acts; the other in that he has not considered it beneath him to serve his leader faithfully in all circumstances, knowing that it could not take away from him the deserved admiration of all his fellow citizens. These are the men that the people of Canada by an overwhelming majority elected two months ago to govern the country. These are the men in whom the people of Canada have confidence at the present time, no matter what the few members composing the remnants in this house of the Conservative party, or some of their newspapers, may try to insinuate. The people of Canada have placed well their confidence, and the country may feel assured that it will be given the proper leadership.
After the events of the last few weeks in Europe nobody will hesitate to support the motion which .the government have now put before the house. After the enlightening speeches of the Prime Minister and the Ministers of Finance, of National Defence, and of Munitions and Supply, nobody can sincerely retain any doubts as to the wisdom of the actions of the government in regard to the conduct of the war.
Mr. DOUGLAS G. ROSS (St. Paul's): May I first, Mr. Speaker, congratulate you on your election as Speaker of the House of Commons. I know that you will perform your duties well. This congratulation comes from one Scotsman to another.
I am afraid I do not agree with the last speaker (Mr. Picard) in many of the remarks which he made.


An hon. MEMBER:: It does not matter.

War Appropriation-Mr. Ross (St. Paul's)


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: I will not say
anything more in that connection at the present time. I do not wish to delay the business of the house, but I should be neglectful of my duty if I did not give expression to a few of the thoughts which are running through my mind. The hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) a few minutes ago said "hear, hear" when the matter of repetition was mentioned. I am afraid I may repeat some things that have already been said in this house, but it may be necessary to do so; it seems to take a thing a long time to get from the ear to the brain of the government, and in that regard a little repetition may do some good.
My reaction to the speeches of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Rogers), the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) is that there is no driving force behind the government. It is still the old government of laissez-faire, inaction and ineptitude. I do not wish to recall things of the past, but it is only by its accomplishments in the past that the government can be judged as to its capability at this time to carry on its task.
This is a serious time in our history, and it must be the view of all that the greatest power is necessary to drive us to our war effort. We must work so that in the shortest possible time we shall be in a position to produce in Canada and send to our troops overseas large quantities of munitions of war and have a sufficient surplus for use in this defenceless Canada. We must take immediate and adequate steps against subversive influences and sabotage. Every effort must be made to limit the danger from those sources. The action now being taken to counteract subversive activities is puny indeed when we consider what it should be. The services of all people in Canada ought to be enlisted, but up to the present time this has not been done. The people are crying out in their desire to do their part, but so far to most of them that privilege has been denied. As one hon. member said yesterday, in a time like this when munitions are required it seems farcical that we should have men walking the streets with nothing to do. We need men, guns, rifles, armoured cars, machine guns, clothing and other kinds of equipment. Many of these things can be made in Canada.
We did derive some solace from the observations of the Minister of Munitions and Supply when he gave us the figures with respect to clothing and boots. In my view there should be no reason in the world why any troops in Canada should be without those necessities, if they are being produced as he has stated.
In these days it is most important that we protect our exchange position with the great country to the south of us, so that we may buy from them the things which we cannot produce. Steps must be taken to see to it that our imports of luxuries, things we can do without and articles which can be made here, are materially cut down, so that we may preserve the exchange position existing between Canada and the United States and place ourselves in a position to buy the things we need, and of which we will need plenty.
May I repeat that what we need now is action. We must see to it that our forces overseas obtain as quickly as possible the things they require. We must watch all subversive forces in Canada, and must take care of the homes of the men who have gone or are going overseas.
As hon. members are aware, the government at Westminster has passed a bill placing the property and services of the people of England at the disposal of His Majesty the King. Is our peril less? It may be, but if so it may be only a matter of time when it will be just as great. In my view we should have a national registration of every man and woman in Canada; if we do not, I wonder how we are going to find out about subversive influences? How are we going to learn about the spies or those of our citizens who belong to nazi organizations? The Minister of Munitions and Supply has all the power he requires to carry out his job. He is within his rights if he chooses to take action under the legislation passed in September. His powers are unlimited, and he must use them now. There are nazi organizations throughout this continent, and we hear of their existence in Canada in particular.
Another danger to Canada arises in connection with the tourist traffic which will enter our country this year. I ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) to take every precaution to have proper supervision at all border points so as to prevent the infiltration of enemy aliens or sympathizers from the United States. It is our duty to do that, because the United States would be in peril if anything happened to Canada. I would ask the minister to do everything in his power to secure the cooperation of the President of the United States in this connection. One ought not to take too lightly the danger which arises from possibilities at our border points.
How secure are we? Only the ministry knows. Those of us who are not in the confidence of the government hear rumours, and as a result of those rumours we are forced to the belief that drastic steps must be taken at once-not in a week, but right now-to

202	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Mr. Ross (St. Paul's)
meet these new perils. Great Britain has taken drastic steps. The attorney general of Ontario has urged upon the government that they take action, and the legion and other organizations throughout the country have done the same thing. There must be no fooling in connection with the rounding-up of enemy aliens, and it must be done at once. We know what happened in the countries overseas which now lie devastated. One of the main causes of their devastation was the infiltration of enemy aliens and the traitorous action which arose therefrom.
For example, knowing that our great hydroelectric system in Ontario serves the whole of the province, we must realize that there is great danger of interference with the plants and transmission wires. I know that some steps have been taken to prevent damage, but the need is greater now than it ever was to see to it that any interference is impossible. Is there any reason why people should be allowed to enter some of the armouries in the country without being questioned? These things should not be permitted.
The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Rogers) announced last night the formation of a veterans home guard of 3,000 men. There was some encouragement in that statement, but 3,000 men stretched from coast to coast is only a drop in the bucket. Even though the 3,000 men were fully armed it would be nothing to what is really required. Consideration should be given to the enlistment of the services of all veterans. These men are willing to do something, but they are impotent at the present time.
The militia regiments of the country should be brought up to full strength at once and equipped and armed. If we cannot get the arms and equipment from our own factories, they should be obtained from the United States. The people want action; they do not want promises. Action will give them some idea of what is going on. I suggest that the necessary arms can be obtained from the government of the United States. In view of the speech made by the President of the United States at the opening of the Ivy Lea bridge, I am sure he would be only too glad to assist this country to obtain arms for home defence. I urge the government to go to the President of the United States and put their cards on the table. I am sure they would then be able to get the arms and equipment needed for the home defence of Canada.
We as members of the House of Commons can assist this government. Last September we offered cooperation to the government but I do not know of one member who has been

