1941-05-07

NATIONAL REGISTRATION


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of National War Services):: Some weeks ago I
tabled statistical information secured from the records of the national registration dealing with the province of Ontario; and, later, similar information dealing with the whole of Canada. Subsequently I tabled further information for Ontario dealing with persons in specialized occupations in that province.
I now wish to lay on the table statistical information dealing with persons in specialized occupations for the whole of Canada. This report indicates the number of persons engaged in or capable of being engaged in specialized occupations. Any firm desiring to get a list of names, addresses and information with respect to the number of persons in its locality trained in a particular trade or calling should communicate with the Department of Labour.



RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the order for motions:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: I
have a motion, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Mr. Church moves,
seconded by Mr. Rowe, for leave of the house not to proceed with the second reading of Bill No. 2, to amend the Railway Act.


Thomas Langton Church: May it stand until
to-morrow?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Does my hon. friend wish to ask the permission of the house to withdraw his bill? If he does, he may move for pel-mission, but if his purpose is to make a speech, I am afraid he will have to forgo it.


Georges Parent: Stands.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. COLDWELL:: 1.	What amount of American pork was imported into Canada by the Canadian packing and processing companies, between September 1, 1939, and April 30, 1940?
2.	How much pork was reexported by the said companies during this period?
3.	What sums of money were claimed in drawbacks by each of the above companies during the said period?
4.	What amounts were paid to each of the said companies?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Imports from the United States of fresh pork entered for consumption in Canada from September 1, 1939, to April 30, 1940, were 34,703,319 pounds.
2.	No reexports of fresh pork during this period.
3 and 4. It is contrary to the established practice of the Department of National Revenue to give information which would disclose the private business of any individual or concern.


FOREIGN EXCHANGE-EXPENDITURES OF UNITED STATES CITIZENS WITH SUMMER HOMES IN CANADA
Mr. DAMUDE:: 1.	Are American citizens asked to report their expenditures of American dollars in Canada, while visiting or living in their summer homes on lake Erie or elsewhere in Canada?
2.	If so, for what reason?


Mr. GIBSON:: 1.	Visitors from the United States have been requested to make a voluntary statement as to the amount of United States dollars spent while visiting Canada. While the giving of this information was purely voluntary, some objections were raised as to the forms provided, and the forms have been withdrawn.
2.	The information was for the purpose of ascertaining the approximate amount of United States dollars spent in Canada each year by tourists, and was desired by the
Questions

foreign exchange control board and by the internal trade branch of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics.


LOANS TO PROVINCES-BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. BENCE:: 1.	What amount of money does the government of British Columbia owe to the dominion government?
2.	On what date, for what purpose and on what terms was each loan made?
3.	What payments have been made by the government of British Columbia?
4.	On what dates?
5.	Has the government of British Columbia defaulted on any of its obligations?
6.	If so, on what dates?
7.	What demands have been made upon the government of British Columbia for payment of outstanding obligations?
8.	On what dates were such demands made?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	835,084,387.36.
2.	The above total is net loans outstanding at this date. As to date and purpose of each loan, see sessional paper No. 259 where may be found net loans by fiscal years, net loans classified as to purpose and due date of treasury bills. The housing loan of 8340,000 due June 30, 1941, is secured by provincial debenture bearing interest at 5 per cent payable half-yearly. Provincial treasury bills bear interest at 3 per cent, payable halfyearly.
3 and 4. Gross loans made (not including accountable advances which were prepayments of dominion share of relief) were: housing loans, 81.701.500.00; loans under relief acts, 838,809,711.88.
Repayments made by British Columbia were:
Housing loans
December 31, 1940	 81,361,500 00
Loans under relief acts
June 24, 1932	
$2,000,000	69February 11, 1933	
1,040,670	00February 17, 1933	
129,244	50May 4, 1933	
26,856	00May 15. 1933	
12,588	75May 25, 1933	
149,674	50August 23, 1934	
8,000	00September 1, 1935	
7,554	63May 1, 1936	
63,891	00September 1, 1936	
7,709	38September 1, 1937	
273,363	23April 23, 1938	
185,000	00August 8, 1938	
33,446	75April 12, 193S	
96,059	19October 30, 1940	
31,265	90


S4,065,324 52
[Stage Direction]
Total	 $5,426,824 52
[Mr. Gibson.l
5.	No.
6.	Answered by No. 5.
7 and 8. See correspondence tabled on March 18, 1941.

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	How many soldiers were prosecuted by the Canadian Pacific railway under the criminal code for fraudulent use of railway tickets at Petawawa and Camp Borden?
2.	(a) Before whom were these cases tried, (b) what sentence was imposed and (c) where are these soldiers now?
3.	Will executive clemency be considered?
4.	How many were found not guilty?
5.	(a) How many pleaded guilty, and (b) had they counsel?


Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	Petawawa, 14; Camp Borden, 3.
2.	(a) Petawawa, Magistrate F. G. Galligan; Camp Borden, Magistrate Jeffs.
(b) Petawawa-Four months, concurrent; three months; nine days (suspended sentence); eight days (suspended sentence); five days (suspended sentence): five days (sentence not suspended).
Camp Borden-Three months definite and three months indeterminate.
(e) Petawawa-Soldiers undergoing sentence are in the Pembroke gaol, remainder with unit.
Camp Borden-Guelph reformatory.
3.	This is a matter for the appropriate authorities.
4.	Petawawa, 3; Camp Borden, none.
5.	(a) Petawawa, 9; Camp Borden, 3.
(b) Petawawa, 6 were represented by counsel; Camp Borden, no.


SALVAGE CAMPAIGN
Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: What was the total cost of advertising the national salvage campaign?


James Garfield Gardiner: Estimated cost of
advertising adequately to carry on the salvage campaign, $28,500. Accounts have not been rendered for this expenditure and no disbursements have been made as yet.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	Was a motor car allowance paid during the fiscal years ending March 31, 1940 and 1941, to any minister of the crown who did not own a motor car?
2.	If so, what are the names of such ministers?

Welcome to Prime Minister of Australia


PROHIBITION OP HITCH-HIKING
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Does a notice posted at military and air force camps, making hitch-hiking a military offence, apply to officers and non-commissioned officers as well as to privates?
2.	Under what clauses of the army or militia and defence or air force acts is it issued, and who suggested it?
3.	Will consideration be given to the revocation of this order?



PRIVATE BILLS


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That second readings of private bills be the order of the day on Friday the 9th of May instant, it being agreed that the procedure required for their final adoption, when reported from the committees to which they will be referred, shall be complied with at a later date to be fixed on motion without notice; that standing order 15 and the resolution of the 17th of February last he suspended in relation thereto; and that in carrying out this order of business precedence be given to unopposed bills.


Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition) :: There is no objection to the motion except with reference to the question of proceeding without notice after bills come back from their respective committees. It has been pointed out to me that, owing to the fact that, while the house is in session, members, who may be interested in some of these bills, may be sitting on very important committees, this action should not be taken without notice. I suggest that the Prime Minister be good enough to amend the motion in that respect.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I agree with my hon. friend, and with the consent of the house I move that the motion be amended by striking out the words "without notice" after the words "fixed on motion" in the fifth line.
Motion as amended agreed to.



PRIME MINISTER OF AUSTRALIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, the citizens of Canada were greatly pleased and, I may add, greatly relieved when they learned last night that the Right Hon. Mr. Menzies, Prime Minister of Australia, had landed safely at an airport in New York after his journey across the Atlantic by plane, completing another long lap of the journey which he has taken around two-thirds of the globe and which we all hope he will complete with safety in due season.
We who are residents of the capital were particularly pleased to have the privilege of welcoming Mr. Menzies this morning at one of our own airports. It is a part of the romance of the development of the British empire in these times that within a very few minutes after his arrival in Canada the Prime Minister of Australia was addressing on Canadian soil members of the air force of Australia and extending to them his greetings and good wishes.
To me personally it was a most welcome experience to find myself driving about a Canadian airport in an Australian car with the Prime Minister of Australia. I am sure that all members of this parliament are delighted that we have on the floor of the House of Commons to-day, upon invitation of His Honour the Speaker, Mr. Menzies in person. In a few moments I am going to ask the house to adopt a motion which my hon. friend the leader of the opposition and I have worked out together, and which we think would be appropriate for the occasion. Perhaps I had better read the motion immediately and then say a word or two in reference to it:
That the sitting of the house be suspended during pleasure for the purpose of welcoming in the Chamber the Right Hon. R. G. Menzies, Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia, and that the speeches delivered on this occasion be inserted in the House of Commons Debates and form part of the permanent records of this parliament.
In proposing this motion I do so with exceptional pride and pleasure in that it affords to us as their representatives opportunity to say to Mr. Menzies in person many of the things that the people of Canada have been thinking about him and his country, and particularly about the armed forces of Australia, during these trying months through which we have all been passing. We welcome Mr. Menzies for himself. We know him well as one of the leading public men not only of the British commonwealth of nations but of the world to-day. We welcome him as an exponent of great causes, who is fearless in his public utterances, strong in his leadership and broad in his vision, and we are proud indeed to have him here as the one who, in the position of its prime minister, is representing the commonwealth of Australia wherever he goes, wdiether it be to the battlefields of north Africa, or southern Europe, to the United Kingdom, which he has just left, or our own dominion or upon a visit such as he is about to make to the United States. He speaks to people everywhere of the magnificent service which the Australian commonwealth, as one of the dominions of the
2628	COMMONS
Welcome to Prime Minister oj Australia
British commonwealth of nations, is rendering the cause of freedom in the world struggle of to-day.
I do not intend to say more than a word, but I should like to say to the Prime Minister of Australia how greatly we in Canada admire the part which Australia has played from the very commencement of this war, the part which he and*the members of the government of Australia, the citizens of Australia and the armed fortes of Australia have taken in the conduct of the war. It will come I believe as a bit of a surprise to us all to recognize the fact that to-day the armed forces of Australia are serving actively on no less than five continents of the world. They are serving on their own continent of Australia; they have served with great gallantry on the continent of Africa; they have served with equal gallantry and bravery on the continent of Europe-and may I say it would be impossible for any of us to begin to express the admiration which we hold in our hearts for the heroism of the men representing Australia in the battles to which I have just referred. They are also actively in service on the continent of Asia; their forces are to-day, some of them, at Singapore and the Malay States. We are proud to realize that Australian forces are also brothers in arms with our own airmen here in Canada at the present time. It has been a memorable experience to Canadian citizens, particularly to members of our air force, to meet here in our own country those who have come the long distance from Australia to participate in the great commonwealth air training plan which we share in common. I would like to say to the Prime Minister of Australia that we have greatly welcomed the presence in Canada of the members of the air force who have come to us from his country.
I shall not add more except to say in a word, to Mr. Menzies that we hope he will carry back with him to his home dominion the warmest, indeed the affectionate greetings not only of the members of this parliament but of the people of Canada as a whole.
We are building to-day within what used to be exclusively termed the British empire not only a great British commonwealth but also a great British brotherhood. The presence of the Prime Minister of Australia side by side with the members of the parliament of this Dominion of Canada to-day is visible evidence to the world of the unity which is an outstanding feature of the war for all parts of the British empire. May he carry back with him the assurance, which I am certain he will not need, that so far as Canada is concerned we are joined with the other nations of the commonwealth, and particularly

