1942-03-23

JAMES S. WOODSWORTH   TRIBUTE TO THE MEMORY OF THE LATE LEADER OF THE COOPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH FEDERATION

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the House of Commons of Canada has suffered another conspicuous loss in the passing of one who for many years took a prominent part in its proceedings.
James Shaver Woodsworth, whose death occurred on Saturday, was first returned to parliament as member for Winnipeg North Centre at the general elections of 1921. Mr. Woodsworth was returned at each subsequent general election. In all he was a member of the parliament of Canada for over twenty years. He came to parliament first as a representative of labour, and continued as a member of a small labour group until the formation, in 1932, of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. He was one of the founders of the federation, and became its president, and also its leader in the House of Commons.
Immediately following the general elections of 1940, Mr. Woodsworth suffered a serious impairment of health from which he never recovered. Though he made an appearance in this chamber in November of last year, it was only for a day or two. His health was such that he was unable to take any part in its proceedings.
In these years, when momentous changes are taking place in all parts of the world, and unprecedented events follow each other with unparalleled rapidity, the past tends to become quickly obliterated. New names, new issues, new situations, for the time being at least, obscure the old. Few names associated with the public life of Canada could better illustrate this truth than that of the late member for Winnipeg North Centre.
Mr. Woodsworth took no part in the proceedings of this House of Commons which was elected in the spring of 1940. Many present day members of the house would have difficulty in realizing that during the preceding twenty years there were few voices oftener

heard in debate than his. There were, indeed, few opponents of the administration, regardless of its political complexion, who were more frequent, and at times more scathing, in their criticisms. One had to know Mr. Woodsworth personally and to be acquainted with the background of his political life, to appreciate him at his true worth. He was, when speaking in public, so constant in his criticisms, so downright in his denunciations, that it was difficult to realize how genuinely kindly, simple and sympathetic his real nature was. Not a few were all too readily inclined to describe him as a demagogue. To my mind, of men who have occupied seats in our parliament and have risen to position of leadership, Mr. Woodsworth was one of the most sincere and least self-seeking.
The truth is that Mr. Woodsworth remained to the end what he was from the outset, the missionary of a great cause. That cause was the well-being of his fellowmen. Social reform was the interest which lay nearest to his heart. To this interest, as a young man, he gave expression in different ways. He began his life work as a member of the Christian ministry. In this calling, he had succeeded his father who had been a Methodist minister. He prepared himself for the ministry by a course in arts at the university of Manitoba, and later by a course in theology at Victoria college, university of Toronto, and by post-graduate studies at Oxford. The knowledge thus acquired was subsequently supplemented by firsthand contacts with industrial conditions in England and Canada and by social research. Before and during his years in parliament, as preacher and teacher and writer, he sought to awaken the conscience of his fellow men to social injustices. In these injustices, he believed, lay the seeds of discontent and widespread disorder. Equally he strove, by advocating a wider tolerance and better understanding, to remove barriers of race and class and creed, and to establish more in the way of economic freedom and social equality.
In parliament, this spirit also manifested itself in the continuous advocacy and support of many measures of social reform. He be-leived in service as the highest of human motives, and exemplified his belief by his own untiring efforts on behalf of the cause he had so much at heart. He had come to feel that the widest opportunity for service and for the enjoyment of the fruits of service could be secured to the masses of men only by a radical change in the existing order of society. This led to an advocacy of socialistic measures and policies which made him a storm centre of some of the political controversy of the recent past. This controversy, as I have

James S. Woodsworth
already suggested, served to obscure, and, I believe at times, to thwart his ,real purpose.
To nothing was Mr. Woodsworth more passionately opposed than to any form of militarism. He was an out-and-out pacifist. Regardless of the antagonism toward himself, which this attitude served to arouse, and the sacrifices it entailed, he held to it to the last.
Philosophically, he was doubtless right in the belief that, in the end, force accomplishes nothing positive; that it is a mistaken method of achieving enduring results. What he failed to see was that, while, in the long run, reason alone can hold the true supremacy, reason must be afforded the opportunity to prevail. All chance to apply reason to the solution of human problems may be forever lost if those who seek to conquer by the sword are not made to perish by the sword. I shall always believe that it was the mental conflict between the idealism of Mr. Woodsworth's hopes and beliefs, and the realism of the horrors of nazism and fascism, that crushed his spirit and broke his strength.
It is too soon to judge the place that Mr. Woodsworth's name will come to hold in the annals of this parliament and in the history of our country. I, for one, believe it will have a high and honoured place, not because of the political doctrines he espoused, and with which a part of his public life was so closely identified-though, even here, it may yet come to be said of him as of other social reformers, that he was ahead of his times-but because of his upright character and his fearless advocacy of the right as it was given him to see the right. His independence of thought and personal integrity, his sterling qualities of honesty and industry, his courageous championship of the causes to which, by conviction, he was wedded, won for him the admiration even of those to whom he was politically opposed.
Mr. Woodsworth has left a name which is greatly respected in our parliament and country. It will, I believe, be increasingly honoured with the passing of the years.
I should like to extend to my hon. friend the member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), the present leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, and to the members of his party the very sincere sympathy of all hon. members on this side of the house, and particularly may I express a word of sympathy on behalf of us all to the late member's son-in-law, the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), and to Mrs. Maclnnis. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all members of the House of Commons, to convey
our sincere and deep sympathy to Mrs. Woodsworth and to the other members of her family in their great bereavement.


Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, once again the grim reaper has intervened' and taken his harvest from among our membership. Once again we are reminded of what fleeting figures we are on this stage of public life.
In the death of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, a figure which attracted attention from coast to coast for more than two decades has passed into the great beyond.
I well recall my first view of Mr. Woodsworth in the first session of the fourteenth parliament in 1922, when we both took our seats in the house for the first time.
A year or two previously, shortly after the Winnipeg strike, I had visited that city and had heard various tales of Mr. Woodsworth's activities at that time. I was curious to see him in the flesh. He had been painted to me as a socialist, almost a communist, as an agitator, and a demagogue. I was curious to know what his course of action would be in this house, having regard to what I had heard as well as to what I knew of his education, his background and his family traditions, having had, as he did, a pioneer Wesleyan minister for a father, and a mother of united empire loyalist stock.
I had not long to wait. This house met on March 8. The debate on the motion on the address in reply began on the thirteenth and on the following day Mr. Woodsworth entered the debate. If hon. members care to review the record they will find that in that first speech he dealt with a great variety of national problems, running through the whole gamut of economic disturbances, unemployment, unemployment insurance, production, the defence department and the problems of reconstruction. I then formed the opinion that here was a man who was intensely in earnest; a man who had strong opinions and the ability to express them. To some he may have appeared as a fanatic. However that may be, I think no one ever doubted' his sincerity and honesty of purpose.
Throughout the succeeding years, whether in the House of Commons or on the public platform, he pursued his 'purpose and supported his ideals. Down through those years he fought for the under-dog, for social amelioration and for social justice. And he lived long enough to witness the fruition of two of his cherished policies-old age pensions and unemployment insurance.
James S. Woodsworth

I like to think that in his later years he had mellowed and had softened1 his opinions. I recall our last conversation in November last. Although unable to take part in the business of the session he had come to Ottawa for a brief period, shattered in health and wearied with the struggle. I called upon him in his office, and we discussed many matters- the state of the nation, the war situation, his health, and the probability of his return to active participation in public life. I left him with a sincere feeling of respect. Here was a man who had gone through the fire of adversity, through a stormy public life, and who had emerged with a philosophy of life, unchanged in its objectives, but full of charity and with some understanding of the viewpoint of those from whom he had differed.
To his loved ones, to the members of his party in this house, particularly his son-in-law, the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), I offer on behalf of myself and those associated with me our sincere expressions of sympathy in the loss they have sustained.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, after the eloquent tributes which have been paid to-day to Mr. Woodsworth by the leaders of the two main parties, there remains little indeed for me to say. I shall merely attempt a sketch of Mr. Woodsworth as he appealed to me in the several years during which I was here in his company in this parliament.
I was impressed at all times with the surprising energy of the man and the courage which prompted him to plunge into the most painful positions and fight his way through- an industry which never seemed to fail, and a hope and faith which were constantly in evidence. I was surprised at the persistence which characterized him even when it looked as though there was no chance of achieving his objective. His sincerity no one could possibly doubt. In readiness and skill as a debater he had I think very few equals, if any, in this house during the time I have been here.
Mr. Woodsworth's life recalls to me some lines of Browning which have always delighted me. Perhaps I may be pardoned if I quote them:
One who never turned his hack but marched breast forward,
Never doubted clouds would break,
Never dreamed, though right were worsted, wrong would triumph,
Held we fall to rise, are baffled to fight better,
Sleep to wake.

Mr. Woodsworth was many times baffled but always ?ose to fight better, and now that he has gone asleep I think it is the wish and the hope and the faith of everyone here that he will wake to take up the struggle for humanity in another sphere.
To Mrs. Woodsworth and his children I would commend the fine character of a husband and father whose life can be to them a matter of rejoicing and a constant example and inspiration. To the members of his party bereaved of their leader I also express the sincerest sympathy.


Hon. J. T. THORSON (Minister of National War Services):: Mr. Speaker, I
desire to add my personal tribute to the memory of a great and courageous humanitarian.
Mrs. DORISE W. NIELSEN (North Battleford): Mr. Speaker, I should deem it an honour if you would allow me to express the feelings which I know are shared by so many Canadians.
A pioneer has passed on. In years gone by, when pioneers in new social thought were few, Mr. Woodsworth worked untiringly. Many were the old decayed trees of prejudice he felled, and much of the underbrush of fear and misunderstanding he cleared. He cultivated the minds of our people and planted the good seed.
In paying tribute, Mr. Speaker, to his memory I wish to convey to Mrs. Woodsworth the appreciation, we have of the part she has played. Long years of love and devotion she has given, not only to her husband but to the ideals and ideas which he laboured to promote. Many an hour of companionship in her husband's company she courageously sacrificed, and because of her help, sympathy and understanding Mr. Woodsworth was able to give so much of his time and thought to the problems of the common people. No tribute to Mr. Woodsworth would be complete without a recognition of the part his wife has also played.
Many a year yet he might have spent with his wife and family had he not given so unstintingly of his health and strength in the cause so dear to his heart.
It is my sincere wish that the regret and sorrow which they and we feel at his passing may be lightened by the sure knowledge that in the fullness of time his labours will bear fruit. When the full light of a new

James S. Woodsworth
society floods the world we shall remember the man who saw its first pale gleam and so consistently followed it.


Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources):: It is now almost
thirty years, Mr. Speaker, since I first met the late Mr. Woodsworth. We were fellow townsmen of the city of Winnipeg. On the occasion on which I met him he was doing some work in connection with foreign settlements located in various parts of western Canada. I was impressed from the beginning by the earnestness of the man, the vision he possessed, and the thought he had as to how these newcomers to Canada should be assisted in becoming acquainted not only with Canadian institutions but with the whole picture of Canadian life.
I have followed his subsequent career with a great deal of interest. There were ocasions upon which I differed from him, but there was never for a moment any question in my mind of the sincerity, the integrity and the courage of the man. He was one who at all times had the courage of his convictions, and I am always ready to pay a tribute to a man possessed of these qualities of honesty, sincerity and courage. Men of this type are far too rare in the life of our country.
He has passed to the great beyond where, sooner or later, all must go, but he has left behind him a record of which his family may well be proud. He has rendered a service to this country, and, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has said, it may well be reported of him in the years to come that the policies he advocated were the forerunners of policies which yet may come to pass in this country.
I simply wish to join in this tribute of sincere admiration of his character, and to express my sympathy with all the members of his family.


Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, parliament and the entire country mourn in the person of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, Mr. J. S. Woodsworth, a man of wide culture, an ardent patriot and a renowned orator. The eloquence of this great Canadian which stirred and charmed the members of this house over a period of almost twenty years, stemmed from deep conviction as well as from extraordinary dialectic powers. May I be permitted to offer to the bereaved members of his family and particularly to the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), my heartfelt sympathy.
May I also express my deep sympathy to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and the hon. members of whom he remains the distinguished leader.
(Text) Mr. Woodsworth was a man of honour and courage and a great Canadian; and the country will never forget him.


Mr. DANIEL McIVOR (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, because I knew Mr. Woodsworth intimately since 1897, meeting him then at many athletic contests between rival colleges, and because we met together on many occasions and discussed ways and' means for the betterment of the underprivileged, I invited him often to our church, at a time when such invitations were not always popular. He never betrayed a trust; he always acted like a Christian gentleman. While we were both in Ottawa he often called me in and we discussed things together. I shall not soon forget my visits to him in the hospital. As I was leaving the first time he said, "Your visit is refreshing; come back again, and do not leave without a word a prayer." I appreciated his words.
To me James Woodsworth was a practical Christian, because I believe the Christian programme is: feed the hungiy, clothe the naked, visit the sick and go to those in prison. He practised those principles, and men are known by their conduct. He always struggled on behalf of the man who was underneath, and he did it without making anything out of it. I do not suppose he has left to his loved ones much of this world's goods; and believing that to be so, and having much in common with him, I would suggest to the government and to the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) that they consider seriously the provision of a pension for Mrs. Woodsworth.
I pay my tribute to him as a man of courage and conviction, one who was never afraid to champion the cause of the individual who was down.


Mr. RALPH MAYBANK (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I, as the only
representative of the city of Winnipeg in the house at this moment, offer a short addition to the obituary references of those who have already spoken of J. S. Woodsworth.
His life for many years has been identified with my own city. Certain I am that I speak for all the people of that city in joining sincerely with others who have spoken to-day in

James S. Woodsworth
an expression of sympathy to the wife and family of this deceased member. From my acquaintance with, and experience of J. S. Woodsworth, I would say that the last thing he would ever desire would be any mournful thought about his departing or any sad references to it. Nor would he want me to speak of him any differently to-day from the way in which I customarily spoke of him when he was alive. I fancy that he went out happy to meet his Pilot face to face and secure in the belief that he was going to do so.
I knew J. S. Woodsworth longer than most members of parliament. There are only one or two in this house who have known 'him longer.
My first meeting with him was such that I have borne him in kindly remembrance ever since. Somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1909, when I was able to return to school studies after labouring at odd jobs for six or seven years, he was engaged in social service -and it was service-on behalf of the Methodist church. I went to him, a stranger, to get some information about a debate on immigration policies. I shall not soon forget the thoughtful kindness he exhibited in endeavouring to help me. Long after the event about which I had consulted him had gone by, he kept the problem in mind, and sent bits of information to me as these came to him from time to time. I consequently always remembered him as a man who was earnestly and guilelessly interested in other people.
It has already been well said -here to-day, and I -have heard it said thousands of times in Jim Wood-sworth's lifetime, that While one might sharply disagree with him, sharply disagree with his opinions, even to the point of being angry with him for holding and- expressing such opinions, one could not fail to respect the man himself, both because of his sincerity and because of his tenacity in holding to his view's.
Well, sir, we know that the wolf that is in the middle of the pack will soon be forgotten; it is the one on the edge of the -pack, or leading the pack that impresses itself on the mind. Woodsworth was never in the -middle of the pack.
Of all his attributes, I believe the principal one was his carelessness. Woodsworth was careless to an extent that would impel the majority of people to call him foolish. What I mean is that he was careless of what happened to him. He was unmindful of -himself. Wrong he may have been sometimes, but any wrongness was of the head; it was never of the heart. He was not engaged in trying to 
carve out of life something of material benefit for himself. In this respect Jim Woodsworth was egregious; he towered up out of the pack. Consequently I -predict that he will not soon -be forgotten. If there were more people in the -world, -more in Canada, yes, more in this parliament actuated by motives as free from desire for material gain as was Jim Woodsworth, the world and Canada, yes, and- this parliament itself, would -be better off; because the more individuals are actuated -by motives completely untinged with selfishness, the more likelihood -there is of their actions conducing to the real progress of mankind.
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Seldom have we heard a finer tribute paid to one of our colleagues. I had known Mr. Woodsworth fairly well. He was in this house when I came in over seventeen years ago and he had always been very kind to me, as he was to any other colleague. He commanded universal respect not only in the city of Winnipeg where he lived, but throughout the country. He was always well informed on the problems that he discussed; particularly social matters, and as a debater he had a voice that carried very well. I shall remember him as a born gentleman, a gentleman of the old school, and those who had conversations with him will never forget the kindly glance in his eye when they spoke with him. He will be remembered for his integrity, his sincerity, his indomitable courage; and we shall all remember him as a great patriot who was Canadian at heart.
I join with the other speakers in conveying my deepest sympathy to Mrs. Woodsworth, to his children and to our esteemed colleague, the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis).


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: On behalf of the group which Mr. Woodsworth so ably led in this house, I desire to express to all who have spoken our deep appreciation of the kindly references that have been made to his life and to his work. I would say too that we appreciate all that has been said about his splendid helpmeet, Mrs. Woodsworth, who to-day is bereaved. Those of us who have known them through the years know that always in the background, standing sympathetically behind her husband, was the figure of a brave and good woman. And so we appreciate the kindly references that have been made to her.
For ourselves, we feel that we have lost a revered leader, a wise counsellor and a true friend. But as has already been said, his work

James S. Woodsivorth
will live and his influence will grow. I admired him for those sterling qualities which sprang from his pioneer background. He was a Canadian with roots deep in the soil of this country, and yet he was not narrow in any sense. A product of two of our Canadian universities; Manitoba and Toronto, and enjoying the additional advantage of having studied in the great university of Oxford, he brought to the problems of this country a very wide knowledge of social and economic conditions in many parts of the world!.
His work for the new Canadians will not be forgotten. They were always very dear to him, and often in our conferences he would tell us what fine qualities the Ukrainians had, the Ruthenians, the Doukhobors; how he knew and understood them, and hoped that one day they might be integrated into the structure of Canadian fellowship. The great test for him personally came perhaps in the first great war, when he gave up what might have been a life of comparative ease because of his conviction that war was wrong; that the conscription of men against their will was quite wrong. And so he stepped out of the calling which he had chosen as his life's work. He went out to the Pacific coast where for a time he did the hard labour of a longshoreman to earn his daily bread and maintain his young family. Those of us who knew him know what a torture it must have been to that frail body-for frail he was-to undergo the toil of unloading heavy freight from the ships plying between the Pacific coast and the orient.
He became a member of parliament in 1921. He was a great teacher. As a teacher myself I have heard him speaking with groups of young people; that was the thing he liked best to do. Between sessions, if we visited him in his home in Winnipeg we would always find groups of young people gathered in his study talking things over with him. And if I may betray a secret, he had hoped that he might retire before the last election and devote the remaining years of his life to teaching young Canadians how to be of greater service to their country. But that was not permitted to him; and to-day we mourn his loss.
I know it is generally recognized throughout this house that he was sincere. Sincerity and courage in his convictions were at the very root and base of his character. As the Prime Minister has said, quite truly, at times he was scathing in his criticisms in this house of what he considered to be wrong, scathing sometimes in reference to
people who occupied seats in this chamber; yet I have heard him on more than one occasion check those who in private conversation sought to belittle personally the present Prime Minister, the late leader of the opposition, and other hon. members of this house. He bore no personal animosity to anyone.
He had the characteristics of a prophet. I remember on one occasion I was on a platform with him and with Professor King Gordon, who had occupied the chair of Christian ethics at the Union theological college at McGill. We knew that some views that Mr. Woodsworth was expressing were unpopular with the audience. King Gordon leaned across to me and said, "There is only one person that I can remember of whom he reminds me, the ancient prophet Amos courageously denouncing the evils of the society of his day and generation." There was much of the scriptural prophet in J. S. Woodsworth.
His work will live. His influence will grow. The very name we bear, the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, was a suggestion of J. S. Woodsworth. He hoped that he might be permitted to help lay the foundations of a new order in Canada in which men and women would cooperate for the common good; hence the name. And that I think he did. I am quite sure that none who were here when this house decided that Canada should enter the war will ever forget the tensity of the scene. If I may say so, he always appreciated the kindly reference of the Prime Minister when, during the debate on participation in the war, just before Mr. Woodsworth rose to speak, the right hon. gentleman prepared the difficult path for him by saying that no matter what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre might say or do, this house would understand that he did it in all sincerity. That speech was his last major effort in parliament.
His last two years of life were beclouded by war-war against which he had fought so hard, war which he hoped might never come again; and when it came it did in reality crush him.
I think those of us who knew him can find no better epitaph for him than the words of Alexander Pope:
Statesman, yet friend to truth! of soul sincere,
In action faithful, and in honour clear;
Who broke no promise, served no private end,	.
Who gained no title, and who lost no friend.

Questions



REPORT OF COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
Third report of standing committee on agriculture and colonization.-Mr. Weir.