asked to cooperate. We on this side said that we would not criticize, that we would allow the government to get on with their work. We offered cooperation and we did not criticize, but unfortunately we made a mistake. We should have criticized and we should have prodded the government into action.
As I say, we as members of the house can help this government, but the government should keep the members informed as much as possible. Committees of the house could be formed to assist the various departments. The committees could then be instructed as to what is going on, and this would help to a great extent to retain the confidence of the people. The House of Commons should have been in session ever since September. There could have been adjournments of a month or two at a time, but parliament should have been in session at the call of the government. If that had been done there would not have been the recriminations we hear at the present time. Let us not allow that to happen again.
In his speech the Prime Minister said that the people wanted action now. Funny that it should be only now; I thought it was last September that action was wanted. The Prime Minister said that he had received a mandate from the people. I say that he has a mandate based on speeches and words, but not on truth. Here are his words, as reported on page 36 of Hansard of May 20:
-namely that the country is anxious to know, respecting Canada's war effort, what the government has done, what it is^ doing and what it proposes to do. That I think is the one question which the people of Canada are asking, and to which they are entitled to have an early and complete reply.
Mark that, "an early and complete reply."
They know in large part but they do not know all.
Note that: they do not know all. They do not know all, but if we are helping them, they will know. When the people know, public opinion will be so definitely formed that there will be nothing but action. There is a demand throughout the country for a reorganization of the government. If confidence is to be restored this must take place. One piece of reorganization has occurred already, of which I approve, but further reorganization is necessary. This is not the time for politics, and anything I have said to-day is not party politics. Everything I have said comes from the bottom of my heart in an endeavour to urge upon this government the necessity of making the greatest effort that has ever been made. I make one further plea. I urge upon hon. members on the other

War Appropriation-Mr. Mclvor
side of the house that they raise their voices in this time of crisis and see to it that Canada gets the action it is demanding, the action we must have if we are to preserve our freedom.


Mr. DANIEL McIYOR (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think hon. members, including myself, should take up the time of the house unless they can add something new to the debate. I intend to speak from what I know, not what I think. Five years ago we did not have an aeroplane factory in Fort William, but now we have a factory making aeroplanes which employs a thousand men more or less. Last weekend I visited Trenton, my previous visit having been some weeks ago. I found the number of aeroplanes there all ready and fairly well equipped to be about 100 per cent more than on the previous visit. I saw large boxes approximately 50 feet long and about 12 or 14 feet wide containing aeroplane parts which had been shipped from England to Trenton to be assembled. All this shows that something worth while has been done.
A short time ago I was across the line doing a sacred job, and I was surprised to find many professors there most willing and anxious that the United States should have a hand in this battle because this fight is for something which the United States at its best stands for. The great problem that faces the President of the United States as it faces the government of Canada is how to harness the enthusiasm that prevails on the north American continent from coast to coast. It is no easy job. I am sure, however, the people of Canada believe, notwithstanding what some people say, that the government of this country are doing a fine job.
But what I rose particularly to say, Mr. Speaker, was something that was touched on very briefly by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Rogers). It is something which is always on the side of right; it never straddles the fence. Without its aid I think we are sure to lose and with its aid we are bound to win. When Admiral Beatty sent his call back to the homeland and throughout the British empire for prayer, it was not very long before the devil in France and Flanders had to hide his head. The call to prayer has come again, and I could not help listening with an attentive ear, Mr. Speaker, to the manner in which you said the prayer at the opening of this session, " May thy kingdom come." If we say that prayer with sincerity, and keep a clear head and a healthy stomach, we are ready to do our part anywhere. On the invitation of our king and of this government we should spend this weekend in quiet,
reverent prayer, not failing to be sincere; and if we do, the devil who is now going about like a roaring lion in Europe will certainly be beaten. Without this aid we cannot win.
Mr. NORMAN J. M. LOCKHART (Lincoln) :	Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak very
briefly to bring to the attention of the government one or two salient facts. May I say at the outset that my attitude is distinctly to cooperate with the government in every way I can. I realize from the remarks of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Rogers) last evening that he has made some approach towards relieving the state of alarm that prevails in the minds of our Canadian citizens. He has intimated that his department will form a home guard composed of about 3,000 men.
It was my privilege yesterday to bring to the attention of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and the Minister of National Defence the situation that obtains in my own community. I spoke briefly of the situation obtaining at the old historic camp grounds at Niagara-on-the-Lake. May I amplify what I said? At Niagara-on-the-Lake we have one of the greatest camp training grounds in the Dominion of Canada. It has been famous for half a century. It has training fields equipped with the latest sanitation, and buildings of every description. I reminded the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) of this historic camp ground when he spoke of the construction of new buildings, in the hope that the buildings and camp ground at Niagara-on-the-Lake would be utilized to a greater extent than they have been. It is now deserted, but the Minister of National Defence intimated to me to-day that the matter would be given consideration. I want to urge upon the members of the government, from the Prime Minister down, the imperative necessity of action in that district.
We have heard a good deal about "fifth column" activities in this country, and in that connection I should like to read a telegram which reached me just a few minutes ago. It is from an organization representing approximately 500 returned veterans, men who probably would not be accepted for overseas service, but men whom I know to be zealous, for I know most of them personally. The telegram is dated to-day and reads:
Veterans voluntary home defence corps sponsored by Canadian Legion, St. Catharines, requests that you arrange with Department of National Defence for a supply of five hundred rifles and ammunition to be placed in the custody of the chief constable, St. Catharines, to be used in case of emergency.

War Appropriation-Mr. Lockhart
The telegram is signed by the secretary of the Canadian Legion, which represents all the returned soldier organizations in that district.
At the present time we find the armoury at St. Catharines deserted, and a large empty factory which was used by the 10th St. Catharines battery before it went overseas in December, has now all its windows barred again. Nobody is in the armoury, and the camp ground at Niagara-on-the-Lake is deserted. We have a situation obtaining in connection with the "fifth column" which is alarming and in respect of which I handed a letter to the Minister of Justice yesterday. In view of the situation I urge upon the Minister of National Defence not to confine his activities to setting up a home guard of twelve companies of 250 men in each military district. In that old historic Niagara peninsula we urgently need a home guard of at least twice the size of 250 men. There is no danger of subversive elements getting the upper hand if we have proper protection in that district, and in urging action upon the government I would remind them that we have there one of the greatest industrial areas in Canada, with factories of every description, most of which I am sorry to say are not doing very much towards winning the war but rather are pursuing to a large extent their peace-time activities. Ever since the beginning of the war, efforts have been made by factory after factory to engage themselves upon war work. I have checked over their lists of equipment, and I am sorry to say that very little of it is being used for war purposes.
Also in that area we have one of the greatest transportation systems paid for by the oeople of Canada-the Welland ship canal. 4.nd yet it is protected by just a paltry guard. True, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are doing a wonderful work, but how many men have they there? One here and one down there. Reference has been made to tourists who might come into Canada at this time, and the devastation that might be worked is alarming when we stop to contemplate it. The only protection is a handful of provincial police to guard the greatest hydro-electric system in this country, with power lines running overhead in every direction. I urge the Minister of National Defence to take full cognizance of the situation in the Niagara peninsula. I urge that he place two or three companies there. I recommend him to make a close scrutiny of the question of protecting those power lines. Industries in Toronto, Hamilton and many other places are dependent upon the hydro-electric system and will be completely crippled if anything happens to it.