with the United Kingdom, in a determination to give the utmost of our ability, capacity and strength to the winning of the war for the greater freedom of mankind, and that our effort will be unfalteringly continued until victory itself is achieved.


Richard Burpee Hanson: 
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation members of this house, I wish to join in the welcome to the Right Hon. the Prime Minister of Australia, and to say to him that, irrespective of any differences that there may have been in former days among those of us who sit in this house, undoubtedly there is now in this chamber and throughout the country, with regard to the war, a unity that there has never been before. I would say to him that so far as we are concerned we shall endeavour to assist in every way possible in bringing this great struggle to a successful conclusion. I am certain that when he returns to his native Australia he will be able to say that, as with the British parliament, so with the Canadian and all parliaments throughout the commonwealth, there is a full and complete unity of purpose in our determination to deliver mankind from the world-wide threats to human freedom.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the small group which I represent I wish to associate myself with those who have already spoken. We rejoice greatly in the part which Australia has played; we rejoice in the brotherhood which has long existed, does now exist and we trust will forever exist among all the Anglo-Saxon people throughout the world. We wish to assure him that dear to his heart as may be the winning of this struggle and the attainment of the great goal of the British people, it is no more dear to him than to the hearts of us who live in Canada.
We trust that he will be able to pursue his journeys in happiness and with success, and with the honour which is due him, which is great; and that he will be able to convey to our brothers in Australia our heartiest good wishes and our warmest assurance that we are with them even unto the end.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
At 3.30 pun. the sitting of the house was suspended during pleasure.
Georges Parent: Mr. Menzies, on behalf of this House of Commons I deem it a privilege as well as a pleasure to extend to you a cordial welcome to Canada and to this house. It has not been possible to arrange a more formal gathering, but it will be a great disappointment to many who are not here and who, had they known of this occasion, would have been present to welcome you.
In your rapid transit across oceans and continents we all realize how time with you is the essence of the contract; but the spontaneity and enthusiasm which has been exhibited to-day on the occasion of your presence in this house will, I think, convey to you more than any words of mine or any formal gathering the exceeding great joy and gladness with which we welcomd you to this house.
It is with peculiar pleasure, however, that we welcome a kinsman from Australia, in your person. If I could give expression to my own feelings I should be glad indeed to see you receive a real, wild, turbulent highland welcome, in which atmosphere I think you would be securely and hospitably at home. We welcome you as a statesman charged with grave responsibilities, fresh from your visit to Britain in which you made clear to the world and to the nazis in particular that Australia stands behind you, unmistakably the champion and defender of all freedom-loving people, and that it will fight in this beastly conflict with all the energy, the courage and the skill which we are accustomed to associate with Australians. Your armies on land, on sea and in the air have demonstrated anew the fighting qualities for which they have been so famous, and we in Canada rejoice with you in the glory which they have achieved on different continents. Your young airmen are in Canada to-day. We are welcoming them, and they are proving themselves in the noble manner in which you, as Prime Minister of Australia, would wish that they should act.
Hon. gentlemen, I introduce to you and and give into your hands the Right Honourable R. G. Menzies, Prime Minister of Australia.


Right Hon.  R. G. MENZIES@Prime Minister of Australia: Mr. Speaker, this is an atmosphere in which at one and the same time I feel a perfect stranger and yet at home; a stranger, because if your parliamentary rules are the same as our own, sir, I believe that is my exact technical description. But as nobody has drawn attention to the presence of strangers in the house, which is an unkind habit in which we occasionally indulge in Australia, I am here being accorded, as I fully realize, the greatest honour that a British parliament can pay to any man.
I am very sensible of that honour. I am very sensible of the fact that it is paid to me as the representative of a great dominion which, like your own, has pledged to this struggle everything that it has. So that when I acknowledge your very generous words I want you to feel that it is Australia which is speaking to you, because I know that in
2630	COMMONS
Address of Right Hon. R. G. Menzies
what I shall say to you I speak for one hundred per cent of the people of my own country.
I have been making a strange, eventful journey around the world, the kind of journey that one does not contemplate in time of peace but which seems to me of supreme value in time of war. In the course of that journey I have had the opportunity to pass through many countries. I have found myself one day discussing international affairs with a governor in the Netherlands East Indies; on the next talking to a British governor at Singapore; on the next talking to a prime minister of his own country in Bangkok; another day travelling across India, pausing every now and then, technically, I believe, to refuel, but in reality, as it seemed to me, to have the opportunity of meeting another man of our race, doing his work of administration and keeping the flag flying in his own lonely part of the world. I have found myself flying above the waters of the Persian gulf, above the date palms of Basra; and I hope the fact, of which I have been aware, that in three or four places which I visited trouble has since broken out, is no responsibility of mine.
In the middle east, in Palestine, Egypt and Libya, I had the supreme privilege of my life, that of following Australian soldiers over battlefields on which I believe they have immortalized their name. At a great naval base in the Mediterranean I had the opportunity of seeing ships and men of the Royal Australian Navy; and I looked at them with pride, and, may I say, with great thankfulness. I saw some ships which, when this war broke out, were reputed to be so old that cynics declared they would never be able to travel across the ocean but would be best employed by being tied up in port, as though they were like wooden guns that might frighten the enemy if he did not examine them too closely. Some of those old ships have battered their way across the seas, and, in the Mediterranean, have destroyed submarines, taken part in great actions, and, I believe, upheld the reputation which for centuries has been maintained by the Royal Navy.
I found myself travelling across Africa, going into British settlements which I knew only by name and which I had never expected to see. Everywhere on that long journey, which was not without its occasional perils and excitements, I found reason to thank God for the race to which I belong. We are, if I may use the expression collectively as to the whole of the British peoples of the world, a curious people, as any other race will admit. We are not without our faults; I dare say we are not without some unpleasant attributes.

I assume that we have them. I know my friends have always been able to discern them very clearly in me, and no doubt you have friends who perform the same kind office for you. But these are merely superficial things. This war, and the events leading up to it, have shown that in respect of moral fibre there is no degeneracy in the race to which we belong.
Recently it was the honour and privilege of Australian and New Zealand troops to take part in what some people might describe as the ill-fated expedition to Greece. I have never been able to see it in that sense. Greece is a country which in this war has shown just the same iron quality as that which we associate with our own people. Greece, one of the smallest of the powers of Europe, has earned, I believe, an undying place in our affections and our respect, because she was not prepared to take two minutes of her time in calculating the odds against her. She said, "This is our home; this is the home of our fathers; this is the home of all those things that we believe in, and we shall defend it to the end." There was no business bargaining about the Greeks; there was no nice balancing of pros and cons. There was no disposition on their part to say, "Well, as we cannot win, let us make the best kind of deal that We can." Their reply was instinctive; the world has heard it, and the world will never forget it.
I am entirely unable to understand the point of view of any man in whom British blood, from any of its derivations, may flow, who would turn his shoulder upon the Greeks in their struggle, or who would wrap his gown about him and pass by on the other side. We are not made that way. If as a result of their decision Greek soil has been enriched with the blood of young men coming from a very distant part of the world, coming as representatives of the youngest civilization to the aid of the oldest, then who shall say that that, properly understood, is a tragedy in our history! I believe on the contrary that it is one more proof that there is something in us-I say it with just pride, and not in a spirit of boasting'-something in us which is the spark of life; and it is for us to tend it, it is for us constantly to give it its opportunity of doing its illuminating work in the world.
Then, sir, what shall I say about Great Britain? I saw in Egypt, in Libya, in Palestine, thousands of young men of my own country. With one accord and almost in one voice they said to me, "Take to the people of the old country our love, our respect, and our resolve that we shall stand by them." I could never have made in Great Britain a speech