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

Mr. COTE:: 1.	Has the government decided to establish a plant for the manufacturing of tools at Ville Lasalle, Quebec?
, ?:,lf s0>
" id tenders be called for (a) the building, (b) the equipment?
3.	Under whose management will the said plant be operated?
4.	When will the plant begin operations?
5.	How many (a) skilled, (b) unskilled workmen will this plant employ?
6.	Will refugees, internees or prisoners of war be employed?
7.	If so, will they be thoroughly investigated before employment?
8.	Will such employees be housed by the
government ?	J
9.	On what basis will they be paid for their services?
10.	Will any local labour be employed?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Factory building was rented from Ritchie Cut Stone Company for the duration of the war. Huts to accommodate workmen are being erected. Tenders for these huts were invited from five Montreal construction companies and the job was awarded to the lowest tenderer; (b) equipment (tool machinery) is largely being secured from the Citadel Merchandising Company, a wholly owned government company.
3.	A wholly owned government company was incorporated (Machinery Service Limited).
4.	About March 25.
5.	(a) 100 skilled workmen; (b) no unskilled workmen.
6.	Refugees only-conditionally released for this special employment.
7.	All have been investigated and no man will be employed whose conditional release for
this purpose has not been approved by the Canadian authorities after consultation wTith the home office of the united kingdom.
8.	No. They will pay their own expenses for board and lodging.
9.	According to their skill and at the rate prevailing in the Montreal area.
10.	Any local labour with the required skill can be employed, but any such local labour is already employed.

income and national defence tax Mr. MacINNIS:
1.	How many persons in the calendar year
1940 paid income tax on, (a) incomes of more than $750 but less than $1,000; (b) incomes of more than $1,000 but less than $1,500; (e) incomes of more than $1,500 but less than $2,500; (d) incomes of more than $2,500 but less than $4,000;	(e) incomes of more than
$4,000 but less than $6,000; (f) incomes of more than $6,000 but loss than $10,000;	(g)
incomes of more than $10,000 but less than $15,000; (h) incomes of more than $15,000 but less than $25,000; (i) incomes of more than $2o,000 but less than $35,000; (j) incomes of more than $35,000 but less than $50,000; (k) incomes of more than $50,000, but less than $75,000; (1) incomes of more than $75,000 but less than $100,000; (in) incomes of more than $100,000 but less than $200,000; (n) incomes of more than $200,000?
2.	What was the aggregate amount of the income tax paid by each of the above income groups?
3.	How many persons in receipt of incomes of less than $1,000 paid a national defence tax in the calendar year 1940?
4.	What was the aggregate amount of the national defence tax collected from the above income group?


Mr. GIBSON:: An answer to this question has been prepared which I understand is satisfactory to the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis). The information is not available in the form asked, but the question is answered in accordance with the statistics available, that is the number of individual taxpayers, and amount of tax assessed during the fiscal year 1940-41.
Individual
taxpayers
Up	to	$	2,000	
127,954S 2,000	to	3,000	
72,5023.000	to	4.000	
43,0214.000	to	5,000	
19,5815.000	to	6,000	
103466.000	to	7,000	
63247.000	to	8,000	
4 4358.000	to	9,000	
23309.000	to	10,000	
233510.000	to	15.000	
573715.000	to	20,000	
2,26820.000	to	25,000	
'97725.000	to	30,000	
60130.000	to	35,000	
36135.000	to	40,000	
25740.000	to	45,000	
18345.000	to	50,000	
9950.000	and	over	
473
Questions
2.		Amount of tax assessed
Up to	$ 2,000	.... $ 1,535,022 36$ 2,000 to	3,000	.... 1,607,801 093,000 to	4,000	.... 1,869,201 144,000 to	5,000	.... 1,694,815 135,000 to	6,000	.... 1,575,632 176,000 to	7,000	.... 1,485,098 067.000 to	8,000	.... 1,431,846 728,000 to	9,000	.... 1,202,703 809.000 to	10.000	.... 1,231,382 8210,000 to	15.000	.... 5,311,105 2715,000 to	20,000	.... 4,482,118 6920,000 to	25,000	.... 3,228,645 3325,000 to	30,000	.... 2,930,552 0830,000 to	35,000	.... 2,275,344 7235,000 to	40,000	.... 2,104,467 1940,000 to	45,000	.... 1,846,860 1445.000 to	50,000	.... 1,224,751 8250,000 and over	.... 15,341,483 95Unclassified	.... 234 003.	Not available.4.	Not available.GANDER, NEWFOUNDLAND, CONSTRUCTION .	CONTRACT


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	Has the Atlas Construction Co. Limited a contract for construction work at Gander, Newfoundland ?
2.	If so, is it required to pay the Canadian rate of wages as approved by the Department of Labour?
3.	Are the workmen required to pay the following Canadian taxes, (a) national defence tax, (b) income tax, (c) unemployment insurance tax?
4.	Are the workmen protected against injury and do they receive compensation for injury?
5.	What is the percentage or rate of compensation payable to such workmen when laid off woi-k due to injury received in the course of their employment?
6.	Does the government or any department thereof assist injured workmen by seeing that they are paid workmen's compensation as required in Canada?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Yes-there is a contract between Atlas Construction Company Limited and His Majesty the King in the right of Canada. The contract is on a cost-plus fee basis.
2.	Yes-Form M. & S. 154 "Labour Conditions," approved by the Department of Labour, forms part of the contract.
3.	All employees of the contractor who are residents of Canada are subject to (a) National defence tax; (b Income tax; (c) Unemployment insurance tax. Employees who are residents of Newfoundland ci* not subject to Canadian taxes.
4.	All workmen employed on the work are protected against injury and receive compensation based on the compensation laws as laid down by the crown colony of Newfoundland.
5.	Until recently, for total or partial disability, an employee was paid half his regular wage rate subject to a maximum of $10 per week. Employees under twenty years of age received 100 per cent of the wage rate subject to a $10 per week maximum. The insurance company protecting the Atlas Construction Company have recently been informed that the Act under the common law of Newfoundland states that the rate of payment for total or partial disability is 50 per cent of the weekly wage rate with no maximum. The company is therefore reviewing all past payments and is making adjustments accordingly.
In case of permanent disability, the employee has the right to accept compensation or to bring suit under the common law of Newfoundland.
67Up to date there has been no necessity for intervention on the part of the government, as far as we are aware, to assist injured workmen in the collection of compensation.


RADIO BROADCASTING-MADAME PIERRE F. CASGRAIN
Mr. ROY:: 1.	Does Madame Pierre F. Casgrain broadcast over the C.B.C. for the war services of the Department of Finance?
2.	If so, what sums has she been paid for such services since the 1st of January, 1941, to date?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Madame Pierre F. Casgrain has broadcast once on behalf of the wartime prices and trade board.
2.	Nil.


POLLACK AND DORFMAN CONTRACTS
Mr. ROY:: 1.	Has the government awarded contracts for clothing and equipment for the troops, to Pollack and Dorfman, since February the 12th, 1941, to date?
2.	If so, (a) how many of such contracts;
(b)	on what date and for what amount in each case; (c) what is the total amount of such contracts, (d) is the cost of the cloth included in the contracts and if not, who supplied the cloth and for what amount?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) 11. (b) February 12, 1941, $300,000.00; April 4, 1941, $45,910.00; July 25, 1941, $399,411.00; July 31, 1941, $32,720.00; July 31, 1941, $173,600.00; August 30, 1941, $673,500.00; September 2, 1941, $410,000.00; September 22, 1941,
Questions

8173,600.00; October 16, 1941, 8492,279.45; October 22, 1941, $308,658.35; November 8, 1941, $800,029.99.	(c) $3,809,708.79. (d) Yes.


Mr. ROY:: 1.	Have Maurice Pollack or Pollack and Dorfman, of Quebec, obtained the consent of the government or of a commission acting on its behalf, to construct a building in the city of Quebec?
2.	If so, (a) from what commission; (b) for what amount?
3.	Is there any understanding with the government or any commission representing the government, regarding the rental of the building, or any part of it for federal purposes?
4.	If so, what rental is agreed upon, monthly or yearly ?


Mr. McLARTY:: 1.	Yes. A licence was issued to Maurice Pollack Realty Company Limited on February 16, 1942, for the construction of a 4-story and basement fireproof building at 93 St. Joseph Street, Quebec.
2.	(a) Controller of construction, Department of Munitions and Supply.
(b) $169,590.00.
3.	To provide additional space for the income tax division of the Department of National Revenue, authority was granted by an order in council dated February 19, 1942, P.C. 1276, to lease the two upper floors, having an area of 14,450 sq. ft., of a 3-story reinforced concrete building to be erected by the Maurice Pollack Realty Company, Limited, on Charest boulevard, near Dupont street, Quebec City.
4 . 814,450.00 per annum.


SYNDICATE BUILDING, QUEBEC CITY
Mr. ROY:: 1.	Has the Syndicate of Quebec requested permission to complete certain works, or asked for alterations to its building in the city of Quebec ?
2.	If so, has this request been granted or refused ?


Mr. HOWE:: 1 and 2. A licence was issued to Le Syndicat de Quebec Inc. on July 17, 1941, for the construction of a reinforced concrete warehouse, delivery and receiving room, 4 floors, on land 43' x 55', plus cellar or basement for furnace; concrete tunnel across street to main store; at an estimated total cost of $35,000.00.
We have since been advised that the above project was completed the latter part of 1941 and have had no other applications for alterations or additions from this company.
[Mr Howe.]
wartime HOUSING


HULL, QUE.
Mr. NICHOLSON:: Will the Minister of Munitions and Supply arrange for members of parliament interested in Wartime Housing to visit houses built by Wartime Housing in Hull before the Easter recess ?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps I can answer this
verbally. The answer, of course, is yes; and may I say that any member of the House of Commons who wishes to visit any work under the control of the Department of Munitions and Supply, whether it be a munitions plant, a housing project, or anything else, need only apply at my office for the necessary documents, which we shall be glad to provide.


FOREIGN EXCHANGE-VEGETABLES AND FRUITS
Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: How much foreign exchange was used by Canada during each of the months of November, December, 1941, January and February, 1942, for the purchase of, (a) vegetables, and (b) fruits?


Mr. ILSLEY:: Without a great deal of work and expense, answers to these questions cannot be obtained from the records of the foreign exchange control board, and even then the answers would not be completely accurate. The board has believed it would not be justifiable to maintain and analyse its records in such a way as to provide data of the character asked for as this would involve duplication of the work of the dominion Bureau of Statistics to an extravagant degree.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce stated in the House of Commons on April 7, 1941, that "it has been decided as a matter of policy that the bureau of statistics will give no detailed information as to the countries of origin of imports for the duration of the war. It is felt that this information might be of value to the enemy in acquainting them with the sources of supply of certain materials. This decision is wholly in accord with the present practice of the United Kingdom."


ANTIMONY-RESHIPMENT TO ENEMY COUNTRIES
Mr. CASTLEDEN:: What steps have been taken to prevent the Canadian export of antimony to neutral countries from being reshipped to the axis powers?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: Before a permit is granted by the export permit branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce for the export of antimony or other strategic materials to neutral countries, a thorough investigation is undertaken as to the availability of the supply and the essentiality of the need. The government of the United

Questions
Kingdom are also consulted through the Department of External Affairs. No permit will be granted for the export of antimony to a neutral country if there is any possibility of the product being re-exported to a country with which Canada is at war or to a territory under enemy occupation or control. Any shipment from a neutral country to a country with which Canada is at war or to a territory under enemy occupation or control or to another neutral country adjacent to such territories would only be permitted' to pass through the naval blockade when covered by a navicert issued by the United Kingdom authorities.