Although it is now being taken care of by the provincial government, its protection is a direct obligation upon this government.
I bring these matters to the attention of the house and of the government, and I urge the Minister of National Defence not to confine this protective work to a mere handful of small home guard groups, but to place in this particular district two, three or possibly four bodies of men constituted as he has suggested to give us ample protection, and to do this with the least possible delay.


Mr. W. K. ESLING (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted very briefly to make reference to recruiting conditions as they have existed in districts in the southeastern portion of British Columbia? It is the hope that the minister will take cognizance of such conditions and provide a remedy in connection with the recruiting of the units for the prospective third division.
Along a highway some fifty miles in length there are three communities with approximately 25.000 people. In those communities are two permanent armouries, and one large drilling space requisitioned by the government at the outbreak of war. There are hundreds of young men in those communities who are eager .and anxious to serve the country, Departmental physicians are there to make the necessary' medical examinations, and those ymung men are medically examined first of all by them. They then apply to the recruiting officer at Vancouver, five hundred miles distant. Having travelled there at their own expense, and after having appeared before a medical board at Vancouver, they are informed that they will be notified when required. It is then necessary for them either to hang around Vancouver or to find their way back home, a distance of five hundred and, in some instances, six hundred miles, at their own expense. Does it not seem reasonable that when men, anxious to serve the country, are accepted first of all as medically fit by local departmental officials, and after reporting to the recruiting officer at Vancouver, have been given a sufficiently good medical certificate there, they should receive at least a warrant for their return fare home? I ask the minister if he will not consider this situation which obtains in the interior and relieve future applicants from the obligation of travelling so far. Remember it means a thousand miles of railway travel, berths, meals, and hotel expenses in Vancouver city.
To bring home with emphasis certain conditions which apply generally, I am also going to refer to the matter of applicants for the air force. I have in mind one young man

War Appropriation-Mr. Esling
who at his own expense went to the United States to take a course in flying. He did not have sufficient funds with which to complete that course. He returned to Canada, resumed his occupation, saved sufficient money to cross the line again, and came home with a first-class pilot's certificate. Then he went to the coast to present his application. He was examined there, accepted as physically fit, and told that in a few days he would be advised as to when he would be needed, but that it would be, perhaps, better if he went to Ottawa. Through all these varied travels this young man, anxious to get into the air force, and equipped with a pilot's licence, incurred actual expenses of approximately S500 in his endeavours to serve the country. With him on this particular trip was another young man who did not have sufficient money to permit him to hang around Vancouver-because that is just what it amounts to. One may see throughout my district several hundred of these young men, discouraged, their ambitions thwarted. They stand on street corners and they support light-standards or the fronts of buildings; they do not know which way to turn or what to do; they are waiting for advice as to when they will be called. In the instance to which I have referred, the young man who travelled these five hundred miles to Vancouver, unable further to meet the financial strain, simply crossed the line and joined the United States navy.
I want to refer briefly to a matter which has its unjust aspects. During the war session the minister placed on Hansard a table of pay and allowances and made it clear that there would be an allowance to the wife of the enlisted man. Unfortunately no reference was made to the widowed mothers of sons who enlist. I do not blame the government, but I say that more specific instructions should have been given to the officers who recruited the men who enlisted in our local batteries, that is to say the 109th and the 111th batteries in southern British Columbia. The recruiting officers were keen to get a full unit, and they simply said to these young men, "It is perfectly all right; you sign up and your dependents will be taken care of." These boys were given to understand that mothers receive the same allowance as wives. Unfortunately these young men who enlisted were given to understand that such would be the allowance-and so were their mothers. The result was that for fully three or four months after their enlistment, although these young men had assigned their pay or a portion of it to their mothers, no allowance was granted and there was repeated correspondence with the dependents' allowance board.
About the early part of January there were amended regulations to the pay and allowance provisions and these mothers were given about ten dollars, perhaps a little more. That allowance was made only from the time that the amendments were made. It would seem perfectly reasonable that a boy who enlisted early in September was not at fault, nor was his mother guilty of any negligence, if the regulations were not properly drawn up or if they were not made early enough to cover such cases, because the dependents' allowance board had sufficient notice. The mothers therefore, instead of receiving this allowance from the time of the enlistment of their sons, were given it only from the date of the amended regulations.
One must realize that the dependents' allowance board was a new body, that it had innumerable cases to deal with, and that in some instances, there were aggravating circumstances. But one must also conclude that, with the number of changes in the chairmanship of the board, the personnel were not all well informed. I believe the minister will agree that since September last there have been at least three persons administering the board. There is Colonel MacNamara now, then before him Colonel Hill and prior to that the minister's personal representative; while before that time the matter was handled from the minister's own office. These are matters of current criticism with the mothers at home and among young men who are now waiting to be called.
I might cite one case. A mother presented her claim for allowance by reason of the enlistment of her son, and this is the reply she was given in an official letter-not a letter from somebody outside the department but an official communication. It stated that they had looked into the matter and found that during a period of six months prior to the son's enlistment he had contributed to his mother's support the sum of SI 10. That means $20 a month for six months except for the last month when the contribution was $10. The letter then went on to point out that during the period of six months after enlistment the mother had received by way of assignment of pay the sum of $20 a month, or $120 for the entire period, so that she was really better off by $10 for the six months than she had been in the six months prior to her son's enlistment. Does any one believe that such a letter would satisfy this mother or the mothers of other young men who were prospective recruits?
I suggest that the minister, in connection with the recruiting of units for the third division, should utilize the local departmental
War Appropriation-Mr. Wright

physicians and the local armouries and save, to those who desire to enlist, the trouble of travelling the distance from Vancouver, a thousand miles, to say nothing of travelling expenses and hotel accommodation. Taking it by and large from the beginning in southeastern British Columbia, the conclusion seems to be justified that had the government concentrated upon a plan to discourage voluntary enlistment, they could not very well have done a better job.