Address oj Right Hon. R. G. Menzies
that meant anything had I not been reinforced in mind and spirit by that which I found in the middle east, by that fire which 1 found burning in the people there. So I was able to say on behalf of my own people- and I am quite sure, as I said in London,
I could say it on behalf of the people in every British dominion-that so long as these dominions stand, Great Britain shall not fall.
When one has spent a few weeks, Mr. Speaker, in a beleaguered countiy like Great Britain, one is bound to be asked, "What is it that you have taken away with you? What is your vivid impression of this place?" It is not an easy question to answer. One collects many impressions all round the world. But the answer I always come back to is this: that if there is one thing which inspires anybody who journeys around the world at a time like this it is the glorious feeling of the utter and devoted unity which exists throughout the whole of the British empire. If it is the desire of our enemy to divide us and to conquer us, then we may tell him now that he has failed.
Why do I say this: Well, I have every reason for saying it. I do not wish to transgress upon your hospitality, but I do want to say a few words to you about the almost overpowering reason I have for that belief.
I found it not in palaces, not in cabinet rooms, not even in houses of parliament-though it exists in full measure in all those places; I found it in the ordinary streets and lanes of Great Britain. I found it in slum streets where hundreds of houses, side by side, had been beaten down, and where thousands of people had lost their lives. I found it where you would have expected that a veritable pall would have settled upon life. Wherever I went I found that the person who in a material sense had the least to lose was the most valiant in his resistance and his endurance.
Those who judge people by their size, by their shape, by their colour, by their capacity to win races or to play games-those who judge them by any of these superficial signs can never adequately understand the magnificence of the people of Great Britain. I have gone through working areas of industrial cities, and I have seen there men who, on a superficial judgment, would have been dismissed as almost negligible-sometimes little men, sometimes odd-looking men, sometimes men who appeared to be underfed. I have seen in these places women-toil-worn, with none of the advantages and none of the graces of life; they would have been dismissed by thoughtless observers as submerged people. But I have found in them the spark of courage shining as brightly as it burns in the heart of any hero on the field of battle.
If there is one thing that demonstrates our unity, it is.the spirit that we have in us. I am thankful to say, sir, that it is the spirit which exists in every stratum of our society, in every political group, in every community.
I know that it is the practice of the enemy, who lays his snares for the minds of the unwary, to seize upon any point of difference or any point of politics, to magnify it and say, "Ah! here you have the proof that these people are divided". But in my own country -and I know, too, that.it is true of Canada- when the war broke out there was not a general view, not a majority view, but a unanimous view. It was not a unanimous view that this was the kind of war that it would be pleasant to win, that it would be satisfying to win, but a profound belief that this is a war which must be won because it is a holy war. So I should like to say to the enemy, if he had ears to listen, that he must never mistake as a proof of disunity the exhibition of freedom which you find in any British parliament. It is our great pride that even at this time, at this most critical hour in our history, the king's writ still runs in our courts, the king's parliament still sits in his various dominions, and the king's citizens still are able to stand untrammelled in their places and offer their views with no responsibility except for the good of their country and the judgment of their conscience. We are united, sir, in spirit, and I believe that we are united in spirit because we are united in liberty.
It is a very great honour indeed for me to be able to stand here and bring to you, members of this great parliament in a great dominion, a message from my own people of complete and unlimited brotherhood. I shall take back to them a very vivid picture indeed of what I have seen and what I have heard here. I shall be able to say to them that there is no disunity among the British dominions. I shall be able to say to them that that independence upon which we all in' our several jurisdictions pride ourselves has been the sure foundation upon which an entirely united war effort has been put forward by the whole British empire.
Sir, it is not for me to say to hon. members of this house what their duty is. I am of all men the least worthy, in addressing others, to preach to them about their duty. All I know is that there never yet has been a parliament in a free British country which did not do its duty. All I want to do is t-o say to myself, as I invite every man in public life all over the British world to say to himself day by day: "Am I so utterly convinced that I must put into this task everything I have that I will fail in no effort, that I will never spare myself in whatever may be necessary
2632	COMMONS
Address oj Right Hon. R. G. Menzies
to achieve victory?" I do not need to say to you, but I must say to myself and repeat it constantly, that nothing else matters except that when this war is over we should live in a free world, in the kind of world in which we want to live.
What does it matter if we come out into that world bankrupt? What does it matter if we come out into that world with lower standards of material living than we have now? What does it matter if in that world the rich are not so rich? What does it matter if in the last resort the business of statesmanship in that new world becomes the business of sharing justly a new and honourable poverty? These things do not matter. The only thing that matters to free men is that the policies under which they live shall be the policies which they themselves have devised as the representatives of their own people.
Sir, I apologize for inflicting upon hon. members these statements of obvious truths. My only apology is that the war is being fought for obvious truths, and this is a fact which we should do well to keep constantly before our minds.


Georges Parent: Mr. Menzies, I would not dare to utter any remarks in reply to the views that you have expressed to this parliament, because anything that I might say would only be an anticlimax. I think I can convey to you the feeling of this whole House of Commons, namely, that your visit here in this parliament of Canada has been an inspiration which will never be forgotten. Many of us have not known you personally, but I can assure you that I speak on behalf of every hon. member of the house when I say that we will consider you now as one of our friends. As the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) has said, we will say to you only au revoir, knowing that you will come to Canada again.
Having seen the House of Commons in its legislative capacity, I trust that when you arrive safely on your native soil you will convey the thanks of the parliament of Canada to Australia for the opportunity of having met you, and that you will convey to them the feelings and thoughts which you have expressed so beautifully as being the thoughts of Canada. We ask you to tell Australia that we are one with them in carrying out this war until nazism is destroyed.
I am sure that hon. members would wish to shake hands with Mr. Menzies. I shall ask them to pass up on the right for that purpose and then go back to their seats on the left.



SITTING RESUMED

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at 4.10 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: I should like to direct the following questions to the Secretary of State (Mr. Casgrain):
1.	Has the decision of the copyright appeal board relating to the recent appeal of Canadian Performing Right Society been received by the government? If so, when will it be tabled?
2.	Is the government proposing to bring down any amendments to the Copyright Act this session?


Hon. P. F. CASGRAIN (Secretary of State):: I wish to thank my hon. friend for having given me notice of these questions. With regard to the first question, the decision of the copyright appeal board relating to the recent appeal of Canadian Performing Right society has not been received. It is expected shortly. As regards the second question, the answer is, no.



MILK PRICES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Langton Church: May I ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty) whether he will order an inquiry by the registrar under the Combines Investigation Act into the rise in the price of milk in Toronto and Ontario generally? As I understand, under the War Measures Act the war-time prices and trade board can act, notwithstanding the milk board decision, and the minister himself can act under the Combines Investigation Act by asking the registrar to make an inquiry. These two statutes are there, and I would ask the minister to take some action. I myself charge that there is a combine; so do the municipalities and the municipalities have asked that action be taken in the matter. It can be done under the War Measures Act, notwithstanding any law, usage or custom to the contrary.


Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Minister of Labour):: With regard to the price of milk, my understanding is that this matter was dealt with by a provincial milk board, and I have not before heard any suggestion that a combine does exist under the Combines Investigation Act. On the other hand, the act exists and can be applied provided the proper steps are taken to use it.

Special War Revenue Act


Thomas Langton Church: Where there is a will there is a way.



USE OF LABELS ON MILK BOTTLES TO ENCOURAGE CREATER CONSUMPTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Langton Church: May I ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) about a complaint I have received with reference to certain labels that are placed on milk bottles urging people to use more butter? One label reads: "Always cook with butter." The question is: What action is the government going to take in this matter? I cite the Borden company of Hamilton, which uses these stickers on milk bottles. When the minister urges everyone to economize in the use of butter, and when the people of Great Britain can obtain very little if any butter to spread on their bread, and Canada should send butter there, surely it is unpatriotic for these companies to circulate such wrappers asking people to use more butter. Again I ask, what action will be taken?


James Garfield Gardiner: At the present time butter is not being shipped to Britain, and I think it is quite proper that the Canadian people should eat as much as they desire at this time.


Mr. ROWE:: May I ask the minister, then, why on the Canadian National railway people are advised not to eat so much butter?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not run the Canadian National Railways.


William Earl Rowe: Then I would ask the appropriate minister.



DARTMOUTH, N.S., AIRPORT INQUIRY AS TO TILLEY REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: The leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) yesterday made an inquiry with reference to Dartmouth airport. The report has not yet been received. Mr. Tilley has not completed his inquiry, but it is expected that it will be finished shortly.



PRESS REPORT AS TO USE BY PRIVATE COMPANY IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Layton Ralston: With reference to the
question asked some time ago by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell),
the reply to which has been delayed, I wish now to make a statement. The hon. member asked a question with reference to what he referred to as a tank, which was maintained at the plant of the Consolidated Mining and Smelting company of Canada. The information I have received is that the vehicle is not a tank in the military sense but is reported to be a five-ton commercial truck, 1937 model, armoured with half-inch steel plate. It is neither owned by nor under the control of the Department of National Defence.
With regard to the matter of policy, the general policy of the government is that in respect of the safeguarding of a plant against sabotage and other subversive activities, or against attack, other than by way of enemy action, it is the responsibility of the owners to take such measures as the law permits. In this particular case the department is advised that, with the exception of the drivers, who are motor mechanics from the company garage, the vehicle is manned by men drawn from the guards whom the company employs, who serve under the chief of police at Tadanac and are sworn in as special constables and wear uniforms. I call attention to section 129 (2) of the criminal code respecting the carrying of arms by peace officers.