MOUNTED POLICE-SPECIAL CONSTABLES
Mr. COLDWELL:: 1.	How many special constables have been engaged by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for the duration of the war?
2.	What is the daily rate of pay?
3.	To what issues of clothing, etc., are they entitled?
4.	Is any provision made for superannuation?
5.	Are any of these men married?
6.	Are there any special family allowances?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:
1.	1,495.
2.
Supervisors (married)-	Per	diem
Pay	 $2 00
Allowances	 1 60
Total	 $3	60
Guards (married)-
Pay	
$1	60Allowances	
1	60Total	
$3	20
Guards (unmarried)-[DOT]
Pay	
$1	60Allowances	
1	00Total	
$2 603.	On loan: Boots, ankle, pairs, 1; helmets, cloth, 1; berets, 1; armbands, 1; whistles, 1; identification cards, 1; great coat or mackinaw coat, 1; lamb-lined vest or cardigan, 1; mitts, skin, prs., 1; mitts, wool, prs., 1; overshoes, prs., 1; slickers, 1; batons, wood, 1; shirts, khaki drill, 2; trousers, khaki drill, 1; sou'westers, 1.4.	No, but should any man be injured in the performance of duty, a compensation scale is available.5.	Yes. All married with few exceptions.6.	No special family allowance except those given in answer No. 2.


MOUNTED POLICE-CONSTABLES
Mr. COLDWELL:: 1.	What is the rate of pay per day for regular R.C.M.P. constables?
2.	To what issues of clothing, etc., are they entitled ?
3.	Is any provision made for superannuation?
4.	Are any of these men married?
5.	Are there any special family allowances?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:
1.	Sub-constables (under 21 years of age), $1.25 per diem. Constables, 3rd class (21 years and over), $2 per diem.
2.	Braces, prs., 1; brushes, tooth, 2; drawers, prs., 2; gloves, B.L., prs., 1; shirts, over, khaki, 2; shirts, under, 2; socks, prs., 4; ties, 2; towels, hand, 2; towels, bath, 1; and certain other articles on "loan" only.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes (on attaining maximum rate of pay upon completion of seven years' service).
5.	Yes. Married constables receive $1.60 per diem general living allowance in lieu of quarters, rations, fuel and light. Single men, none, unless on detached duty.


FISHERIES PATROL
Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: 1.	What was the cost of the fisheries patrol in 1941, (a) Atlantic coast, (b) Pacific coast,
(c)	inland?
2.	What was the total cost of this patrol in the said year?
3.	How many boats were employed on the fisheries patrol in 1941, (a) Atlantic coast, (b) Pacific coast, (c) inland?


Mr. MICHAUD:: The following information is for fiscal year 1940-41:
1. (a) Atlantic coast, $65,165 24;	(b) Pacific coast, $157,171.44; (c) No information as federal government does not administer fisheries in inland provinces.
2.	$222,336.68.
3.	(a) 23; (b) 66; (c) Answered by No.
1 (c).


CLARK RUSE AIRCRAFT COMPANY, LIMITED
Mr. ROSS (Souris):: 1.	Is the Clark Ruse Aircraft Company, Limited, a wholly owned federal concern?
2.	Is Mr. Winthrop Bell employed by that company and what remuneration does he receive?
3.	What financial advances has the federal government made towards this company?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	No. Clark Ruse Aircraft, Limited, is a privately owned company operating a government-owned plant.
2.	(a) Yes, as secretary-treasurer; (b) No information.
Questions


*RADI0 BROADCASTING-MADAME P. F. CASGRAIN
Mr. ROY:: 1.	Has Madame P. F. Casgrain broadcast any talks over the C.B.C. network on behalf of the Department of Munitions and Supply?
2.	If so, what remuneration has the government paid to her for such services since January 1, 1941, to date?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The answer is no.


PRISONERS OF WAR
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Is the government satisfied that the duty of searching hospitals and prison camps for Canadian internees in enemy and enemy-occupied countries is being carried out efficiently, and have the next of kin of all officers and men been informed of the fate of their relatives, as far as possible?
2.	Are these searches being carried out by government agencies, or are they only undertaken by private organizations, and what are they?
3.	What status has the Red Cross in enemy countries, and where and how do they function from in Germany, Italy and Japan?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: (As the situatiou with regard to information about Canadian prisoners of war and internees is most easily dealt with by separating the European and far eastern theatres of war, the answers are being given in two groups, the first referring to Germany and Italy including occupied territories and the second referring to Japan and Japanese occupied territories.)
Germany and Italy, including Occupied Territories:
1.	Information regarding Canadian prisoners of war and civilian internees is not obtained, strictly speaking, through the "searching" of hospitals and internment camps. According to the provisions of the Geneva Convention relating to the treatment of prisoners of war (1929), which is adhered to by the belligerents on both sides, belligerents are required to notify each other as soon as possible of all internees or prisoners through the intermediary of an information bureau set up by each detaining power for this purpose (article 8). The information bureau transmits all such information immediately to the powers concerned through the protecting power and through a special central agency set up by the International Red Cross committee at Geneva (article 77). As far as combatant prisoners of war are concerned, these provisions are observed by both 
sides, and lists of Canadian prisoners are telegraphed to both Ottawa and London as soon as this information is received at Geneva. The Department of National Defence notifies the next of kin after the information has been checked.
Information obtained in this way is supplemented by the representatives of the protecting power who are allowed to visit all internment camps housing Canadians, whether combatants or civilian internees, and lists furnished by the protecting power have so far been the chief source of information regarding civilians. The Geneva Convention has, however, been extended reciprocally to cover civilians as well as combatants, and official lists of civilian 'internees are now being provided.
2.	See answer to question No. 1.
3.	National Red Cross organizations as a rule deal exclusively with problems arising out of the care of their own nationals. This is understood to be the case in Germany and Italy. Activities connected with the whereabouts or welfare of Canadian prisoners of war and internees in these countries are handled by the International Red Cross and its official delegates, who are also authorized to visit any camp.
Japan and Japanese-Occupied Territories:
1.	Although Japan has not formally ratified the Geneva Convention, the Japanese government have stated that prisoners of war and internees will be treated in accordance with its provisions. A list of Canadian civilians interned in Japan has already been supplied both to the Argentine embassy at Tokyo and to the International Red Cross. Further lists of combatant prisoners are awaited.
2.	See answers to questions No. 1 and No. 3.
3.	With regard to the Japanese Red Cross, the situation is different from that in the other belligerent countries, in that it is understood that the Japanese Red Cross intends to take charge of some of the functions such as the distribution of parcels and comforts, which elsewhere are normally in the hands of the delegates of the International Red Cross.


SALVAGE-SCRAP METAL
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: Is all the scrap metal collected under the national salvage campaign used for war purposes or is some resold for private industrial use?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Steel, iron, aluminum and high-grade copper are definitely designated to war and other essential industries by the steel controller and the metals controller of

Questions
the Department of Munitions and Supply. Low-grade non-ferrous metals are utilized in accordance with the regular channels of trade.


WOMEN FARM WORKERS
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	Is a wage rate set for women farm
workers?
2.	If so, are the rates fixed for the different classes of agricultural workers?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1 and 2. No. The
legislative authority rests with the provinces. In respect to the "farm service force plan" carried on in Ontario last year the expense of which was participated in by the dominion, the minimum wages were set at a growers' meeting prior to placements.


H. F. ANGUS
Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: 1.	Has Mr. H. P. Angus ever served on a committee in connection with the Japanese situation?
2.	If so, what remuneration did he receive?
3.	On whose recommendation was he appointed?
4.	Is this man presently employed by the dominion government ?
5.	If so, in what position, at what salary and what are his qualifications?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	Yes. He was appointed as a member of the standing committee on orientals in British Columbia by the order in council P.C. 117, dated January 7, 1941, which created the committee. Owing to absence from British Columbia Mr. Angus was not active on this committee after July 1, 1941.
2.	None.
3.	Secretary of State for External Affairs.
4.	Yes.
5.	(a) Special assistant to the under-secretary of state for external affairs and liaison officer of the Department of External Affairs with the Canada-United States joint economic committees.
(b)	$6,600.
(c)	As head of the department of economics, political science and sociology at the University of British Columbia, Mr. Angus is a distinguished member of his profession in Canada. He served in the imperial forces in the war of 1914-18. In addition to other professional activities, Mr. Angus was a member of the Royal Commission on Dominion-Provincial Relations, and has written or edited a number of books dealing particularly with Canadian-American relations.


AIR RAID PRECAUTION WORKERS
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	Are air raid precaution workers and wardens entitled to pension for injuries received in trial black-outs or actual black-outs?
2.	If so, under what conditions?
3.	If not, are there any circumstances under which such persons are entitled to pension?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Under the conditions set forth in order in council P.C. 7147, dated May 10, 1941.
3.	Answered by No. 2.


NATIONAL FILM BOARD-MRS. MARGARET GRIERSON
Mr. McGREGOR:: 1.	Has Mrs. Margaret Grierson, at any time, been employed by the national film board?
2.	Is she now so employed?
3.	If so, in what capacity is she employed?
4.	On what date was she first employed and under what authority?
5.	If not now employed by the national film board between what dates was she employed, if at all ?
6.	If employed at any time by the national film board what duties has she performed and what has been paid to her in salary, fees, allowances or any other form of remuneration for services?
7.	If not employed by the national film board, what is the nature of the work she is and has been performing in the studios and/or laboratory of the national film board, what is her official status in relation to those regularly employed on the staff of the national film board and what authority, if any, has she to give orders to or supervise the work of employees of the national film board?
8.	If she was not carrying on the work she is doing in studios and/or laboratory of the national film board would it be necessary to employ someone else to perform this work?
9.	How long has she been a resident of Canada?
10.	Is she the wife of John Grierson, government film commissioner?
11.	What is the total amount that has been paid to John Grierson in salary, fees and/or allowances as government film commissioner?
12.	What is the total amount of money that has been paid to John Grierson since he has been employed by the government in any capacity whatsoever, including travelling expenses?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: This question is answered in respect of paragraphs 1 to 10. Paragraphs 11 and 12 stand.
1.	No.
2.	No.
3.	See answers to Nos. 1 and 2.
4.	See answers to Nos. 1 and 2.
5.	See answers to Nos. 1 and 2.
6.	As she was not employed, no question of salary, fees, allowances or any form of remuneration for services is involved.

Questions as Orders jor Returns
7.	(a) Mrs. Margaret Grierson, as a gratuitous war service, has been a voluntary instructor of new personnel in technical aspects of film production in which she, in the past, was professionally engaged.
(b) and (c) Her status is entirely one of instruction of personnel in technical matters; no question of authority is involved.
8.	Yes; if available.
9.	Since October, 1939.
10.	Yes.


PLEBISCITE-RECOMMENDATIONS OF DEFEATED CANDIDATES
Mr. HANSELL:: Has the Secretary of State or the chief plebiscite officer informed those defeated candidates in the last general election who received the next largest number of votes to the elected representative, to the effect that they have the right to recommend workers for the forthcoming plebiscite, or are those candidates dependent upon press despatches for their information in this respect?


Mr. McLARTY:: It is provided by sections 126, 134 and 141 of the plebiscite instructions that the returning officer shall give notice in due course to candidates entitled to nominate enumerators and deputy returning officers.
Each returning officer is notified by these instructions and will doubtless arrange for the appointment of enumerators and deputy returning officers on the basis already stated to the house.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. PARENT (Quebec West and South):: 1.	Has a representative of the wartime prices and trade board been appointed for Quebec, to control the manufacture and sale of clothing for men and women?
2.	If so, (a) who has been appointed, (b) what is the nationality of the person appointed, (c) is this person bilingual, (d) what is his place of origin, (e) how long has he lived in Quebec?
3.	Was an examination advertised in connection with this position?
4.	If so, when, and where was the examination held?