Mr. P. E. WRIGHT (Melfort):: 
Mr. C. E. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: I am quite cognizant of the fact that all parties in this house are most desirous of cooperating to the fullest extent in order to win this war. That is the desire of everyone in Canada. Time is precious; we realize more than ever that time has been wasted until now. But from now on there is going to be a united effort in order to win this war. We realize that this is a different war from any that has ever faced the world before. It is purely a mechanized war, and this mechanization will increase. It is true that battleships are required, which entail a tremendous expense. They have to be manned by a great many sailors. We must have aeroplanes, again entailing enormous expense. We must have a great standing army, entailing great expense. But one of the things that I think we are overlooking is this, that no matter how many battleships and how many aeroplanes you have, or how many men you have at the front, unless you have made provision for their maintenance they will be utterly useless.
The thing which I have particularly in mind with regard to battleships and aeroplanes is fuel. Alberta is most favourably situated in that regard. In time of siege of this country that province could render more service to

War Appropriation-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)
Canada by supplying coal and oil than all the other provinces put together. It is not inconceivable that the British fleet, as I pointed out here a year or so ago, might require the oil that we have in Alberta. Two years ago when I pleaded with the government to do everything in its power to assist Alberta in providing a pipe line from Turner valley to the coast, no heed was taken. I am making no criticism in that respect at this moment, but I say the time has come when every assistance should be given that province further to develop its oil and coal fields. We talk about developing a vast air training scheme in Canada, but where are you going to get the fuel to supply the requirements of that air effort? It is going to require a tremendous quantity. The assistance for which I ask should be given so that development can take place.
I do not believe that the people of Canada realize the potentialities of the oil fields of Alberta. It is a well known and undisputed fact that Alberta has the greatest potential oil fields in all the British empire. We have the Turner valley field south of Calgary; we have the Wainwright field southeast of Edmonton; we have the Athabaska tar sands in which there is an unlimited quantity of gas and oil products. We have the Steveville and Moose Dome areas, containing one of the greatest crude producing wells on the north American continent, and we have the Ram river and the Clearwater and the Pouce Coupe areas which constitute in prospect one of the largest fields anywhere in North America. Those areas should be given serious consideration.
Mr. J. L. Irwin, statistician of the provincial department of lands and mines, stated that if markets were available, by 1940 regulated daily production would exceed 29,500,000 barrels. That is a tremendous amount, but that is only a fraction of what can be done. It is necessary that every possible step be taken to ensure that this oil is made available not only for Canadian defence but also for the defence of the British empire. During the first three months of 1940 an increase of 440,86S barrels was made, bringing the production at March 31 to 1,667,412 barrels compared with 1,222,544 barrels a year ago. That is a tremendous increase. In the same period six new wells were developed, four of which are the largest producing wells yet struck. And that is only the beginning. If it were possible to reach the market that is available here, for the output of those wells and the smaller wells scattered over that area, by the construction of a pipe line to the coast and possibly another pipe line to the head of the
great lakes, this w'ould be desirable not only for eastern Canada but for the defence of the western coast as well. It is an amazing fact that a few years ago Germany offered to finance a pipe line, and our Canadian government would not move. It is strange that we have to allow a foreign country such as Germany to come in and offer capital to develop a natural resource comprising one of the most essential war-time needs.
Some people raise the question of money. There is no question of money involved in this-at least there should not be. As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ralston) said the other day, the only limit of our ability to supply materials and assistance in this war is our capacity for production. If money is essential, we have the Bank of Canada, which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) solemnly declared in 1935 would issue currency and credit in terms of public need. Then let us use it. I am not concerned how the money is got at this critical time, but I say, get it, and see that this great industry is taken care of.
I wonder if it is necessary to get the country into debt to construct that pipe line or develop those oil fields. That is not a question which at this time I am going to go into, but I wonder if the government has considered fully the protection of those wells at Turner valley and in other parts of Alberta.
Yesterday I received a telegram which I believe I should read to the house, to show the seriousness of the situation. This copy was sent to me, and I believe a similar telegram was sent on May 22, 1940, to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Rogers). It reads as follows:
Many returned men in the Turner valley oil fields are anxious to form protective body at no expense to government in order that they may be in position to act in case any emergency arising in oil fields. We solicit governmental sanction for such an organization and any assistance that you may see fit to authorize the officer commanding military district 13 to extend to proposed organization.
Herbert Greenfield, President, Alberta Petroleum Association.
Those people are greatly concerned over the protection of the oil fields, because they know that the supply of oil is one of the essential services the Dominion of Canada can render in time of war.
On this occasion I do not intend to take up any more of the time of the house. There are some other points which will be discussed more thoroughly when the estimates are before the committee of supply, or when we are in committee on the bill. I hope, however, that
20S
War Appropriation Bill

the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Finance will take this matter under advisement and see that every precaution is taken to assist in Alberta, and that those making the request will receive all the necessary cooperation. They are only too willing to help defend Canada, and I hope the government will see to it that all assistance possible, financial and otherwise, is given, not only in connection with the development of those oil fields-because we are surely going to need the oil-but also to see that they are properly protected.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Vien in the chair.


The CHAIRMAN:: Is it the pleasure of the committee to report the resolution?
Some bon. MEMBERS: Carried.


Mr. HANSELL:: No. I am sorry I am so far away from the chair; perhaps I shall have difficulty in making myself heard. I purposely refrained from speaking on the resolution until it reached the committee stage because I was desirous of asking the Minister of Finance a simple question. I thought perhaps this would be the best time to ask it.
So far as I am able to ascertain from the resolution, it would seem that the government's policy in financing the war is the same policy of financing that has been used in past history, not only in the last parliament but through the last number of decades; that is to say, when the government wants money, it must either borrow, or tax it out of the people.
My question is this: In what way does the method of financing the present war differ from that used in financing the last war?


Mr. RALSTON:: With respect to the
general principle as to the method, I think the hon. member is correct. The principles are the same, except, however, in this respect, that on this occasion we propose so far as possible, as was indicated in the budget speech in September last, that the war shall be paid for as we go, and that borrowing shall be resorted to only when it becomes necessary, in order that the burden may not be too drastic, particularly in the early stages. Of course when one comes to details of method, having regard to rates of interest, tax-exempt features, and matters of that kind, there is a difference between this war and the last one. However I do not think that is what my hon. friend is interested in at the moment.


Ernest George Hansell: I appreciate the minister's reply, and in that connection I should like to read from the speech of the acting Minister of Finance who served at the special war session in September. In explaining to the 
house that the government's policy would be to finance the war on a pay-as-you-go basis, the minister called attention to the fact that the government was going to be particularly careful in this war, lest the results of our financing it would be similar to the results of our financing the last one. May I read from page 139 of Hansard for September 12, 19?9:
No country had the courage to finance rfie great war solely by resort to taxation and borrowings out of savings. As already indicated, the record of some countries was much better than that of others but all suffered from a world-wide inflationary rise of prices of enormous magnitude. For the last twenty years the world has been paying the price-a colossal one. Indeed it is perhaps not too much to say that some of the roots of the present war are to be found in the world-wide unsound financing of the last war and the great economic dislocations and continuing burdens of which it was in part the cause. It is to be hoped that in the present war the world may be able to avoid a repetition of that experience.
I fail to see how the results of this war can differ from those of the last one, if the same method or policy is used in financing it.
Although I have not yet located his exact words-and he will correct me if I am wrong -I was pleased to hear the Minister of Finance say a few days ago that we would finance the war on a pay-as-you-go basis, and that he realized that it could be paid for only out of current production. I believe that is the term he used. We understand of course that terms are often misunderstood; a term may mean one thing to one person and something else to another. What did the Minister of Finance mean by his reference to financing the war out of current production?