Major James William Coldwell: The word "tank" was
used by the president of the company. I did not call it a tank; he did.



SPECIAL WAR REVENUE ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: I should like to make a brief statement on the question of the effective date of the twenty per cent tax on gross receipts of motion picture houses. The budget stated that the tax would be effective, along with the other taxes proposed, from April 30, that is, the day after the budget; but representations have been made to the effect that if this tax is to be collected from the public, it will have to be by means of the sale of special tickets. It will be necessary for the interests concerned to take a little time to have these tickets manufactured, and I have, therefore, on behalf of the government, agreed with the industry to propose an amendment to the relevant budget resolution, making the tax effective not from and including April 30, but from and including Monday, May 19. I make this statement so as to give public notice of the fact.
The Budget-Mr. White



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, May 6, consideration of the motion of Hon. J. L. Ilsley (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Quelch.
Mr. G. S. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborough):: I am sure that all members of this house will remember with much [ leasure the visit of the very distinguished guest to-day, the right hon. the Prime Minister of Australia. It was running through my mind, while the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and other members of the house were saying a word of greeting to him, that many hon. members of this house must have recalled days of association in France, from 1914 to 1918, when they played a part with the boys known as the Aussies from Australia. I think it will be generally agreed- that a combination of Australian and Canadian soldiers can lick anything under the sun.
With regard to the -budget, I believe hon. members will agree that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) has had a most difficult task in seeking new fields and methods for raising the additional taxes necessary for the prosecution of the war. Canadian citizens, if they have not already done so, will realize now the price they must pay for their freedom; yet this price is not too high. The people of Canada are being asked to pay these increased taxes, and therefore they have a right to demand of this government that for every dollar collected in taxes the dominion shall receive in return a dollar's worth of war services. The people are also asking that all unnecessary peace-time spending shall be cut to the minimum and that all efforts and finances shall be devoted entirely to an allout prosecution of the war.
I intend to support this budget, but there are one or two items I should like to draw to the attention of the Minister of Finance. The first is in connection with the new succession duties. In his budget speech the minister stated that the succession duty tax was to be permanent, and not to be regarded as merely a war-time measure. In Ontario, succession duty taxes are already very high; in fact some people regard them as excessive. There is, in addition, a most unsatisfactory method in practice by the provincial government of valuing the assets of an estate. In many instances the heirs or executors have little to say or do except to pay the tax on the value of the estate as fixed by the officials

of the succession duty department. I hope, when the minister is setting up the board- or department which will administer the dominion succession duty, he will consider the question of having the dominion government collect the succession duty for both the dominion and the province. I realize that if this is done it will be necessary to obtain the consent of the various provinces, but such a method would save considerable cost, and the main point would be that in the payment of succession duties there would be the same valuation for provincial and dominion duties. If there are separate departments there is bound to be friction and differences as to the proper value to be placed on the assets.
In any event, whatever course is adopted as to collection, I would suggest that there should be provision for an appeal to the courts, by anyone interested in an estate, with regard to the value placed on an estate for the purpose of succession duties.
There is a further point as to whether the dominion or the provinces must be paid first. I presume the dominion tax would be paid first. If that is correct, the point arises, is the estate to pay to the province succession duty on the amount of duty paid to the dominion?
In Ontario, a period of only six months is allowed for payment of duty, after which interest is charged. I suggest to the minister that, so far as the dominion tax is concerned, one year be allowed from the date of death for the payment of this new tax. A period of six months is often a very short time for the executor to realize sufficient funds from the assets of the estate to pay duties and other expenses and to provide for the widow and members of the family while the estate is being settled.
A further point is that in Ontario all life insurance is subject to succession duty. I understand that in some provinces an exemption is made up to a certain point. I would suggest to the minister that, so far as the dominion succession duty is concerned, he would consider allowing an exemption for life insurance moneys up to $10,000 when payable to the widow or the immediate family.
When the present rates of succession duty for Ontario were struck, the average rate of income from investments was much higher than at the present time. To-day I doubt whether a widow or any beneficiary of an estate can hope to realize even three per cent from trust securities. I mention this because I think the point is important and should be borne in mind by the minister and his advisers when setting up this board and deciding

The Budget-Mr. White
whether or not there shall be any exemption so far as the proceeds of life insurance are concerned.
Many people feel that if a man during his lifetime has accumulated an estate for the support of his widow and family, he should not have part of it confiscated by any government. It alwaj's appears to me that a succession duty or an inheritance tax i3 only legal confiscation. While this dominion succession duty may be a necessity for the duration of the war, I hope the minister will assure this house that it will be done away with at the termination of the war; for, if it is retained, I fear there will be the usual tendency of every government in the future gradually to increase the tax.
The other point to which I wish to refer in connection with the budget has already been mentioned by other hon. members in this debate, namely, the tax of ten per cent on railway fares, as applied to soldiers. Requests have been made by hon. members on both sides of the house that the government make some allowance with regard to free transportation for soldiers, but apparently it is the policy of this government not to give free transportation. If that is correct, I would ask the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) if he would once more review this matter and consider giving the soldiers a return ticket for one-quarter of the regular fare. At the present time soldiers are allowed return railway tickets at half-price. If this were reduced to one-quarter, it would be of the greatest benefit and help to all soldiers.
I would again suggest to the finance minister that he announce that the tax of ten per cent will not be applied on soldiers' tickets. Several examples have already been given of how this tax affects soldiers; I should like to give one more.
At Petawawa camp there are many soldiers from Toronto and points north and west of Toronto. The fare from Petawawa to Toronto is $9.05 and with the new tax it will be $9.95. A married soldier must assign $20 a month to his wife, which leaves him $9.50 every two weeks. If he goes home once a month, it takes over two weeks' pay for the railway fare from Petawawa to Toronto, leaving him absolutely nothing to spend on his week-end trip. For the next month in camp he has approximately $8 which must cover his smokes, haircuts, polish, extra meals and all other personal necessities. Surely, then, it is not too much to ask the minister to cancel this tax so far as it applies to soldiers.
On account of the system under which members of the militia are trained, many boys are trained long distances from home.
For example, in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick at the present time there are large numbers of troops from Ontario, the prairies and British Columbia. What possible chance have these boys of ever accumulating sufficient money to go home?
During the past two weeks there have been many notices in the press and reports over the air as to strikes and walk-outs. Everyone wants higher pay. In many instances the requests of the workers have been granted. I am not saying that these requests are not justified, but I would ask the minister to consider the pay in industrial plants in comparison with the $1.30 a day paid to soldiers. When we consider that, can we wonder if we sometimes hear soldiers grumbling and questioning the honesty of that much-worn phrase as to equality of service and equality of sacrifice? What would happen if the soldier went on strike for higher pay? I think everyone knows the answer. I have heard on the best authority that all railway employees of the Canadian National Railways are to receive a five per cent increase in pay to cover the increased cost of living. I agree that the cost of living has increased, and no doubt the men are entitled to an increase in pay. But if the cost of living has increased for the family of the railway employee, one can only assume that it has increased in equal proportion for the family of the soldier and for his dependents.
I have never heard anyone suggest, in this house or anywhere else, that the pay of the soldier or the allowance to his dependents should be increased to cover the higher cost of living. All members of this house and of the senate, with their families, have free transportation, just as railway employees and their families have; so, surely, when one considers that, there is some justification for the plea that the soldier, who is not going to get any increase in pay, should not be asked to bear this additional ten per cent in the cost of railway travel.
There has appeared in the press many times the phrase, uttered by members of this government, that Canada is pledged to an all-out war effort in support of Britain. This always sounds well, but is it actually true? Are we in Canada to-day carrying on an allout war effort in support of Britain? It must' be more than clear to everyone, at last, that Britain needs men and then more men. Now that the figures have been disclosed with regard to the expeditionary force sent to Greece, we find that there were only sixty thousand men in that force, while the army left in Egypt was so depleted that it was unable to hinder or stop the advance of the axis army across the desert to the border of
The Budget