INTERNMENTS-JAMES FRANCESCHINI
Mr. DIEFENBAICER:: 1.	When was James Francesehini released from internment?
2.	During the period of internment who had control of his property and assets?
3.	Was he at the time of his internment interested as shareholder, officer, or otherwise in any companies? If so, what companies?
4.	During the period of his internment, (a) did any of the said companies or any partnership of which he was a member have contracts

with the government; (b) were any projects proceeded with or undertaken by the government while controlling or operating any of the said companies; (c) if so, give particulars of the location and of the amounts of each of the said contracts or projects?
5.	Were any proceeds or profits from any such contracts or projects held to the credit Df any of the said companies or to himself paid to him or to anyone on his behalf, or to any of the said companies while he was interned or after his release; if so, give particulars of the amounts paid and to whom? What further amounts, if any, are held in trust or in deposit for any of the said companies or him?
G. Did the government purchase any of the said companies or other assets; or the interests therein of the said James Francesehini since the outbreak of war to the date hereof? If so, give particulars together with the amount paid therefor ?


NATIONAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION
Mr. NICHOLSON:: 1.	How many single housing units were built under the supervision of national housing administration during the period September, 1939, to December, 1941?
2.	What was the average cost per house?
3.	How much money did the government invest in these houses?
4.	How many low-priced houses have been built by national housing administration?
5.	What was the average cost of these houses?
6.	What type of construction is used in building these low-priced houses?
7.	How many permanent houses have been built by national housing administration, and what was the average cost of each house, in each of the following places, (a) Fort William, (b) Halifax, (c) Hamilton, (d) Welland, (e) Peterborough, (f) Hull, (g) Ottawa, (h) North Vancouver, (i) Esquimalt, (j) Prince Rupert, (k) Dundas, (1) Fort Erie, (m) Oshawa, (n) Woodstock?
8.	What was the total cost of administration of national housing administration for the period March 31, 1941, to January 31, 1942?



PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION-MONTROSE, SASK., COMMUNITY PASTURE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. COLDWELL;
1.	Did the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act erect a community pasture in rural municipality of Montrose, No. 315, Saskatchewan, in 1937? If so. what was the total cost at that date?
2.	Was an extension of the said pasture authorized in 1938?
3.	Were tenders called for barbed wire, hardware, etc., for said pasture in 1938? If so, what persons or companies were invited to submit tenders?
4.	From whom were tenders received and what was the amount of each tender?
5.	To whom was the contract or contracts let?
6.	Did the Department of Agriculture or Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act receive a petition against the extension of the pasture in 1938?
7.	What action did the department take as a result of this petition?
8.	Did Mr. 0. Freer, superintendent, land utilization branch. Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, Regina, authorize any employee of the

Questions as Orders for Returns
department to try to persuade residents of rural municipality of Montrose, No. 315, who had petitioned against the pasture, to sign a counter petition in its favour?
9.	If so, who was the employee; what time was occupied in this work; what were the salary and expenses during this period?
10.	What amount of money in salary, mileage and other expenses was paid to Mr. T. Waters, employee of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act branch, while working in rural municipality, Montrose, No. 315, in 1938?
11.	Is the department or Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act branch at Regina considering the extension of the community pasture in rural municipality, Montrose, No. 315, again this year?
12.	If so, at whose request or upon whose recommendation ?

Mr. BRUCE:: I.	Has the position of fire marshal of the Canadian army been newly created?
2.	Has anyone been appointed to such position ?
3.	If so, (a) whom, (b) at what salary?
4.	Does the appointee assume also the position of assistant Q.M.G.?
5.	Does he carry a rank in the Canadian army?
6.	If so, what rank?
7.	Has the appointee previously held rank in the Canadian army?
8.	If so, (a) what rank, (b) for what period, (c) in what unit?
9.	What is the age of the appointee?
10.	If previously holding a rank in the army, in what category was he?
II.	If not holding rank in the army, has he presented himself for service and been turned down because of being medically unfit?
12.	What experience has this officer had, (a) in fire prevention methods; (b) the newest fire-fighting technique; (c) executive work in relation to the new department?
13.	Were the fire services of the large centres in Canada consulted before this appointment was made?
14.	If so, (a) were they permitted to make recommendations; (b) was this appointment made on the recommendation of a chief of department of any fire service in any of the large centres?
15.	Will this appointee have full authority, (a) to purchase new equipment; (b) to make appointments to the staff?



CANADIAN ARMY (RESERVE)-RESIGNING OF COMMISSIONS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. WHITE;
1.	How many officers in reserve force units have resigned their commissions since the outbreak of the present war?
2.	How many officers were under the age of 35 years at the date they resigned their commissions?
3.	How many officers were in category "A", in category "B" at the date they resigned their commissions?
4.	On what grounds may an officer resign his commission during war time?

Mr. WHITE:: 1.	What reserve force units take training at their local headquarters, (a) infantry units, (b) artillery units, (c) machine gun units,
(d)	other units?
2.	(a) How many (1) officers, (2) other ranks are there on the administrative and training staffs of reserve force units; (b) what is the date of such return of strength?
3.	What is the total amount of pay and allowances paid to (a) officers, (b) other ranks of the administrative and training staffs of reserve force units in each of the years 1940 and 1941?
4.	What is the total amount of all moneys (including pay and allowances of administrative and training staffs) expended on reserve force units during each of the years 1940 and 1941?



SHIPMENT OF GOODS TO BRITAIN

Mr. HANSELL:: 1.	What is the total value of goods shipped to Britain since the outbreak of war?
2.	How much of this was charged to the account of the British purchasing board?
3.	What were the ten major commodities and what is the total value of each?
4.	What payments have been received to date ?
5.	What is the total amount of Canadian securities returned or repatriated in payment of this debt, and what are the types and amounts of each class of securities? How much of this obligation has been paid in gold?
6.	Has there been a cancellation of any of this debt incurred since the war, (a) if so, how much of the debt has been cancelled, how much has been assumed by the Canadian government, and what rate of interest is being paid; (b) if not, has the government considered cancelling all or part of this debt in order to assist the war effort?



JAPANESE NATIONALS-POSTMASTERSHIPS

Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: 1.	Have any Japanese acted as postmasters in British Columbia since December 7, 1941?
2.	If so, have they been removed from such office, and on what dates?
3.	Have any Japanese been employed as operators on Government telegraph lines since December 7, 1941? If so, have they been dismissed, and on what dates?



ONTARIO ARMOURIES

Mr. WHITE:: 1.	What use is being made of the armouries at Norwood, Madoe, Trenton, Belleville and Picton?
2.	What was the total cost of maintenance of each of these armouries during each of the years 1940 and 1941?
3.	Are these five armouries being used full time? If not, why?

Questions as Orders for Returns


Mr. CASSELMAN:: 1.	What use is being made of the armouries at Merrickville and Kemptville in Grenville-Dundas ?
2.	What was the total cost of maintenance of each of these armouries during each of the years 1940 and 1941?
3.	Will these armouries be put to full use in war work?



COORDINATION OF FOODS ADMINISTRATION

Mr. TUSTIN:: 1.	What salary is paid to Hon. J. G. Taggart as coordinator of foods administration on the wartime prices and trade board?
2.	Is he paid any living allowance, either during his residence in Ottawa or his absence therefrom ?
3.	What is the total of travelling expenses which have been paid to him while occupying this position?
4.	Does Mr. Taggart still occupy the position of chairman of the bacon board?
5.	If so, what salary and/or living allowance is paid to him in respect of such position?
6.	What is the total of the living and travelling expenses which have been paid to him as chairman of the bacon board?
7.	Does Mr. Taggart still occupy the position of Minister of Agriculture for the province of Saskatchewan?
8.	If so, is he in receipt of any salary in respect of such position?
9.	Is Mr. Taggart still a member of the legislature of Saskatchewan?
10.	If so, is he in receipt of any indemnity or emolument therefrom?



NATIONAL FILM BOARD-EMPLOYMENT OF MALE PERSONS BETWEEN 18 AND 45

Mr. McGREGOR:: 1.	How many male persons between the ages of 18 and 45, including those employed on a temporary basis under the provisions of the National Film Act, have been employed by the national film board since June 28, 1941, who are (a) British citizens of Canadian birth; (b) British citizens domiciled in Canada prior to September 7, 1939, (c) British citizens not domiciled in Canada prior to September 7, 1939; (d) citizens of foreign countries not at war with Canada and (e) citizens of foreign countries with which Canada is at war?
2.	What is the name, age and citizenship of each such person and, if not born in Canada, how long had he resided in Canada prior to the date he was first employed by the national film board?
3.	Under what authority was each such person employed and by whom and on what grounds was he certified as eligible for employment under the provisions of order in council 4759 of June 27, 1941?
4.	Between wrhat dates has each such person been employed?

5.	In what capacity was each person employed and what were the duties performed by each such person during his term of employment to date?
6.	What is the total amount that has been paid to each such person, (a) in salary, fees and/or allowances; (b) living expenses or subsistence allowances while in Ottawa and (e) travelling expenses?



GOVERNMENT PAYMENTS TO RAILWAYS FOR SERVICES

[Stage Direction]
Mr. COLD WELL;
What did the government pay the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway respectively, for (a) transportation, (b) express, (c) freight, (d) telegrams, (e) any other services, in each of the four quarterly periods during the year 1941?
James Lorimer Ilsley: To give the information sought in regard to transportation would entail an immense amount of work in examining the travelling claims. In the great majority of travelling claims no reference is made to which of the railways has been used. Subject to this qualification the question should be passed as an order for return.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. HATFIELD:: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the federal Department of Agriculture and the district representative, C. H. Godwin, Fredericton, New Brunswick, regarding the shipment and the issuing of certificates for Canadian certified seed potatoes during the year 1941.


Mr. GARDINER:: I raised an objection previously to this motion, on the ground that this correspondence is between officials in the department. There is nothing in the file that I have any objection to showing the hon. member. I wonder if the house would permit this motion to be dropped, and at any time the hon. member can come and see what is in the file.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If there is nothing in the file that would] be prejudicial to the public interest, why not pass this motion on the understanding that it would not be regarded as a precedent?


James Garfield Gardiner: I will make the file available to the hon. member at any time, but we prefer not to have a precedent set.
Motion dropped.