James Layton Ralston: I do not think my hon.
friend will find that expression in what I said the other day.


Ernest George Hansell: I am sorry if I have misquoted the minister. I did not have time to look up the statement.


James Layton Ralston: I notice the expression
has been used frequently from that comer of the house, but I do not think it was used.


Ernest George Hansell: The resolution went into
committee rather quickly. I had expected some other hon. members would speak, and I had not an opportunity to locate the phrase. Perhaps the minister will remember what he did say, and give it to us now.


James Layton Ralston: Of course, I am not taxing my memory with what I said on that occasion, but I do not think I referred to financing the war except on the principles which I mentioned a moment ago, namely, on a pay-as-you-go basis as far as possible. I do not think I mentioned anything about financing the war out of current production.

War Appropriation Bill


Joseph Henry Harris: Mr. Chairman., I think we are all rather pleased with the idea that some of this cost will be met on a pay-as-you-go basis. I have an inquiry to make of the minister, but he need not reply to it at this stage. He may want to wait until he has had an opportunity of considering what I may say. I should like to direct attention to certain conclusions and decisions which have been arrived at by certain bodies, some official and some semi-official, some judicial and some semi-judicial. If consideration were given to some of these decisions, I believe a good deal of revenue could be derived in this time of more or less emergency.
I should like to bring to the attention of the .minister one particular item in which a great number of people are interested. The tariff board carried on a study of this matter for two years. It was first started on an application made on December 11, 1936, and the tariff board finally brought down a report recommending the application of certain excise taxes similar to those obtaining in the United States. These taxes were enacted by the United States revenue bill of 1936 and given effect to in August of that year by an amendment known as the Bailey amendment. I consider our tariff board to be a semi-judicial body. After considerable study and research, that board made certain definite recommendations, which, if carried out, would bring at least $4,700,000 a year into the treasury of Canada. At the same time there would be no real hardship worked on the people of Canada.
The recommendation of that board recites the ways and means by which this could be done. One is impressed with the fact that throughout all the findings the idea persists that no real hardship would be worked. When the recommendation was brought before the former Minister of Finance, he found that our friends in Great Britain were a little disturbed over the possible effect of the recommendation upon their market. The fear was that this market might be thrown into the hands of the United States. However, since that time this fear has been dissipated by what has occurred in Great Britain. It was thought that the United States with their large production of lard might substitute this product for the tremendous Canadian importations of vegetable oil. It was thought that Canadian people might be using United States lard rather than empire oils. Another argument was advanced that Canadian lard was finding a ready market in Great Britain and that in exchange we were taking empire oils produced largely in Nigeria, the Straits Settlements, Ceylon and other countries.
This state of affairs has been re-orientated. Great Britain is not now taking our lard. Compared with the consumption, there is an over-production of lard in Canada. The 95,000,000 pounds that are produced here could be readily consumed if there were not such a large influx of tropical products from the empire, amounting this year to some 200,000,000 pounds. I ask my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance, to give this matter considerable thought. Here is an opportunity to pick up $4,700,000 in order to assist the treasury of Canada, and it will work no hardship on the Canadian people. This action would put our Canadian producers more on a parity with United States producers of fat and fat products. They will not be put on exactly the same basis because this recommendation is not of the same magnitude as the recommendation enacted in the United States in August, 1936, by means of the Bailey amendment to the revenue bill.
It would be good business for Canada to pick up this revenue at this time. Such action would help to conserve Canadian exchange, which is now going out of the country to purchase African oils to the extent of $6,000,000 to $7,000,000 a year. The whole trade will not be diverted immediately, but this action will tend to slow down the tremendous influx from Africa and at the same time stimulate the production and consumption at home of the domestic commodity. I have not seen a market report for the last two weeks, but the last report I had showed that lard in tank-car lots sold for five cents a pound. There are many farmer members in this house, of whom I am one, and I know they will agree with me when I say-I am glad the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is in his seat, because I know he will agree with m3r statement-that you cannot grow fat on a hog's back for five cents a pound, let alone kettle, render and put it on the market in carload lots. With the cost of feed being what it is, that is just not possible.
The recommendation has been made that the excise tax should be applied. The government has the power to apply it, and I know they will have the good-will of the people should it be applied at this time. Here is a chance to take some constructive action by carrying out the recommendation of the tariff board. Such action would allay some of the feeling in Canada that we are too prone to apply more or less direct taxation, which is burdensome and not at all popular, rather than taxation which is not too hard on the individual and which may have a compensating effect upon a great industry. In my opinion the recommendation now before the
War Appropriation Bill

government compensates agriculture for any slight burden which there may be upon the consumer.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend and I have discussed this matter already, and I want to say that he gave me the benefit of his extensive experience along with that of his colleague, the president of-


Joseph Henry Harris: The national dairy council of Canada. Representations were made also by the small packers of Canada who are not refiners or importers of these oils.


James Layton Ralston: All I can say now to my hon. friend, and I know he will not expect me to say more, is that his representations have not gone unnoted or unnoticed. They are being given every study.


Mr. GREEN:: During the course of the debate on this resolution many statements have been made as to the difficulty young Canadians are having in trying to join up with the different fighting forces. I understand, for example, that at least one of the British Columbia units in the second division has never been recruited up to strength, although now it is proposed to send that division overseas at once. We have been told by the Minister of National Defence that a third division is to be recruited immediately. We all know it is a fact that there are many, many units of the non-permanent active militia which are only skeletons at the present time. I think the government should tell us, and in telling us tell the country, exactly what their policy is to be from now on with regard to recruiting. I can see no reason why all these non-permanent active militia units should not be recruited up to strength. It would give us additional protection, and it would also give the men who join these units a chance to become trained. As the minister knows, we cannot train a fighting man to be ready for this war in a matter of a few weeks. I would ask him to let us know just what the policy of the government is to be from now on with regard to recruiting in Canada.