Mr. White

Egypt. I just wonder what difference it might have made if the two divisions now in Canada had been in England. Then there might have been two other divisions of English soldiers in Egypt. I see by the press that in Toronto this week the Minister of National Defence stated that the third division would soon be sent overseas, and I am sure that will be good news indeed to the people of Britain and other parts of the empire.
In his closing remarks at Toronto, as reported in the Globe and Mail, the minister issued a warning as to the dangers of delay. On previous occasions in this house I have attempted to point out to the government the tragic waste of time in training men in Canada. A review of the whole system and method of recruiting since the beginning of the war -makes one wonder if the members of our general staff at national defence headquarters have ever realized the value of time, or have ever tried to plan properly to provide trained troops to meet any event which might occur in Europe. From time to time plans have been adopted and then discarded by this government. At first, only voluntary recruiting was permitted. After several months of this, the compulsory thirty-day training scheme was begun. Several months later, this was enlarged to a four months' training scheme, for service in Canada only. I have heard the Minister of National Defence say in this house that he was satisfied that the required number of men could and would be obtained by voluntary enlistment. I have also read in the press, in an interview given by the Prime Minister, his statement that he was satisfied with the present method of recruiting. Yet only a short time ago a radio appeal was made by the three defence ministers asking for some twenty odd thousand new recruits. Naturally we all hope that these men, and all other necessary recruits, will be obtained; but if one takes the time and trouble to inquire at the recruiting centres, it will be found that recruiting is slow and that there appears to be little enthusiasm. Apparently this has come to the notice of the government, because I see by the press that now they are going to have their first recruiting campaign, aided by citizen committees and members of parliament.
In June, 1940, the Department of National Defence authorized some seventy to eighty reserve force units to recruit. If those units had been allowed to recruit men for the active force, the department would have to-day somewhere between 75,000 and 85,000 fully trained men ready for service anywhere in the world. Instead of that, what has the department to show for the enormous sums

of money spent and the ten months of time wasted? They have between 75,000 and 85,000 men who have been trained for one month, for service in Canada only. The Minister of National Defence has stated many times that we have in Canada a reserve force army of 175,000 men; but I would point out to the minister that included in this number are about 85,000 men who were trained under the thirty-day training scheme. After completing their training, these men were attached to reserve force units, but on paper only; since that time they have not taken any further training. Therefore, so far as the reserve forces are concerned, surely these men exist only on paper, and should not be treated in any way as trained men. The same thing, more or less, applies to the reserve force men, because they are only attested for service in Canada and have completed only some thirty days' training. It is quite true that at the present time reserve force units are only accepting men who will volunteer for overseas service, but in the present instructions with regard to the training for 1941-42 it is stated that they will train for thirty days-twenty-one days at a military camp and nine days at local headquarters.
I should like to direct the attention of hon. members to a paper which was recently handed to all members of reserve force units, in which each man was asked to answer two questions in writing, and sign his name. Those questions were:
1.	Are you willing to go on active service with any unit at any time as called upon?
2.	Are you willing to go on active service to our own regiment . . . when called upon?
Underneath is a place for the signature of the man, his regimental number and company. I should like to ask the minister if this is another measure of compulsion. If so, why should not every male citizen of Canada of military age be asked to answer and sign similar questionnaires? Why put these men of the reserve force units on the spot? If everyone is to be treated the same, I believe every man of military age in this country should be required to answer these questions.
I should like to point out to the minister that if the policy now in force is carried out, that only men who will enlist for overseas sendee will be accepted in reserve force units, these units will lose the services of many non-commissioned officers who are highly trained and qualified, men who had experience in the last war and who, because of their low medical category, cannot be accepted for service overseas. That will be the situation in spite of the fact, which is well known, that at the present time there is a great shortage of qualified non-commissioned officers.

The Budget-Mr. Raymond
I regret that the Minister of National Defence is not at the moment in the house, but I should like to ask two questions which he might answer at a later date. I should like to ask if the minister is satisfied with the methods that were employed in the past with regard to recruiting, and if he is satisfied with the present-day methods being followed. With all due respect to the general staff at national defence headquarters, I would ask the Minister of National Defence if he has ever considered the idea of having a housecleaning, and throwing out all the dead wood. I know there are many capable officers at national defence headquarters, but there are many others who should be replaced with more capable and efficient men. Such things have been done in England and in other countries. It has made no difference what family name a man has had, if he were not capable he was replaced. The people of Canada demand and insist that at this time the best military brains in the country shall have charge of our Department of National Defence. They are asked to supply huge sums to carry on the war, and they are surely entitled to receive value for their money.


Mr. M. RAYMOND (Beauharnois-Laprairie) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, the other day the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) closed his budget speech with a few remarks which I wish to emphasize or challenge, as the case may be, and about which I desire to make a few observations. In his view the budget submitted is a necessary consequence of our participation in the present war. On this point I am in full agreement with him. Before the declaration of war, in September, 1939, speaking to the house I used these words:
Should we enter into the furnace God knows how soon we will get out of it and how badly crippled. Once again, we will be ruined.
I also agree with him when he says:
Our country is not threatened with destruction.
This statement, however, does not tally with certain propaganda designed to excite or frighten the people. The invasion of Canada by Germany is at present an impossibility, as has been shown many times by military experts. Let us stop stuffing people with certain stories of a possible invasion and bombing of Canada which are an insult to the reader's intelligence. The danger of the war of nerves seems to come less from the enemy than from our own people.
But I differ from the Minister of Finance when he says that we declared war for the defence of civilization. I respect his opinion but, unfortunately, I cannot share it. We entered into war against Germany not for humanitarian reasons, but solely because
England had declared war upon Germany; and England declared war to protect her own interests. The facts are there to prove it.
I am not blaming her for it; I am simply stating the case.
In September, 1938, the government was ready to declare war, had England taken that momentous step. As England refrained from doing so, we followed her example. In September, 1939, England declared war and we followed suit. There is nothing more to it.
According to Mr. Chamberlain, on September 3, 1939, England declared war on Germany in order to honour her signature affixed to a treaty guaranteeing the integrity of the boundaries of Poland; a fortnight later, on September 17, Russia, in an underhand and base way, attacked and overran the same country, Poland, but England did not declare war, and Canada did not either, in spite of the fact that the same treaty was similarly violated. Far from going to war against Russia, within three weeks, England signed an agreement by which she undertook to sell to this country two substances used in the production of armaments, rubber and tin. It might be advanced that England was not ready then to face two different foes. It was not ready to meet even one. What further proof would we want, than the plight of Poland, who was left alone to fight her enemies.
The same principle would apply to the invasion of China by Japan. This country was violating the nine power pact. However, neither England, nor Canada, naturally, declared war on Japan.
When Italy invaded France, on June 10, 1940, England declared war on Italy and so did Canada. But when Russia, on June 28, 1940, annexed Bessarabia by a military move, England remained inactive, and so did Canada. Treaty violations are impressive only when special interests are concerned.
If, on the other hand, the reason for intervention was the defence of civilization, freedom and democratic institutions, how would you explain the indifference of England towards the cruelties committed by the Japanese in China, where millions of Chinamen have been slaughtered since 1937, that is long before the attack launched by Germany against Poland, and that, in spite of a pact guaranteeing the boundaries of China. This violation was not sufficient to awaken sympathy in England, the United States, or Canada. On the contrary, the United States have continuously supplied Japan with all the raw materials essential to the prosecution of the war. In 1939, Japan secured from the United

The Budget-Mr. Raymond
States two thirds of its imported war material: copper, gasoline, iron; and even in 1940, it obtained, from the same source, more oil than ever before.
On November 30, 1939, when Russia attacked Finland with an unheard of cruelty, war was not declared. The conquest of Lithuania, Latvia and Esthonia have equally failed to arouse any response on the part of the champions of civilization and freedom. Far from that, in spite of all these outrages, the British government declared that they were willing to discuss the basis for a trade agreement.
In order to defend democracy, Mr. Chamberlain offered cooperation with any country and we have extended help to Greece, where the most absolute dictatorship, that of Metaxas, exists. Those are historical facts which anyone may' construe as he likes. I, for one, find them so contradictory that I cannot believe that the conflict is being waged on humanitarian grounds. As I said, I do not deny the right of England or any other country to protect their interests, but I feel that a Canadian citizen may not entertain the same thoughts as a citizen from another country without being charged with disloyalty.
England is fighting for the preservation of her trade domination, and the United States fought in 1917 and are intervening in 1941 to protect their trade and their supremacy over the Atlantic. We have no reason to complain about that, so long as Canada is not called upon to ruin herself.
Meanwhile we are deluding ourselves about the statute of Westminster.
When the Minister of Finance asked the house to authorize the raising, for war purposes, of a sum of $1,300 millions which could be increased to $1,450 millions, we wondered, how he would proceed in order to raise that money. The budget, which includes a review of the financial situation answers the question.
What is that situation?
After twenty months of war, we have a budget which shows a substantial increase in the national debt; and which anticipates for the current fiscal year, war expenditures of $1,300 to $1,450 millions, to which will have to be added $900 millions for loans to England that will never be paid back, and $468 millions for normal expenditures. In spite of heavy and even crushing taxes, from which the enormous sum of $1,318 millions is expected, in spite of this trebling of taxes as compared with the pre-war period, Canada will face a deficit of $1,418 millions, which will have to be made good through loans.