Motions for Papers



COMMODITY PRICES STABILIZATION CORPORATION

Mr. CHURCH:: For a return showing-1. A list of the price ceiling subsidies issued, the estimated amount of same and on what articles, or in what trade and commerce.
2.	A list of the members of the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation, a list of their chief officers, servants and agents, showing where they are located, the number thereof, together with their salaries and other allowances.
3.	Estimated cost of one year of maintaining the ceiling prices staff herein, and the aggregate number of officials and total payroll.
4.	The estimated cost per annum of the operation of this corporation.
5.	The walks of business life that are not yet supervised or directed by any departments of state.
6.	What training the members of this corporation and their chief officials have had in actual trade or commerce, or in a competitive business.
7.	What minister of the crown is responsible to parliament for the work of this corporation.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There is no objection to this motion passing with certain qualifications. It will not be possible to give some of the information asked for, such as certain estimates which are not questions of fact and which it would be impossible, I think, to make at this stage. Similarly, there is a question asked as to what training the members of the corporation have had. I do not think it would be possible to answer that definitely in response to a motion. I do not think the amounts of subsidies to individual firms should be disclosed, but I think the house should have information regarding the amounts of the subsidies to industries, the amounts of certain classes of subsidies.


Richard Burpee Hanson: On commodities.


James Lorimer Ilsley: On commodities. With these qualifications, I shall be glad to agree to the passing of this motion.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The hon. member is not here, and I do not know his views. I can understand that the question with reference to estimates might be difficult to answer; yet an estimate must have been made for the first year, having regard to the expenditures that have been made. I can see no reason why the government should not make a statement in connection with the training of each man, because it is a matter which must have been considered. On the other point, as to what firms or individuals received money, probably the minister is right, but we ought to know exactly how much subsidy is being given in respect of each commodity. Perhaps the motion might stand until the hon. member is here.
Mr. MaeINNIS: The Minister of Finance has said that while there is no objection to stating the total amount of the subsidies, there would be objection to stating the amount of subsidy paid to any individual firm or corporation.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is right.
Mr. MaeINNIS: I do not know whether we should allow that to pass without protest. If this is a government subsidy, surely parliament is entitled to know the amount of the subsidy and who received it. Otherwise parliament has no control over the matter at all.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They have not any now.
Mr. MaeINNIS: I think this matter should be carefully scrutinized.


Mr. SPEAKER:: In the meantime the motion will stand.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I ask the minister to reconsider this. I went a little the other way, but I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver East that we ought to know who got this money. I ask the minister to think it over.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I shall give it consideration, but I will be prepared to argue the matter. There are considerations that have not occurred to hon. gentlemen.
Motion stands.



ATLANTIC COAST DEFENCE

Mr. POULIOT:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, reports, memoranda and all other documents addressed by Lt.-Col. Alan Cockeram, D.S.O., to the Minister of National Defence or anyone in the National Defence department, concerning the defence of the city of Halifax and of the Atlantic coast, from the beginning of the war.


Mr. RALSTON:: I have received a note to the effect that there is no record in the files of the department of any such correspondence having been received at national defence headquarters, and that includes the office of the minister. It may be possible that there were some communications of this sort to the district. Therefore, I am prepared to let the motion pass in case there might be some correspondence of that kind1 with the district. I want this to be subject to the necessary reservation as to the non-production of any document which it would be against the interests of public security to disclose.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If there were any such correspondence, it would not be in the public interest to disclose it.
Motions for Papers


Jean-François Pouliot: What does the hon. gentleman know about it?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not know anything about it, but I think I know as much as the hon. gentleman.



MOBILIZATION OF INDIANS

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of the legal opinions given to the Department of National Defence relative to the mobilization of Indians.


James Layton Ralston: I have made inquiries about this and I find that no opinion was given to the Department of National Defence with respect to this matter. But I have ascertained that there was sent to the Department of National Defence an opinion that was given to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie King). I have consulted the Secretary of State for External Affairs and I am quite willing to have the motion pass, if it is understood that it refers to that document. Again, this will be subject to the provision as to whether it is a matter of public policy to produce an opinion from the Department of Justice to the Department of External Affairs.


Jean-François Pouliot: I rise to a question of privilege. This motion does not concern the Department of National Defence; it is directed to the Department of National War Services. It reads:
Copie des opinions legales donnees au minis-tere des services nationaux de guerre relative-ment a la mobilisation des Indiens.


James Layton Ralston: It has reference to the Department of National Defence.


Jean-François Pouliot: There is something wrong somewhere; it must be the translation.
Motion stands.



NATIONAL FILM BOARD-ASSISTANT FILM COMMISSIONER

Mr. McGREGOR:: For a copy of all correspondence, papers, letters, telegrams and other documents in poses-sion of the civil service commission and exchanged between the national film board and the civil service commission relative to the establishment of the position of assistant film commissioner, national film board, and to the appointment of Itoss McLean to the above noted position.



ST. JEROME, QUE., MILITARY CAMP

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, agreements and other documents exchanged between the government, the federal departments and any person or persons, with respect to the

construction of the military training camp at St. Jerome, Quebec. Also a copy of all invoices and paysheets in connection with this construction.


James Layton Ralston: I am going to ask that this motion be allowed to stand. I should like to speak to the hon. member himself about it. The house will see that this would require a tremendous amount of detail in the way of invoices, pay sheets and correspondence. I am sure the hon. member's desire for information can be satisfied with much less information than is called for here.
Motion stands.



PRIVILEGE-MR. POULIOT REFERENCE TO STATEMENT OF MR. HARRIS (DANFORTH) IN DEBATE ON MARCH 20

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. The hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris), whom I would call our Billy Sunday, in his weekly lecture, which is reported at page 1496 of Hansard, named certain hon. members, including the hon. member for Temiscouata. He coupled my name with the names of other hon. members, and then went on to say:
Listening to their speeches I sometimes wonder what good they are doing the general cause. This letter says: "The last two nights Lord Haw-Haw has really been"-to use his own language-"razzing Mr. Churchill."
I have not been razzing Mr. Churchill; I have been praising him, as appears on page 1471 of Hansard. We are fortunate in having in this house members who represent various professions. I asked one of my colleagues who is a medical doctor what would be the best cure-
Georges Parent: Order. I understand the hon. member is raising a question of privilege in connection with the remarks of the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris). Would the hon. member refer simply and solely to those remarks which he claims are a matter of privilege?


Jean-François Pouliot: I was wondering when one was suffering from neurasthenia what would be the best remedy, and I was going to prescribe beef, iron and wine. I asked a doctor and he said that what would be best would be a rat killer. Then I asked another colleague who is a druggist what was the best kind of rat killer, and he told me a cat.

Income and Corporation Tax



INCOME AND CORPORATION TAX


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize the governor in council to enter into agreements with the provinces respecting the vacation by them of the personal income and corporation tax fields for the duration of the war and to provide compensation therefor, and fiscal need subsidies in the ease of certain provinces, annually during the term of the agreement.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
I should like to propose to the house that by unanimous consent this resolution and the next one tbe adopted so that the bills based upon them may be given their first readings to-day. This would mean that I would have to change the form of the motion so that it would be a motion to go into committee, this day instead of at the next sitting. We cannot do that on either of these resolutions without the unanimous consent of the house. I do not see any reason, however, why that consent could not be given. My reason for asking this is that eight legislatures are in session and are considering the provincial legislation necessary to the authorization of these agreements. They are awaiting information as to the terms of the bills which will be introduced in this (house.
The bills are prepared and can be introduced to-day. If this is done it will enable the legislatures in the provinces to see the bills, and thus they would be greatly assisted. I am told it would be particularly of assistance to two of the provinces, Ontario and New Brunswick, and would help to expedite or facilitate the passage of the bills in those legislatures.
Hon. members who wish to discuss the matter may in both instances do so on second reading. At that time the fullest opportunity will be afforded; anything can be said on second reading or in committee after second reading of the bills. These resolutions are necessary of course as a technical preliminary to the introduction of the bills. I would ask the consent of hon. members that we go into committee to-day on this resolution and the following one, report the resolutions immediately and have first readings of the bills. Of course if anyone objects, it cannot be done; but if no one objects there is no reason why it should not be done.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, if the minister had used more diligence these resolutions would have been on the order paper a long time ago. There is just one limitation to that statement, and that is that one of the provinces had not entered into the final arrangements. I would like to point out to the minister that the time of the house in the debate on the address was taken up by nearly a hundred hon. members opposite, and the regular business of parliament was thus impeded for nearly a month. They took up three times as much time as hon. members on this side of the house, and their speeches on the plebiscite occupy three times as much space as that occupied by hon. members on this side. And yet the impression has gone out that we, and other hon. members on this side of the house, have sought to hold up government business. It is not true, and this occasion gives me the opportunity to say so.
The request which the minister now makes is quite reasonable. The legislatures are in session and they want to know the terms of the bills. To that I have no objection. But in withholding our objection in this instance we do not for one moment propose to give up our rights, nor do we propose that this procedure shall be taken by the government as a precedent for the violation of the rules of the house.
The minister has said there is no reason why we cannot debate the matter on the second reading of the bill. There is something in what he says, but it has been my experience that in the committee stage, by cross-examination and intelligent questioning, hon. members often bring out certain aspects of a public question which do not appear on the face of the motion. It is a valuable privilege accorded to members of parliament, and it is of value especially to those who are not promoting the legislation but are simply seeking information. It is a privilege which I say hon. members ought not to give up except in most exceptional cases.
I know the minister is anxious to have these bills introduced-and of course he does not propose to proceed with them until after the Easter vacation. We shall have ample time during the vacation to study the proposed legislation, and see what is in it. These agreements are most complicated. As opportunity has offered I have attempted to master



Income and Corporation Tax
some of them, and I can say that they are highly technical. They are full of legalities which will require the study of hon. members.
I cannot possibly study nine different agreements. I am trying to confine myself to one or two, and I would hope that hon. members on both sieves of the house, representing the various provinces, will take it upon themselves to get copies of these agreements and to study their effect upon their own provinces. After all we are not only citizens of Canada; we come from the various provinces, and I believe we should see how this matter affects our provinces.
I know the position with respect to New Brunswick, and it has not worked out according to plan. New Brunswick is giving up the income tax municipally-not provincially, because we have no provincial income tax. It is giving up corporation taxation, and the amount of taxes thus collected from us by the municipality is being transferred to the dominion treasury, and is being multiplied many times. I am not objecting to that, because this country is at war. But in New Brunswick we are being mulcted in new taxation to make up what is being transferred. I do not think anyone objects to the increase in rate of income tax we have to pay for federal war purposes. But I thought-and I think the country was led to believe-that the grants in aid made by the dominion to the provinces in lieu of the tax field vacated would be passed on in full to the municipalities. That, I believed, was the intention. What has happened? We are having new taxation in New Brunswick. It is taxation of a class or kind we never had before, taxation which under any name is additional taxation on real estate. And we will never be clear of it; I have made up my mind to that. After the field is vacated we shall have to pay the additional taxation, and I protest against that position.
So far as I am concerned I am quite agreeable to the minister doing what he wishes, subject to the reservations I have made.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, when a similar request was made a few days ago we acceded readily. But had we known that so many more bills were going to be brought before the House of Commons, and that so many more resolutions would have to be dealt with before the house rises, we certainly would have protested the long adjournment at Easter. It is, I suggest, a dangerous practice to allow to any extent the procedure which enables private members of parliament to scrutinize measures proposed by the government to pass away from us. I suggest that if we are to deal with very important

measures, including the loan to Great Britain, the passage of the portion of the war appropriation which will be required immediately, and these resolutions, we should agree to sit the first three days of next week.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No.