Mr. ROGERS:: I did not hear the earlier part of the question put by my hon. friend, but possibly the latter part of it will be sufficient to enable me to provide an answer for him. The policy so far as recruiting is concerned, as I indicated the other night, is materially different from that followed in the last war. In the last war commanding officers were appointed who raised certain units; recruiting was done for that purpose, and the units were brought up to strength. At the

present time, and ever since the outbreak of the present war, the method of recruiting has been to authorize the non-permanent militia units to be brought up to strength, and it was under that policy that the first and second divisions were mobilized. At the outbreak of the war, and subsequently in connection with reinforcements, recruiting has been through depots of the units already raised, and the men who have gone into these depots have been sent to the different training centres. The same applies to reinforcements recruited for units in the United Kingdom.
So far as the third division is concerned, it is the intention to follow the same method, which I might say had been worked out by the Department of National Defence long before the outbreak of the present war. It has on balance, I think, distinct advantages over the other method. It does mean, I quite agree, that there is what might be termed a controlled method of recruiting. There is continuous recruiting. There is recruiting for particular units until they are brought up to strength.
May I say to my hon. friend, so far as his question as to the non-permanent militia units generally are concerned, that we have provided, and it has already been announced, that these non-permanent units will be given an extended period of training during the summer months. They will be authorized to bring their units up to a certain strength, not full strength but a strength in excess of their present establishment for training purposes. I do not care to say from memory just what the strength of the non-permanent active militia units will be for the training period, but it is in excess of their present skeleton establishment. So far as the third division units are concerned, it is intended, as already announced, to bring them up to strength.


Howard Charles Green: In this desperate situation that we are facing, why cannot those other units which are not in the active service forces be recruited up to full strength? Even if the men who joined these units trained only in the evening and trained without pay, at least they would get some training. At the present time our young men have to wait, carry on with their jobs or remain on relief if they have no work to do, until reinforcements are called for the first and second divisions. It seems to me that the reasonable way to handle the problem would be to give these young men a chance to get at least evening training before they go into the overseas units.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The whole purpose of the department has been to recruit units up to strength as required, and in the nature of

War Appropriation Bill
things the government has had to be the judge of the time when additional recruits of the different units should be called. We have just authorized a third division. It will be formed from the non-permanent active militia units, and we shall be governed bycircumstances as to the calling of further units. Apart from that entirely, we are providing for extended training of units which will not be included in the third division.


Howard Charles Green: The minister has said that these units which are not being called up are to go into camp this summer. Why cannot they be recruited up to strength before they go into camp, so as to give young Canadians an opportunity of getting that training in Canada? Then, when they come back from camp, they can train in the armouries in the evening. That would be at least a start, and it would give us that much larger reserve force in Canada. At the present time the government are making practically no use whatever of the units that are not in the active service force. I instanced yesterday afternoon a British Columbia regiment perpetuating the old 7th battalion. There they are with just a handful of officers, non-commissioned officers and men, and they are not able to render any real service. Why should not that unit be allowed to recruit now up to full strength, and let the men who join get some training? Is there any reason why that cannot be done?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I shall be glad to look into the possibility of recruiting up to strength at an earlier date than anticipated some of these units which are not included in the third division. My hon. friend will realize that the amount of training which can be done in the limited accommodation in towns and cities is not comparable with the training that can be given in summer camps which were contemplated. But I shall be glad to look into my hon. friend's suggestion and see how far it is feasible.


Howard Charles Green: I realize that, of course, but this country may be invaded within the next year, and we cannot sit back and wait indefinitely for the training of our yoimg men.
I have another question I should like the government to answer. I should like to know why they are allowing the officers training corps at universities to be shut down for three months in the summer. Why cannot that training be carried on during the summer?


Norman McLeod Rogers: As my hon. friend is aware, the universities themselves have terms which normally close at this time of the year, and obviously if the officers training corps were
continued beyond that period, the men receiving that training would simply be waiting around at their own expense without being able to take any university course at the same time.


Howard Charles Green: Yes, but in our province many young lawyers and business men who are not attending university take the course in the officers training corps. I do not know just what the percentage of university students is, but certainly a large number are not university students, and the corps is the only school where officers can be trained in British Columbia. We have young business men by the dozen who want to get this officers training. Some of them were not allowed to train because they were not university graduates. That is another matter which should be remedied at once. There is no reason why the government should refuse to give a man officer training unless he is a university graduate. Let these officers training corps be kept open during the summer for the young men who are not attending a university. Why cannot that be done?


Norman McLeod Rogers: It may be done. In certain localities it may be desirable to continue the officers training corps during the summer months. I shall look into that and see if it should prove feasible. I would remind my hon. friend, however, that we are not drawing solely upon the officers training corps for officer material. It was indicated at the outset that we would provide officers from the reserve of the non-permanent active militia units which are moved to training centres and also -and this is of very considerable importance -that we would draw officers through promotion from the ranks. Naturally we do not want to expand the officers training corps to the point of creating expectations of appointments which cannot be realized. I think, if my hon. friend sees the number that were actually trained in the officers training corps this last winter, he will understand my point. We have actually trained a very large number. I have not the figures, but I shall be glad to obtain them and give them to my hon. friend.


Howard Charles Green: How is it intended to train young men from the ranks? Are they to go to the officers training schools?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I think my hon. friend will understand from his experience in the last war that I am referring to appointments which will be made to vacancies in the field.


Howard Charles Green: I agree entirely with that policy, but I am referring to the units which are at home in Canada. How is the young
War Appropriation Bill

man from the ranks of the unit in Canada to be trained? Is he to go to an officers training corps, or how is he to be trained?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Officers are posted to training schools through the non-permanent active militia units; and the non-permanent active militia units, when they are authorized to be brought up to full establishment, obtain normally their quota of officers from those who are already serving or those who are on the reserve.


Howard Charles Green: Is it not possible to have refresher courses for the men and the officers who served in the last war?


Norman McLeod Rogers: That matter is now receiving the consideration of the Department of National Defence.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Will any portion of the money raised under this resolution be used for the payment of allowances to soldiers' dependants?


James Layton Ralston: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: In that connection I should like to suggest that the regulations pertaining to soldiers' dependants be revised. I will give -three cases, -examples of many with which I have come into contact. They are the cases of three widows, each one representing many others who have similar troubles.
One widow's son before he enlisted had a substantial salary, $75 a month, from which he was able to give his widowed -mother $50 a month. When he enlisted and went away, she received from him his assigned pay of $20, and from the dependants' allowance board $35 a month.
The second widow's son had intermittent work. Some months he was able to give his mother $50; at -other times, $30 or perhaps not over $15 a month. When he enlisted, the widowed mother received the assigned pay of $20 and the board made her an allowance of $10. In other cases, perhaps the allowance was $5, but never anything like $35 in addition to the assigned pay.
The third widow and her son were both on relief at -the time he enlisted. She received his assigned pay, $20 a month, and the dependants' allowance board allows her nothing.
I have felt right along that inasmuch as these respective sons go overseas together, face shot and shell together, and are all subject to the same trials and troubles of war, their widowed mothers should receive exactly the same, namely $20 a month assigned pay and $35 a month from the dependants' allowance board.
I would ask the minister if, after the resolution has been passed and the machinery is in

operation, he, in conjunction perhaps with the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Rogers) who is very sympathetic, and whatever other minister has to do with the matter, would go into those regulations and see to it that they are made uniform. I am not sure, but I have been told that -such was not the case in the last war. Am I wrong?