One must truly be a confirmed optimist to be able to resist a feeling of despondency. That is why the Minister of Finance talked about the crushing weight of the burden placed upon the Canadian people.
As early as March 27 last, the leader of the opposition in the senate commented as follows upon the request of $1,300 millions for war purposes:
The amount presented for acceptance is not only large but formidable to the degree of being startling.
Then, on March 28, the leader of the opposition in this house (Mr. Hanson) had this to say about our obligations:
What a crushing burden for a population of
12,000,000!
This gives food for thought to those who believe that our participation in the war rvould be moderate and proportionate to our means.
We are faced with an empty treasury, a shaken economy, an increased and excessive burden of taxation, the need to raise loans which will burden the treasury still further, at a time when savings are already absorbed. And, according to a minister, this war may last five years. This means the bankruptcy and total ruin predicted in the following terms by an ultra-loyal newspaper, the Ottawa Journal, on October 1, 1938, following the Czechoslovak incident which brought us to the verge of war:
War, such as Canada knew it the last time, would have meant bankruptcy.
Yet, the cost of the last war was small in comparison with this one. In a single year we are to spend almost twice as much as in the entire period of the last war.
On the same date, another ultra-loyal paper, the Toronto Financial Post, said this:
It is inconceivable that Canada can add billions of dollars to its debt to spend for war purposes and still expect to escape financial bankruptcy.
Bankruptcy is one of the most disastrous situations in which a country can find itself. The bankruptcy which followed the war in Russia brought about revolution and communism. Bankruptcy in Germany produced totalitarianism. An empty treasury and heavy taxation led to the French revolution. The chronic revolutions in south America are due to bankrupt treasuries and excessive taxation. Still, there are those who say that we are not doing enough for the war. Among these are the same people who predicted bankruptcy should we participate in another war as in 1914 or who apply the word "crushing'^ to our obligations resulting from our present

The Budget-Mr. Raymond
participation. What! We are not spending enough when we are ruining ourselves to help another country defend its own interests, or even, if you like, the freedom of others.
Our contribution to the war is not limited to the amounts which appear in the budget under the heading of war expenditures. We are contributing in many other ways. The $35,000,000 bonus to the western farmers to compensate them for the lack of sale of their wheat as a result of the British blockade is a contribution to the war. So are also our contributions in money and goods to the Red Cross, our contribution to the soldiers' huts, amounting to some millions of dollars, and our repurchases of Canadian securities held in England. The hospitality given to refugees entails expense for every one of the families who have received them. We are keeping thousands of German prisoners and internees. This is all help given to England and necessitating an armed force and expenditure on our part. Then, we are sending food, arms and volunteers everywhere; to England, to Newfoundland, to Iceland, to Gibraltar, to the West Indies, and so on. Canada has transformed itself into an arsenal and has become a military camp. In brief, we have, as the government leader in the senate has pointed out, done and given all that England has asked of us. We are ruining ourselves, but that is not enough. Some claim that we should have conscription and, in order to bring it about, a union government-two things which the Canadian people unequivocally condemned in March, 1940. It is not only the province of Quebec that voted against conscription and union government, but the whole of Canada. We have no right, in a democracy, to ignore the sentiment of the people so clearly expressed. To do so would be to expose ourselves to a calamity worse than war.
Moreover, on several occasions, responsible men such as Lord Lothian, Mr. Churchill in February last, and more recently in Montreal Sir Howard Kelly, have stated that England asked not for soldiers but for help in kind- food and munitions of war.
The leaders of the opposition both of the House of Commons and the Senate have more than once attempted to compare the English and the Canadian war efforts. I believe it has become necessary to elucidate that point so as to do away with any misunderstanding.
Before discussing the relative war efforts of Britain and Canada, I shall point out to the hon. members who are constantly criticizing our endeavours as being insufficient, that it is not Canada who has contributed to the rearmament of Germany. Our country never
guaranteed the maintenance of the boundaries of Poland, France, Rumania, Greece, Turkey or any other country and it has never offered any such guarantee.
Before assuming an obligation it is first necessary to ascertain whether it will be possible to meet it; if not, provisions are made to that effect and the necessary steps are taken. The practice of signing promissory notes while expecting others to pay them is not very chivalrous. In the present war, we are helping an allied nation to meet its obligations; we had not contracted any.
Notwithstanding these facts and our geographical position, which places us 3,000 miles away from the firing line; notwithstanding the respective financial conditions, which are different-England is a creditor country and Canada a debtor country; notwithstanding numerous other economic factors, which make our position unfavourable, such as the fact that a restricted population is established in an immense territory, etc., let us see whether the criticism levelled by the hon. leaders of the opposition in the House of Commons and the Senate are warranted.
During the debate on war appropriations, on March 27, April 1 and April 3 last, the government leader in the senate quoted evidence showing that during the first nine months of the war England had relied upon the Maginot line and the French army which had called all men up to 48 years of age-that is, five million men-that during that first phase of the war, British industrialists, anxious to keep for themselves war contracts, had prevented the setting up of factories that might compete with them after the war. The evidence to which I refer appears on pages 145, 146 and 147 of the Senate Hansard. Let me adduce further proofs.
On June 18, 1940, nine and a half months after the declaration of war, the conscription act included in the statutes was practically a dead letter. At that time, a member of parliament, Mr. Henderson Stewart, requested the government to call as soon as possible the young men of 23 who had registered several months before. He directed to Mr. Anthony Eden, a member of the government, the following question:
Can my right lion, friend give an immediate assurance to the house that the thousands of men of 23 and upwards who have registered, but who have been waiting for months to be called up, will quickly be called up, otherwise the frustration and exasperation of the people will be unbearable?
(British House of Commons debates, June 18, 1940, col. II)
On May 31, 1940, the New York Times reported that British citizens of military age

unlimited participation that would spell ruin for this country. Nevertheless we are now drifting to that. There is accordingly much uneasiness about the present and the future. The people are asking themselves many questions.
Why should this country ruin herself?
Some people say that we must first win the war. While our effort is conducive to victory, this should not prevent us from considering the future, as they do even in Great Britain. What will it avail us to win the war if we are to lose the peace?
There are many who wonder if, after the war, we will continue to act as policemen in Europe? Canada cannot undertake to discipline forever all those peoples, nor be responsible for the behaviour and the good will of those remote countries.
We emerged from the last war with dead and wounded men and debts, as well as with a treaty wherein lay the germs of this war. Will history repeat itself?
Are we going to restore the boundaries of Czechoslovakia and Poland-as promised by Mr. Churchill-boundaries considered by some British statesmen as ridiculous and liable to cause further conflicts? Part of Poland has already been annexed by Russia.
Are we going to let the Schneiders, the Zaharofs, the Wendels and other purveyors of guns continue to make armaments and prepare another war? Shall we see a repetition of what happened during the last twenty years?
Let us remember that the Vickers-Arm-strong company, of London, a great armament factory which sold war munitions to every foreign country, had passed with an insurance company a contract providing that if, during the five year period extending from 1928 to 1932, its profits were less than $4,000,000 a year, it would be entitled to a compensation of $1,000,000 a year, and that Mr. Neville Chamberlain and Mr. Austen Chamberlain were shareholders in that company. That information is to be found in an article published in the March, 1934, issue of Fortune under the signature of Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler, chancellor of the university of Columbia.
In peace time, private concerns should be forbidden to manufacture armaments and the state alone should make them according to its needs. Many wars would thus be avoided.
Will the brutal and barbarous Germany which we were asked to destroy in 1940 as in 1914. be allowed to rearm and threaten the world again, as happened after the peace treaty of 1919? That will be a matter of great concern after this war.

There is in England a school of politicians, diplomats, and parliamentarians who believe that England and Germany will have to join forces after the war with a view to reestablishing order and dominating Europe. Would our country ruin herself for the fulfilment of such a purpose?
In a speech delivered in London on November 21 last, that is fifteen months after the outbreak of war, Sir Nevile Henderson, who was British ambassador in Germany when war was declared, made the following statement as reported in the issue of Saturday, November 23, 1940, of the London Times, page 2, 4th column:
Post War Relations
Sir Nevile Henderson on Need for Cooperation
Sir Nevile Henderson, formerly British Ambassador to Germany, speaking at a meeting in connection with Cheltenham war weapons *week on Thursday night, said that we would never get stable conditions in Europe until Anglo-German cooperation was achieved.
"When this war has been fought and won", he said, "we can keep Germany down for a time, but you cannot keep Germany down always. You will not get settled conditions in Western Europe until Germans and British can work together. We are ready to do it. The trouble is Germany, who has to be taught somehow."
Shall the worker be allowed freely to earn his living? Shall he continue to be at the mercy of employers who have not the slightest notion of fraternity?
Recently, I read in a bulletin of the Service de Vlnjormation the following paragraph:
Does the free worker of democratic countries appreciate the blessings of our form of government?
And a comparison was made between his condition and the treatment meted out to the workers of Poland. Well, one does not need to go as far as Poland to see slavery at work. Slavery exists right here in Canada, at Yalleyfield, where Montreal Cottons practises a form of economic dictatorship which, if not crushed, will give rise to serious trouble in the post-war period.
I have before me the pay sheet of an employee of Montreal Cottons who was paid $29.80 for the last fortnight, at the rate of 30 cents per hour. He is the father of nine children. Including his wife and himself, he must feed and clothe eleven people. He went to Defence Industries Limited, a munition factory at Valleyfield, to look for work, and he was told that he could not be employed without the consent of Montreal Cottons. He was refused that consent. I intervened in his favour with Defence Industries Limited and here is the answer I received from them:
. . . by arrangement with the Montreal Cottons Limited, in order to prevent the unnecessary migration of labour from one plant to another

The Budget-Mr. Nicholson
in this locality, we have been given a list of persons employed by that company, whose applications we have consented not to consider unless with the approval of the above named company . . .
We can do nothing in the case of . . . unless he can get the necessary release from his present employer.
Advantage is taken of an order in council which forbids employers to solicit employees working for firms engaged in the manufacture of war materials. But apart from the fact that Montreal Cottons is only partly engaged in the manufacture of munitions or war supplies, while Defence Industries Limited is wholly a war industry, it cannot be said that there has been solicitation by the company in that case. It is the employee himself who went and begged for a position which would enable him to support his family. Let Montreal Cottons pay a living wage and he will not have to look for employment elsewhere.
I have already given the history of Montreal Cottons in this house. I shall revert to it some day. For the present, I ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty) to step in and to put an end to this labour dictatorship. It is a question of humanity. The war has brought for the worker as for others an increase in the cost of living. He asks for only one thing: the right to work and to support his family, and he is denied even that.
At the same time, he is asked to help free the Polish workers from slavery.
The criminal code provides for lesser offences, and if we do not wish to be faced by insuperable difficulties after the war, we must cure this evil right now.
Mr. Speaker, these are the thoughts of a great number of people who are rightly worried about the future.
We wall have fought to preserve the freedom of others, and we will perhaps have lost our own.
We will have fought in defence of democracy in Europe, and we will perhaps have lost democracy in America. Let us remember that the German and Italian dictatorships have been bred by misery.
We will have fought to win the war, and we will perhaps have lost the peace.
I ask the government to think of the postwar problems, and of the future of Canada. In conclusion, I want to recall the words of Lord Tweedsmuir, one of Canada's greatest governors:
Canada is a sovereign nation. ... A Canadian's first loyalty is to Canada.