Thomas Miller Bell: And to go into these
matters, if they are sufficiently pressing.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Members have made their arrangements.


Thomas Miller Bell: I certainly think that
we as a House of Commons are making a great mistake if we readily agree to a procedure of this kind. As the leader of the opposition has said, earlier in the session there was a great deal of discussion of the plebiscite question; on the address, on the resolution, and on the bill itself. On the agricultural measures also we had a long debate, although may I remind the house that that was not because of any action on the part of the opposition. We had agreed that we would be satisfied with having the bills dissected in committee, but two or three hon. members on the government side of the house wished to speak, and therefore we exercised the same prerogative and the debate became prolonged.
I do not like the procedure proposed. We are going to agree to this under protest, but we hope that business at the end of the session or before a recess will not be brought to us in such a way that we shall be compelled to rush it though without what we consider to be proper and adequate consideration.


Ernest George Hansell: I am sure that our group desires to cooperate as much as possible in expediting the orderly and quick dispatch of the business of this house; and so far as I am personally concerned, and I believe I speak for this group, we will help the minister with regard to this particular measure by consenting to the passing of this resolution. But we do it under the conditions that the minister has already stated, that there will be the fullest possible discussion of the measure at a subsequent sitting, either on second reading or when the bill is in committee. Very often we have found that we are circumscribed in our discussion, and often cut off when we wish to debate some very important phase of a bill or resolution.
While I am on my feet may I mention another point, although in no spirit of criticism. We were somewhat alarmed the other evening when a resolution was suddenly passed and the matter slipped into committee without the knowledge of any

Income and Corporation Tax
hon. members in this corner. I do not know that it was anyone's fault in particular, except that the house was unusually noisy at the time. One or two of our group were prepared to speak on the resolution-I believe it was the one which now appears as number 10 on the order paper-before it went into committee, but the hour was late; there was a good deal of noise in the chamber, because we had just concluded another measure, and the item had gone into committee before we knew about it. May I suggest that the house should be a little more orderly at times when we are passing from one measure to another?
Occasionally I am rather annoyed at suggestions of government spokesmen that such and such a thing must be done because the thing is very urgent, that we must have the money for this, that and the other, and have it by a certain time-because there may be a recess, or because of some other possible contingency. It reminds me that not so long ago, when the war was on and a certain session of parliament was called, the session lasted only three hours. I was surprised that the government could run the war for a good many months afterwards without asking parliament for any money, and in the meanwhile win an election. It seems to me that after that experience the government has very little excuse for rushing anything through this house on the ground that it has to be put through or they will not be able to get the money.
Provided that we shall havfe the fullest opportunity of discussing this measure, our group are quite willing to cooperate with the minister in connection with this particular resolution.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: The Yukon territory gave up the personal income and corporation tax field on the understanding that what they surrendered would be made up to them, as is being done in the case of the provinces. The resolution mentions simply the provinces; is it intended to include the Yukon?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, Mr. Speaker, the Yukon is not included in this legislation. I will, however, look into the question, and if it is desirable to amend the bill, that might be done later. But the bill as drawn does not include the Yukon.


George Black: It should.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the reason for two bills? Is it because of the special grant to the maritime provinces? .
44561-97J


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. The second resolution is really part of the arrangement, but was not envisaged at the time the item was passed in the supplementary estimates last summer.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is the forty-five million dollars?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The three maritime provinces were quite content to enter into this agreement provided that they had some assurance that their Duncan and White commission subsidies would be maintained. As that has always been the understanding since those commissions brought in their reports, and as there has been a vote every year, and as the matter has always been regarded as settled, the government saw no objection to introducing legislation providing that these awards would take effect again after the termination of these agreements. I suggest that, if the house is agreeable to this course of procedure, we go into committee on both resolutions at once and report them both out. It is all by consent, anyway, and it will facilitate business.
I move that the house go into committee of the whole now on the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize the governor in council to enter into agreements with the provinces respecting the vacation by them of the personal income and corporation tax fields for the duration of the war and to provide compensation therefor, and fiscal need subsidies in the case of certain provinces, annually during the term of the agreement.
And also that the house go into committee of the whole now to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide statutory authority for the payment, as additional subsidies, to the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, of the amounts hitherto paid as special grants to the said provinces out of moneys voted annually by parliament, the said payments to be made annually after the termination of the agreements with the said provinces respecting the vacation by them of the personal income and corporation tax fields.
His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Bradette in the chair.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Chairman-


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bradette):: I shall have to read the motion.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Dispense.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is quite unnecessary to read the motion, quite unnecessary for the Chair even to put motions, because
Income and Corporation Tax

the rules have all gone into the discard. This is not the first time this session that the government has sought to take advantage of a squeeze play to throw the rules into the discard. In the instance which occurred last week, referred to by the member for Macleod, it is quite true that that item slipped through without hon. members knowing what was going on in the chamber, though so far as I was concerned I understood it. I wanted to help the minister out, as I do now, but I protest against ignoring the rules in this way. The rules are there; let us live up to them. The forty-minute rule was violated for weeks, and now His Honour the Speaker is enforcing it; but the government has given the worst possible example by bringing down this legislation in this way.
The minister said that there were eight legislatures in session dealing with the matter; one is in recess. As I understand it, most of the eight provinces have dealt with the matter. I understand it has gone through the New Brunswick legislature.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is not my information.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Perhaps I am wrong. It has gone through in Nova Scotia, has it not? At all events, this matter has been held up, I believe-this is perhaps only a shrewd guess-because of the opposition of Ontario. I think that is true. But the legislation in the other eight provinces will not be changed in any degree because of failure of this resolution or of these two bills to get through. It has been due entirely to the opposition of Ontario, and there is no harm in letting that be known, if it is so. The minister is bound to put through this legislation with respect to the other eight provinces at any rate, because of the signed agreements. The position is closed so far as this parliament is concerned.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There is only one agreement signed, and that is with regard to British Columbia.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The terms are agreed upon. I have read the correspondence with New Brunswick. They came back and came back and came back to get a little more, a little more, a little more. And the minister gave way little by little by little. They got a lot. They got so much that it has whetted their appetite and to-day we have the little province of New Brunswick, with less than 500,000 people, budgeting for double the amount of the budget of that province in 1935, seven years ago-this in war time with all these other taxes piling up on the people of the province in the form of increased income tax, national defence tax and every other kind of tax. The province of New Brunswick is

budgeting for $11,000,000. At the same time the Minister of Finance calls on everyone to tighten his belt, to reduce expenditures. The two things do not add up or make sense at all, and I call upon the Prime Minister, I call upon members of the government if they have influence with their followers in New Brunswick to endeavour to induce the provincial government to let up on the poor taxpayer. We cannot live down there without any war industries. We have not received one-half of one per cent of the war contracts that have been awarded by the Department of Munitions and Supply, and it is just like pulling eye teeth to get anything now.
The Minister of Munitions and Supply has always taken the ground that we have no power in New Brunswick. Let me tell him something. In the county of Victoria there is a water-power development where, I am told, 15.000 horse-power is going to waste. If Canadian industry does not take that power, it will soon be under export to the state of Maine. That water power is available, 15,000, if that is the correct amount- and I have no means of checking. The information however must be easily available. If that water power were utilized we could have, on the upper stretches of the Saint John river, some important war industries, but we have nothing. They will not build wooden ships, and they can hardly get contracts for wooden boxes down there. They say the costs are too high. That is something I should like to have investigated. On the other hand the manufacturers of Ontario, who are making boxes for munitions, can go to New Brunswick and buy raw material and transport it clear up to Ontario and process the lumber and put it into the form of wooden boxes and get all kinds of contracts from this government. My hon. friend the member for Renfrew South (Mr. McCann) says they work faster and cheaper. I do not believe it. Man for man they are not a bit better than our men. I see the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) applauding. He knows I am right, and he knows, so far as his country is concerned, I am right too.
Let us be frank about this matter. There is something wrong about the layout, about distribution. We have always had it thrown at our heads that we have no cheap power in New Brunswick. If we could get the machinery to double the capacity of the government-owned plant at Minto mines, which the ministry of the Hon. J. B. M. Baxter established in New Brunswick, where they burn nothing but slack coal, we could produce power in that province cheaper than it can be produced by hydro in Ontario. The cost of distribution

Income and Corporation Tax
might be a little more, I do not know; but this talk about lack of power is just so much poppycock. Let me tell the Prime Minister and the Minister of Munitions and Supply that the people of the country are sick, sore and tired of seeing so much industry centralized in the central provinces. There is a real grievance there and I call on the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. McNiven) to support me; I call on my friends from Alberta. Where is the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Edwards)? He spoke about this matter last year. He discussed the centralization of industry and talked about water power on the Bow river. Not a yip out of one of them to-day.


Mr. TURGEON:: The leader of the opposition complained about so many members speaking in debate. If we spoke on this matter to which he is referring would he complain?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not understand the hon. member's question. It was one of those catch questions intended to divert one. I do not pay attention to that kind of question. I am serious about this matter.
The people of New Brunswick are disappointed and disgusted. The provincial legislature debated this matter the other day, and it was pointed out how little we have. A gentleman in my community who made shells in the last war-he had of course disposed of his machinery and plant but he knew the technique, and was able to get skilled mechanics-thought he could do a patriotic thing as well as give employment in communities where there was not a single factory, by making shells. He sought a contract to make shells. He had arranged for the working capital and he thought he knew where he could get the new machines. It took him a solid year before he got started. When he did get into production I am bound to say the department helped him. I give them that credit, but it was on a small scale. This story can be repeated in many small communities in New Brunswick. I entreat the minister-I have scolded, I have tried to cajole, now I entreat him-to endeavour to do something in the distribution of these war industries, something must be done for the small provinces, for New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. 1 do not know what could be done for Prince Edward Island, whether they could be given industrial employment or not. If the Prime Minister does not do something about it he is going to have another maritime question on his hands, another siege of maritime rights. I remember we had them here in the early twenties. I always admired the way the Prime Minister handled the delegation that
came to Ottawa headed by little Johnny Murphy of Halifax. When the Prime Minister got through with him he just did not know where to go. The Prime Minister asked him where he was going if he went out of confederation, and he had no answer. I may have been a long time in offering my congratulations upon the manner in which the Prime Minister handled that delegation, but I do so now. I am glad there were no Conservatives leading that crusade.
I implore the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe)-metaphorically I am on my knees to him-to look into the situation in New Brunswick and see if he cannot do something. There is 15.000 horse-power going to waste on the Aroostook river in New Brunswick. I am sure the Maine people will be after that power. If it is once diverted, good-bye; we shall never get it back.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Is there a power plant there?