James Layton Ralston: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Then the information I received is wrong. But that does not alter my argument. I believe that inasmuch as the three young men face the same dangers an6 difficulties and are all equally subject -to the risk of being wounded or killed, their dear mothers at home should receive exactly the same consideration.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: I entirely disagree
with the recruitment policy which is being carried -on. Even if one grants that is to be followed, has the minister considered that, in forming a division, instead of taking a regiment from one city or garrison, it would create more interest in the garrison if a company were taken from each regiment in the garrison or district- Taking it for granted that the minister's present policy is to be followed, does he not think that the method I have suggested would create much more enthusiasm and foster esprit d-e corps in the military district?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I quite agree that there is a valuable thought in what has been proposed by my hon. friend. That, too, I might say, has been given some study in connection with the plans for the third division, and I think I can assure my hon. friend that it may be possible to carry it out in some degree, at least in connection with certain of the units which will be raised.


Mr. BROOKS:: I am wondering if the minister was considering the taking over of some of the units which are now doing guard duty and using them in the third division. I know that throughout the country there are some fairly well trained units which have been doing guard duty. It seems to me -that to incorporate such units would hasten considerably the training of this third division.
I agree with the hon. member who has just spoken with reference to recruiting. Referring particularly to my own province, in New Brunswick we have four militia units, and one was selected for the first division. Men from all over the province enlisted in that regiment, which comes from York-Carleton, two counties in New Brunswick; and, of course, the section from which the York-Carleton regiment comes is extremely proud of being

War Appropriation Bill
represented. But in that regiment are men from the other militia units in the province. They and other units have taken non-commissioned officers, some of the officers, and a great many of the men, and they have to some extent weakened the other militia units. It seems to me that a more practical arrangement would have been to designate it the first New Brunswick regiment that went overseas and taken a company, perhaps, from each of the other infantry regiments. There would have been more esprit de corps as far as the unit is concerned, and these other units would not have been weakened as they are to-day.
I believe that the adoption of that principle in connection with future recruiting would have a very good effect.
I do not regard the present system as altogether practical. It has another effect. After the war is over-and, we trust, successfully- these units will hope to carry on. A regiment which has not been represented overseas will certainly lose face with a regiment that has been overseas, and I believe that this would have a bad effect on the militia of the future. Presumably what is true in New Brunswick is true all over Canada. Take Manitoba, for instance; you might have a first Manitoba regiment and a second Manitoba regiment; in the same way, a Montreal unit; or a western Ontario unit. In England they have the Kents and the Surreys; each county has one unit from which there are different regiments of the same name. I believe that in this war it would have been much better for recruiting in this country if we had followed some such scheme as that. I remember that in the last war only one New Brunswick infantry regiment was represented at the front, although we sent enough men to maintain two, or three, or perhaps more in the field; and the people in our province did not feel that they were receiving fair treatment in this regard. We sent men to reinforce units from the Atlantic to the Pacific. I had hoped that in this war a different system would be followed, a system which would give the different provinces better representation as far as their units are concerned.


Mr. HOMUTH:: The hon. member for
Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) has raised a very important question in respect of the allowances that are being paid to widowed mothers. Are we going to continue to pay them an allowance based on the economic condition of their families prior to their sons' enlistment? Apparently that is what we are going to do.
I know of several cases where the boy was out of work and contributed very little to the home, and the allowance paid to the mother is based upon what he was able to contribute.
There are three privates in the ranks and the widowed mothers are receiving different allowances. In my opinion this is very unfair. Surely some adjustment can be made; and not only should there be an adjustment, but it should be made retroactive from the time of the enlistment of the son.


James Layton Ralston: The dependants' allowance regulations are made by the Department of National Defence and are concurred in by the treasury board. In my own constituency there are instances of the same sort as the hon. member has mentioned. Rightly or wrongly-he will say wrongly, judging from what he has already said-the rule, not only in these regulations but in the regulations that were in force during the last war and also in the Canadian Pension Act, which I suppose has undergone more revision than any other act on the statute books, provides that while wives are entitled as of right to pension, parents are entitled only in accordance with need, or as in this case, having regard to the support which the enlisted man has given. That has been the rule, and there has been the want of uniformity to which my hon. friend has referred, in that one soldier's mother may be getting a different allowance from another. Under the Pension Act, if a wife were in receipt of an income of $10,000 a year, she would still get the pension, but the rule does not apply to the parents. The idea is that there is a different situation as between parents on the one hand and the wife on the other, and that distinction has been perpetuated and is to-day in the financial regulations. It would be adopting a principle that has not been followed in any pension legislation or in any financial provisions of this sort that I know of if we adopted the suggestion which has been made. The theory is that the country endeavours to restore to the parent, to a certain extent at least, what has been lost by reason of the son's enlistment. That is the principle which has been laid down. In the third case stated by the hon. member for Davenport, I believe he said that the mother had been on relief.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The mother and son.


James Layton Ralston: As he knows, there was
a hardship in that connection and it was recognized. The regulations provided that it had to be shown that the son had contributed to a certain extent. Obviously that could not be shown where the son was himself on relief, and so an amendment was made whereby it was possible to make an allowance to the mother to the extent of the contribution made by the son, with the limitations mentioned in the regulation, if it could be shown that the son's failure to contribute to his mother's support had been on account
War Appropriation Bill

of circumstances beyond his control. That amendment was made to cover the case to which my hon. friend refers. The request has been made that the matter be taken into consideration and I shall be glad to consider it; but, speaking as one minister interested in the whole question, I would point out that the principle would be entirely new and very far-reaching if we adopted the suggestion that has been made, because it would apply to the father as well, and there is no reason why it should not also apply to other dependants who are not in the relationship of wife. You would have to go all down the line.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I think it is unfair. Three boys enlist, privates in the ranks, and they are fighting for Canada at different rates of pay. Their people are more or less destitute in consequence. When the war broke out, there prevailed throughout Canada economic conditions that we had never experienced before. These boys wandered about the roads for several years without being able to get work. They were not wanted by the municipalities or the provinces. No provision was made for them, but they forgot all that hardship and enlisted because they loved their country more than they disliked governments because of ill treatment. These boys wandered hundreds of miles over the province looking for work and therefore they could not contribute anything to the support of their mothers. They finally enlist and the mothers get nothing. To me it is unfair. We are passing a vote of $700,000,000. What does it matter what the war costs? If we lose the war, neither our money nor anything else will be of any advantage to us. For God's sake- and I say this as reverently as I can-let us be fair to those who are going to fight to defend the country. Let us look after the loved ones they leave behind and may never see again. Surely the country can well afford so to amend our laws as to enable us to look after the loved ones of those boys who have enlisted to fight for us.