Mr. A. M. NICHOLSON (Mackenzie):: I should like to associate myself with those who have preceded me in expressing appreciation to the Prime Minister of Australia of his presence here this afternoon and his inspiring message to us. As a member of the opposition, I have been trying to perform that function which he said at noon might usefully be performed by opposition members, namely, prodding the government when they are moving slowly and, when they are moving too rapidly, expressing pleasant surprise at such swift action.
The time at my disposal this afternoon I shall devote to a discussion of an important problem-war-time housing. The provision of adequate shelter for the members of our armed forces who, in connection with their duties, have been required to leave their ordinary place of abode, and also the provision of adequate accommodation for those employed in new war industries is, to my mind, a subject which has not received sufficient consideration from this government or this parliament. The finding of suitable shelter is a problem as old as the problems of providing food and clothing, as old as human history. Unfortunately, in peace time we in Canada have not attacked this problem as we should. In various countries in Europe for many years the question of national housing has received careful consideration. In Great Britain housing reform dates back to the time of Lord Shaftsbury who last century sponsored legislation designed to remove the scandals of the common lodging-house and to prevent the spread of cholera and common diseases from infested pauper areas. Later, 1866-68, the Torrens Act gave local authorities power to condemn, or repair at the owner's expense, any housing not kept in decent and sanitary conditions. The Cross Act, 1875-82, gave larger towns power not only over individual houses but over whole areas where conditions could not be corrected except by demolition and reconstruction either on the same site or in outlying districts.
These acts of course did not introduce any utopia, and a royal commission, appointed in 1884, recommended a wide extension of the powers and duties of local authorities in relation to the housing of the working classes.
During the great war very few new houses were built anywhere in Europe, but in the post-war period Great Britain attacked this problem with real earnestness and passed successively the Addison Act of 1919, the Chamberlain Act of 1923, and the Town and Country Planning Act of 1932. These acts resulted in improved conditions for the majority of areas where the worst slum conditions existed.

The Budget-Mr. Nicholson

Nearly every western European country has had housing legislation dating back to the last century. Possibly the country with the most enviable record was the little country of Holland. No country in Europe was able to provide a larger number of houses in proportion to the needs of the population, and more adequately to meet the needs of those with low incomes, than Holland. Catherine Bauer in her book, "Modern Housing," refers to the achievements of Holland. She writes:
There is no country in which the new method of housing-community unit planning, large-scale construction, supervised standards and long-time investment financing-has so completely superseded the old speculative piecemeal method. There is much private construction, at fairly low rental, which has just as high a standard as the official housing. One can confidently expect, therefore, that modern housing is a permanent institution in Holland.
In Sweden, outstanding developments have taken place in the provision of low-cost municipal housing and the development of cooperative projects. Anyone interested in the study of the developments in Sweden will find Child's book, "Sweden, the Middle Way," extremely interesting. In Sweden, families with low incomes are able to start the building of a new house by providing $80 of capital; the following payments are spread over a period of years, and people with small incomes are able to have good housing for approximately fifteen per cent of the income. Prefabrication has been introduced in Sweden with satisfactory results. Proof of the success of the cooperative movement in the housing field in Sweden seems to be found during the depression. There were only two reported cases of sheriff's sales, and both of the places that were sold found purchasers so that no money was lost. According to the information I have, the real estate department of the city of Stockholm had a surplus of over $204,000 on its operations in 1934.
Mention should possibly be made of Denmark, where we find the largest percentage of the population living in state-aided homes anywhere in Europe. Graham, in his book, "Housing in Scandinavia," refers to a disastrous fire which destroyed a large part of Copenhagen in 1795. The authorities in that country were concerned about the rebuilding of that city. A commission proposed that the city should sell large tracts of land that they were holding, but I think hon. members will be interested in the historic statement made by the government of that day:
The operation of partitioning out ground and selling it for private use may give an immediate advantage and is within the province of private business, but is not a suitable undertaking for public bodies, which must always pay more

attention to lasting advantages than to immediate ones. The property and ground of Copenhagen belong to the city and its inhabitants, those of the future no less than those of the present; therefore, any attempt to take away from future generations the opportunity to utilize this property, to reap the benefit of increased usefulness is positively deplorable.
Catherine Bauer gives a table showing the extent to which assistance has been given in housing projects in different countries in Europe.


Mr. MARTIN:: Who is Catherine Bauer?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: A writer of international note. Her book will be found in the parliamentary library.
Thirteen and one-half per cent of the people in England and Wales were living in state-aided dwellings, 16i per cent in Scotland, 15 per cent in Holland, 12 per cent in Belgium, 10 per cent in France, 20 per cent in Denmark, 13 per cent in Sweden, 14 per cent in Norway. I think hon. members will agree that the progressive legislation carried out in these countries has meant that large numbers of people with low incomes have been able to enjoy housing which would be envied by people in Canada.
Unfortunately it was not until quite recently that we regarded housing as a national problem. In 1934 the hon. member for Park-dale (Mr. Bruce) when he was lieutenant-governor of Ontario sponsored the setting up of a commission to inquire into housing conditions in the city that is sometimes called "Toronto the Good".


Paul Joseph James Martin: On Sunday.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Here is what his honour said in proposing a toast to the city of Toronto on March 6, 1934; he was referring to slum districts:
These areas of misery and degradation exert an unhappy environmental influence upon many of our citizens. You will probably say: "But Toronto has few such areas and they are not of great extent!" I say, and I think you will agree with me, that Toronto wants none of them, and that the Toronto of the future which we like to contemplate will have none of them.
Then this report, discussing slums, goes on to say:
If by a slum we mean a large area in which all or nearly all the houses are disreputable, decayed, and dirty, in which numerous families are herded together, overcrowded, shiftless, perhaps criminal or semi-criminal, in which the decencies of life are neglected and the amenities of life are non-existent; then we can say that Toronto is free from slums. But if by slums we mean small and scattered groups of dwellings in which the conditions of slum life are in full evidence, then the evidence we have collected will show that we are justified in speaking of "slum conditions" and even "slum areas" in Toronto.

The Budget-Mr. Nicholson
la 1935 a special committee was set up by this house, the terms of reference being as follows:
. . .to consider and report upon the inauguration of a national policy for house building to include the construction, reconstruction and repair of urban and rural dwelling houses in order to provide employment throughout Canada, and also to provide such dwelling houses as may be necessaVy, upon such terms and conditions as may be best adapted to the needs and requirements of the people, having regard to the cost of such a policy and the burden to be imposed upon the treasury of Canada

away from Canada during the greater part of the war. In the present crisis the picture is entirely changed. We have not had a building boom in this country in recent years; as a matter of fact, building has been lagging during the past ten years. According to information supplied by the bureau of statistics we have in Canada about 2,300,000 housing units. Assuming the average life of a house to be fifty years we should be building at least 46,000 houses annually even without making any provision for increases or changes in population. I think hon. members will agree that during the past ten years we have not been providing half the normal requirements of this country.
A conservative estimate at the present time would indicate that we need at least 200,000 new housing units in Canada. This of course, does not provide for many places in rural Canada where people are living in houses which would fail to pass inspection in any modern city. Hon. members will agree with me, I believe, when I say there is no use providing extensive plant equipment if we are not going to provide places to sleep for those who are going to operate the plants.
If hon. members wish to have some idea of the housing problem in Canada, all they would need to do would be to start out in this city to-night to find housing accommodation for themselves and their families. I believe some hon. members have had a good deal of trouble, particularly those who have had to find quarters for families. At the beginning of this session I wished to find accommodation for my family and myself, and answered a number of advertisements in the papers. When people learned I was a member of parliament they at once became interested, but when I mentioned that I had two little girls the conversation came to an abrupt end: "I am very sorry; we do not allow children in our apartments." In Ottawa the slogan seems to be, "No children or dogs allowed for those who seek quarters on a temporary basis."
In the Windsor Star of Thursday, April 24, there is an article headed "Landlords Seek Angels," and the questions asked are outlined in the article as follows:
Here are the rules a landlord on Pierre avenue is enforcing on tenants and prospective tenants. To get two rooms and a bath a person must guarantee that:
(1)	He is a Christian.
(2)	Does not talk loudly.
(3)	Does not walk heavily (only rubber-heeled people allowed).
(4)	Uses the radio sparingly.
(5)	Is a virtual total abstainer from all alcoholic liquors.
(6)	Has no children or animals, and no expectancy of either.

(7)	Will not have many visitors, particularly children.
(8)	Does not earn his rent money by doing "dirty work."
(Presumably the word "dirty" has a physical application only here.)