James Layton Ralston: Everyone agrees with the sentiment the hon. member has expressed; but he is presupposing a case of destitution, and it is the case of destitution that the amended regulations were intended to meet. If a son has been prevented from contributing because of circumstances beyond his control, allowance is made. I yield to no one in my desire to treat the men and their dependants fairly; I am merely pointing out that in the regulations which were in force in the last war, continued in the Pension Act and considered by a committee at every session of the house, certainly in the nine years that I was in the house, and continued down to this 
war, the principle I have stated has been recognized as sound. I ask hon. members whether that principle is not fair, namely, that of restoring to the parent or other dependant what he or she is deprived of by reason of the enlistment of the son or relative. In instances where they are deprived of nothing by reason of the fact that the son had not made a contribution, if the failure to contribute has been on account of circumstances beyond the control of the son, the allowance is still made. I ask, is that not a fair situation?


Mr. PERLEY:: The minister has stated pretty clearly what the intention is, and I am glad that these regulations will be reviewed. May I cite one case, that of a widowed mother with an only son who is trying to carry on a farm. The father died last fall after the war broke out. This is an only son, nineteen years of age. The mother is trying to carry on the farm operations. I think this is rather a special case, because she had to hire help. The son is a fine boy, anxious to help his mother, but he got the spirit and enlisted. In reviewing these regulations, such cases should be taken into consideration. There are many of them in the west; I know of several. The mother has not yet received any allowance. In fact, I have a letter about the matter since I came to Ottawa.


James Layton Ralston: My friend has written the board about it?


Ernest Edward Perley: I have written the board since coming to Ottawa.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It was difficult to get a prompt reply from the board.


James Layton Ralston: We are all interested in this. Speaking for myself, I believe the government felt that when we got Mr. Mac-Namara-and this is making no reflections on others who occupied the position-we had a man who was highly qualified, sympathetic, and whose administration would be a credit to the dominion. I am sure he justified those expectations. He has a board with some new members, and I know he has had difficulty about space. The dependants' allowance board is going into the new building which is being built near the war supply board. The board has forty thousand files, and hon. members can understand that there may have been some congestion and possible delays on that account. But I am certain that the Minister of National Defence and I also would like to have any information of instances in which hon. members do not get prompt replies, because that must be remedied of course, and Mr. MacNamara would be the first to see that that was done.

War Appropriation Bill


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am not blaming Mr. MacNamara or any other official, but I am sure the Minister of National Defence will find letters on his files-the Minister of Finance perhaps not so many-advising that I have been unable to get a prompt reply. The reason may be that there are far too many such cases. I am not finding fault with the board. But I have found it necessary to write to the ministers that I cannot get prompt replies from the board. I have advised the ministers that the widows themselves cannot get replies.


Norman McLeod Rogers: If my hon. friend will
bring any such letters to my attention, I shall be glad to see that they are dealt with immediately. I do not recall his having written to me about not having received any reply. Is that the suggestion?


John Ritchie MacNicol: I have written advising that I cannot get a reply from the board. Unfortunately when I am at home I have not a stenographer; I write my letters by hand and therefore have not a copy. Nevertheless it is a fact.


Mr. MacINNIS:: The point raised by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) is most important and should not be passed over until it has received the most earnest consideration of the committee. We should not be satisfied with the fact that the principle applied now is the same as applied during the last war. The situation at the beginning of this war is not that which existed at the beginning of the last. The world has moved on tremendously since the last war, and it is moving to-day, possibly at a faster rate than ever before. This question has caused more heart-burning perhaps than any other associated with the matter of allowances. I doubt if there is any hon. member who has not received letters, most passionate letters, in regard to this. I have letters from mothers whose husbands and sons have been unemployed for a number of years, or doing intermittent work. A mother whose son was fortunate enough to have work, was looked upon with envy by other mothers, whose sons were unemployed. There is more bitterness now when the mother of an unemployed boy gets a smaller allowance or none.
One of the things we are supposed to be fighting for in this war is democracy. If democracy means anything, it means a striving towards equality. That being the situation, we should strive towards equality of treatment of mothers who give their sons, regardless of whether those sons happen to have been employed or unemployed. I quite realize that there are cases in which there would not be a just or valid claim; that is where the son
had left home, had given no thought to the welfare of his parents. In such cases I do not think the mother would have any clain because of the enlistment of the son. Bui where the son had been at home and would have assisted if economic conditions had enabled him, there is a claim, whether he was employed or not. I think it would go far to bring about a better feeling in this country, greater eagerness to assist the country in this extremity, if the government would give generous consideration to this matter.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the chief whip informs me that he has been in touch with the other whips of the house and that there appears to be a desire that the house should not sit this evening, the reason being that this week has been one of intense activity on the part of all, not only . hon. members but all associated with the business of parliament. I think we have made exceptional progress with the business in the last six days. Moreover, there is the fact that to-day is Victoria day. When there is not great pressure of business, the house sometimes does not sit at all on Victoria day; but to-day we have sat half the day, and if there is no exception on the part of any hon. member to an adjournment, I shall be pleased, on behalf of the government, to suggest that the house do now adjourn until Monday. If there were a desire on the part of hon. members to sit this evening, of course the government would be prepared to continue until eleven o'clock.
On Monday the house will continue discussion of this resolution.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at six p.m.
Monday, May 27, 1940



DOMINION ELECTIONS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. WILFRID LaCROIX (Quebec-Mont-morency) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 16, to amend The Dominion Elections Act, 1938.
He said: The German reich being at war with Canada, and Russia having allied herself with the German reich, it is fit and proper that the communists and nazis, representing the ideologies of Russia and Germany, should not be allowed to spread throughout Canada the doctrines of these revolutionary or totalitarian states, and should not be allowed to run as candidates at elections.
It is quite true that in a recent judgment of the Supreme Court of Ontario Mr. Justice Chevrier has declared that under the War Measures Act and regulations made thereunder the communist party in Canada is an illegal association. The regulations made under the War Measures Act are, however, of temporary character, and it seems preferable under the ciroumstances that an act of parliament should declare for all time that the communist party and the nazi party have no place in a democratic country like Canada, whether Canada be at war or at peace. Norway, Holland, Belgium, and many other countries have learned by bitter experience that the activities of the fifth column are just as dangerous and fatal in peace time as during the war.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. WILFRID LaCROIX (Quebec-Mont-morency) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 17, to amend the criminal code.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the same general explanation would apply to this measure as to the former.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.