Mr. GRANT:: That is only a joke.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: My desk-mate, before coming to this house would not have been able to find accommodation in that apartment house, because he earned his daily bread in a so-called dirty manner. Apparently there is no objection to a prospective tenant earning his money in a dirty manner, so long as it is not dirty, physically.
In British Columbia, in Alberta, in Saskatchewan-all across Canada-we have a very serious shortage of houses. I pointed out, that at the beginning of the last war between seven per cent and fifteen per cent of suitable houses were vacant. At the present time less than one per cent are vacant, and many of them are available only for those who have laTge incomes. It is extremely difficult in most places in Canada to-day for people with moderate incomes to find houses or rooms.
According to information I have, in the present year we shall have a tremendous increase in our industrial population. According to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Hsley), ini this year we are going to increase our men in the armed forces and in the industrial field by approximately 300,000. The estimated percentages of increase in November, 1941, as compared with November, 1940, are as follows:
Percentage of increase
Ontario	 46-7
Quebec	 84-4
Nova Scotia	 47-5
New Brunswick	 32-3
Manitoba	 78-6
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	 384-2
British Columbia	 15-2
It would appear that Saskatchewan is not going to have a problem in this field; we do not expect any increase. Taking into consideration the contingency estimates, undisputed geographically, we find it estimated that we shall have- an increase of 135,022 individuals in November, 1941, as compared with November, 1940.
Hon. members will see at once that housing is an urgent national problem. The government is to be congratulated upon introducing a rent-control measure early in the war. I should like to give it credit for that wise move. It has set up a war-time housing board. Upon reading the Labour Gazette of March, 1941, we find, at page 204 that-
-on March 12, the Minister of Munitions and Supply, Hon. C. D. Howe, announced the appointment of the directors of War-time

The Budget-Mr. Nicholson
Housing Limited, a government-owned company incorporated recently to deal with the problem of providing housing accommodation in areas where it is required in order to prevent delays in the production of war material and the construction of defence projects.
Here are the directors:
Mr. Joseph M. Pigott of Hamilton was named president of the company and the directors are: Mr. Wilfrid T. Gagnon, president, Wilfrid Gagnon Ltd., shoe manufacturers, Montreal; William Lyon Somerville, architect, Toronto; Ernest Ingles, international vice-president of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, London, Ont.; William E. Tibbs, secretary, Halifax Relief Commission; Robert J. Gourley, general manager, Beaver Lumber Co., Winnipeg; Hedley C. Wilson, manager, Maritime Trust Company, Saint John, N.B.
I would draw the attention of the house to this important statement which follows:
The directors, as in other government-owned companies, will serve without remuneration.
In my opinion, we have had altogether too much government by men who are prepared to serve without remuneration. I am not prepared to discuss the qualifications of these directors, but in my judgment the fact that they are in a position to give the necessary time and service without remuneration would disqualify them. This is such an urgent, national problem that some of the best men in the country-and women, too-should be engaged, on a paying and full-time basis. I think we ought not to require that those who would give their services in this respect should be in a position to work without salary.
I presume these directors will receive their expenses. No doubt when they come to Ottawa they will be permitted to stay at the Chateau Laurier. One of our greatest troubles is that those who are directing this policy have not a full grasp of the urgent national problem I am discussing this afternoon. Too many who live in comfortable houses during their lifetime fail completely to appreciate the point of view of those who are huddled together in over-crowded attics all across this country. I say the government should have selected some nationally known Canadians who have made a special study of housing problems, and should have given them the responsibility for the direction of this work.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Where
would the hon. member find those men?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am sorry, time does not permit me to answer. However, I believe the hon. member will find there are many people well trained in all the cities of Canada.


An hon. MEMBER:: Doctor Bruce.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Yes, the name of
Doctor Bruce has been suggested. He is one who has made a special study.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: And George Mooney.


Paul Joseph James Martin: George Drew?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: No, George Mooney.


Mr. HOMUTH:: Does that hurt you, Paul?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It did; what about
Herridge?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I should like to proceed with the report appearing in the March issue of the Labour Gazette. It continues:
Mr. Howe said that $100,000 would be available to the company to meet initial operating expenses and that a limit of $10,000,000 had been placed upon commitments it may make without further authority.
We are providing $300,000,000 for new capital equipment, and we are planning on spending at least a billion dollars a year on production. Probably we shall have a wastage of ten per cent or $100,000,000 a year as the result of inadequate housing. This is a conservative estimate, based upon the experience of the United States during the last war.
In 1918 we found it necessary to provide $25,000,000 after having a surplus of seven to fifteen per cent in housing units at the outbreak of the war. At that time we had over 400,000 men overseas, and at this time the provision of $10,000,000 will be just a drop in the bucket in meeting Canadian needs. Hon. members will realize that during the last war small munition industries were set up in a great many small places across Canada, but the present policy seems to be to concentrate industries in large centres. I have before me a list of the industries located in Hamilton. Large numbers of people will be flocking to that city in order to find employment, and my present information is that housing is not available there. Instead of appropriating $10,000,000, I submit that this government should appropriate at least ten times that amount to provide for this acute need. My early references indicate that this expenditure would not be wasted. Housing is an asset which would be of some value during the post-war period.
With regard to the budget now before us, I am disturbed over the fact that the Minister of Finance has seen fit to change the policy in connection with the building programme. On page 2354 of Hansard he is reported as follows:
Having refrained during nearly two years of war from suggesting any discouragement to building, it has now been decided to recommend the removal of building materials from the list of exemptions under .the sales tax. In the meantime, the provision for home improvement loans has been exhausted, the application of the National Housing Act has been narrowed, and the War-time Housing Corporation has been set up to provide for the more urgent housing needs.
The Budget-Mr. Nicholson

This is not the time to curtail our building programmes, and I think the minister would be well advised to reconsider his proposal to discourage building by removing building materials from the list of exemptions. The first sentence in his statement, "having refrained during nearly two years of war from suggesting any discouragement to building", suggests that there was some doubt in his mind as to whether building should be encouraged or not. I am sure that many Canadians on reading that statement will come to the conclusion that house building should not be undertaken. I think this government should encourage in every way possible the provision of more adequate housing, especially in those congested areas where there is bound to be a wastage in our munitions industry because of lack of housing.
I think the government should provide large sums of money to carry on the building of houses manufactured from prefabricated materials. Just recently I inspected a house of this kind which had been erected in Ottawa. I am advised that this house was erected in one day by seven men who had had no previous experience in this particular field, and that the interior work was completed the next day. It is impossible to estimate the time which would be required to provide, say, 10,000 prefabricated houses.


Gordon Graydon: Was it not a sort of temporary structure?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The hon. member asks if it was not a temporary structure. I think if the hon. member will visit this house, which, is situated on Wellington street, and compare it with the average place offered for rent to members of parliament, he will find that he is stepping into a new home.


Gordon Graydon: That is a poor standard to go by.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Possibly it is. Prefabricated houses of this type would be a vast improvement over the majority of homes now occupied by Canadian people. After the war, such a house could be torn down, loaded on a truck and moved to another location where there was a need for it. I think the government should consider building 10,000 of these houses in strategic places. I know the old argument is often raised that you cannot very well embark on a programme of that sort without creating jealousies in other places. I think it was Doctor Samuel Johnson who once said, "Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must first be overcome."


Paul Joseph James Martin: It was Boswell who said that.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: My recollection is that it was Doctor Johnson. At any rate, I think we all agree with that sentiment. I hope this government will not wait until every objection is satisfied before it undertakes an adequate housing programme. As I said before, it is unfortunate that the responsibility for directing this most important war-time project should have been placed upon the over-worked Minister of Munitions and Supply. I believe all members will agree that the National Housing Act is one of the best pieces of legislation ever passed by this government. I think, on the whole, the department which has been directing the activities carried on under this act has done a good piece of work.


Richard Burpee Hanson: May I
interject to say that it was not passed by this parliament; it was passed by two parliaments.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh, no.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It was
amended afterwards.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The original act did not function at all.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The original act was
passed in 1936.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There was not one house constructed under the old act.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: That act did not make provision for those with small incomes. The present act was passed in 1938, if I remember correctly, and according to the information I have, some 20,416 housing units have been built under the act at an expenditure of 168,619,945. The large sum of money tied up in this project may suggest to some hon. members that it has been very costly, but I imagine that if the business of this branch were wound up next year, the losses will be quite small.
In conclusion, I should like to ask hon. members to keep in mind the words uttered at noon by the Prime Minister of Australia. He said that what we need is a bigger and better and faster production of materials. He said that so far as men or the cause or the spirit were concerned, we were not inferior to the enemy. I think all hon. members will want to see the appeal made by the Prime Minister of Australia become a reality. I urge this government to consider an extensive programme of national housing as one of the essential contributions that we must make if we are going to make this a reality.
On motion of Mr. Dechene, the debate was adj ourned.

Questions



ADDRESSES OF MR. MENZIES SUGGESTED PUBLICATION BY BUREAU OF PUBLIC INFORMATION

Richard Burpee Hanson: I should like to suggest to the hon. gentleman leading the house and to the government that consideration be given to the publication by the bureau of public information of the public address made to-day by the Prime Minister of Australia before the Canadian club and, if thought wise, the address which he made to-day in this chamber. Both these speeches should receive wide distribution in Canada.


Mr. CRERAR:: I feel quite sure I can assure the leader of the opposition that his representations in that respect will be given full consideration. In fact, the suggestion had already been made that this be done.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, May 8, 1941.