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is, and a good deal of that power is going across the line. It was promoted by international interests and they were entitled to some of that power, because the source of the Aroostook river is in Maine. It just happens that nature, or Lord Ashburton when making his famous treaty, had foresight enough to keep the power site in Canada, not in Maine.
I am only doing my duty to my province in calling attention to this local situation. I tell the minister that there are possibilities there; will he please look into the matter and see if something cannot be done, because the people are greatly dissatisfied.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Department of Munitions and Supply has not been neglectful of New Brunswick. I know of no instance in which an attempt to move industry into a province has met with as little success as it has in New Brunswick. One of my assistants was one of the first appointees of the war supply board; he has been with me ever since, and I charged him with the responsibility of seeing whether that section of the county could not be brought forward in the manufacture of munitions. But for example we find in Saint John a shipbuilding industry and a stevedoring industry of tremendous importance to the war. We have never yet been able to get the number of mechanics for the shipyard or the number of stevedores for that plant in the busy season to let them operate at anything like capacity. I e^n tell him that a company of which he is a director, or was until recently-I think he still is-undertook to build a chemical plant in the northern part of the province. We went full out in assisting
Income and Corporation Tax

that development; we wanted it. What happened? A company in the central provinces quoted a cheaper price on the chemicals, and the company I am speaking of decided not to go ahead with the war production.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister had better put it in this way, that the Central Canada company made the price so attractive by a price reduction that it would have been folly to go on with it. I was all for it; I tried to do all I could to help.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I was all for it too. We
needed the chemical, and I think that company should have gone through and helped out in the war situation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That company could not do it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: 
Richard Burpee Hanson: I did not say undeveloped. It is developed.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Is there horse-power available there that you could buy over the counter?
fMr. Howe.1


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not sure of that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We shall have to find that out. But in every part of Canada we have attempted to develop industry, and the more difficult the problem the greater has been our attempt. I do not know of any parts of the country which have received as much attention from our department as the prairie provinces and New Brunswick, because there a real problem was presented-first to find industries that could be set up, and second to organize the placing of industry in those areas. W'e have succeeded to a certain extent. The hon. member mentioned Calgary. I think Calgary has about all the industry to-day that it can absorb. He mentioned Regina. I think Regina has all it can absorb, more than it has ever had. He called upon certain other hon. members. We have not been neglectful; if the hon. member can produce anyone from his province who can take work and do it at anything like a reasonable price, or show us any industry that can be expanded, he need not beg us on bended knees, because we are looking for production and will be very glad to cooperate.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Since the hon. leader of the opposition has opened up this question for the third time I think it my duty and right to support the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) in regard to what he says has already been done for New Brunswick in forcing war industries in that section of Canada. One must not overlook the fact that New Brunswick has a population of 450,000 people, spread over a fairly large area. There are no great centres of population. The largest city is Saint John, with 66,000; the next is Moncton, with 22,000; then Fredericton, the capital, with 10,000, and towns ranging from 3,000 to 8,000 or 9,000. In the second place, unfortunately the industries we had years ago have been either abandoned or moved to Quebec, or as we say in the maritimes, to upper Canada.
When war broke out and we went into the manufacture of munitions, the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) was good enough to ask the people of New Brunswick what they could contribute to the war effort by way of munitions. First he requisitioned the services of the best men who could be mobilized, to advise and help him. Between myself and the citizens of New Brunswick-whom I considered and still consider the most public spirited one could find, irrespective of their political affiliations or allegiance, we advised him to select certain persons. As has been stated already, the minister now has as

Income and Corporation Tax
hjs first adviser and righthand man in his department a gentleman from New Brunswick who is not serving for a dollar a year, or for his expenses, but who is giving his full time to the country altogether without charge. In addition there are in the minister's department three New Brunswickers who have been asked to find out what industries might be opened in that province.
It is said that w'e should have some large industries. Well, in order to establish large industries we would have to import skilled labour. The minister has already said that with the small industries now in full operation in New Brunswick there is no spare skilled labour. We would have to provide housing accommodation. We -would have to provide machinery. The leader of the opposition has given us the example of a small undertaking in his own city, the capital of the province, in which case a year was required in order to get the necessary machinery.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, I did not say that. It took the man a year to get a contract and get going.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, it did.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: The Minister of Munitions and Supply will corroborate me, I am sure, when I say that it did not take this man a year to get a contract. It took him a year to satisfy the department that he would be able to carry out a contract, that he would be able to find the necessary machinery with which to equip his plant. I must say that not only that individual but others in the province were given the same undertaking or promise and were also advanced the necessary capital with which to place themselves in a position to carry out government contracts. We have shipbuilding in Saint John; one plant there employs a thousand men, and it would employ more men if it could get them. We have small industries, small munitions plants, disseminated all over the province, which are doing just as much as those operating them feel they can handle. They have been advanced capital in order to place themselves in a position to deliver the goods and execute their contracts. I consider that it is better in the interests of New Brunswick to have five or six or seven small munitions plants disseminated all over the province than to have one large plant located at one centre. I know there are now five munitions plants operating in a small way, producing goods of a quality not only satisfactory but
considered to be among the best by the inspectors and the department. With regard to boxes, it has been stated already that in order to get the manufacturers of New Brunswick to take contracts for shell boxes, special provision had to be made, and prices higher than would be paid in other parts of the country had to be allowed in order to enable these plants to take and execute contracts. To-day several contracts of this kind are being carried out in that province, and there would be more if there were more contractors to tender on this work.
With regard to the chemical plant which was mentioned by the minister, this was a project of great magnitude and importance, and we were all hoping that it would be located in New Brunswick. We thought it was work that -would be suited to that part of the country. Every effort was made to have it constructed there, but at the last moment someone offered to supply the material elsewhere at a much lower cost to the public treasury than it could be supplied by -the people whom we were trying to induce to go into the business. Thus we were faced with the fact that to locate the industry in New Brunswick would require a greater expenditure of public money for material than would be the case in another part of the country. Unfortunately, therefore, this proposition did not go through, and that industry was not located in New Brunswick. We also tried to secure another chemical industry of great magnitude for that province, but it was considered that the locality could not take care of such a large undertaking.
I agree that it is regrettable that there are not many more large war industries located in New Brunswick, but that is not the fault of the department or of the government. Unfortunately it is the result of local conditions which cannot 'be overcome. I submit that every plant available in New Brunswick to-day is working at full capacity, and much more work would be available if those operating the plants thought they could 'handle larger contracts of this kind. Therefore I submit that the leader of the opposition is not at all justified in trying to cast aspersions on the Minister of Munitions and Supply for not having given more attention to New Brunswick or for not having awarded the people of that province large war contracts.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have not much more to say, but I did not think I was casting any aspersions on the minister personally. I was not doing that, and I do not intend what I said to be interpreted in that way. Notwithstanding what the Minister of
Income and Corporation Tax

Fisheries or the Minister of Munitions and Supply may say, the fact remains that there is very little industry in New Brunswick. There was a great deal more industry there in days gone by than there is to-day. It is the old question of geography. The Minister of National Defence is looking at me, and he knows, as I do, that one reason why there is not more industry in the maritime provinces is our geographical position, the long haul required in connection with interprovincial trade.
We have had a great struggle to maintain what industries we have. I know something about the cotton industry in New Brunswick. The raw material has to be hauled via Chicago and the central provinces to New Brunswick, and 90 per cent of the output of the mills must be hauled back and marketed where the buying power is. I happen to know something about the confectionery business, and I feel quite sure that if the factories in Halifax and St. Stephen were burned down, they would never be rebuilt. The consuming public simply is not there. The main body of the consuming body is in the central provinces, and I fear that as time goes on this condition will become worse.


Mr. REID:: It will be worse after the war.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It may be worse after the war. I am sorry the minister made reference to my personal connection with the company which was considering this chlorine proposition. I do not think the affairs of that company should be debated in parliament. I did everything I could to get the management to take up that proposition. The plans were all completed, but the supplying corporation came in with an offer which made it impossible from an economic point of view for the company to go any further. The matter had to be dropped because the capital investment could not be made to pay. As a matter of fact, it was represented to me that after the construction period was over, this plant -would not maintain much steady employment. That was another factor. There is another angle to be considered; the supplying company must have been obtaining too much for their product.
I do not intend to debate this matter. The fact remains that public opinion in the province, no matter what its political type or character may be, is complaining, rightly or wrongly. This matter was the subject of a debate last week in the house of assembly, when the leaders of both parties brought up the matter. I know the provincial government of New Brunswick has been tiying to do something about it. They have had some

good men, and some not so good, come here. There is no substantial war industry in that province. They have never asked specially for the establishment in that province of some of these large government-owned industries, although I have always thought that since some of the products of these plants must of necessity go overseas, some of the plants should have been established in the maritime provinces rather than so far removed from the east coast, necessitating a long freight haul.


Thomas Reid: You have not as many men idle as we have in British Columbia.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am
sorry, but I do not know much about the situation in British Columbia. When I was in British Columbia last July things seemed to be humming. They have steel shipbuilding plants there, but of course there must be considerable change in the export trade from Vancouver due to the cessation of shipping on the Pacific. I have no doubt that there is a real problem there. I am just making a plea with respect to my own province, and if British Columbia finds herself in a worse plight, it is just too bad. I had a letter last week from a journeyman carpenter in Moncton, who told me that he had been employed on construction work at aerodromes and the like. He wanted to know what was going to be done to provide employment for the people of New Brunswick when this construction work was completed. I referred him to the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson), because he came from his constituency and I thought it was a good chance to put the matter up to him. I do not know what can be done about it.


Thomas Reid: I should like to have an answer before I return home at Easter.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Let us join forces; that is all I can suggest; let us have a coalition for the time being and do what we can. I hope the hon. member for New Westminster raises his voice in this connection. If he will speak for British Columbia, I will speak for New Brunswick. We are not satisfied at all. The minister has said that everyone who wanted a box contract, got one. I should like to tell him that a friend of mine, the president of a Liberal association of one of the counties of New Brunswick, has tendered many times.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: It would have been better if he had been a Tory.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Invariably the answer has been that his price is too high. I will give the minister his name in confidence

Income and Corporation Tax
because I do not want to give it here. He is a fine type of man, and I have been associated with him in one or two business enterprises. He is a good business man, and I cannot understand why he is not able to get down to the level of Ontario prices. There must be something wrong about the standard of wages in Ontario. I should be glad if the minister would have the timber controller or someone tell me why we cannot get more box contracts in New Brunswick. They are making shell boxes in Sackville, but it may be that they are better adapted to that work. The plant operated by the gentleman to whom I have reference is located in the Miramichi district, which has been one of the distressed areas for a long time.


Ralph Maybank: Before British Columbia and New Brunswick get together in a coalition I should like to interpose a wedge between them. I suppose if they do get together, there will not be anything left for the flat country from which I come. I noted that the last speaker lamented the fact that someone of Liberal persuasion could not get a contract. I think that is general throughout the country. I think every minister will say that the general complaint is that Liberals do not get the contracts. I am not the least bit concerned about whether a Liberal or a Tory gets a contract; all I want is to have the government bring about a better distribution of contracts than appears to obtain at the present time.
The Minister of Munitions and Supply says that it is not his business to distribute these contracts on any other basis than efficiency of production, and I agree entirely with him. I have spoken on this subject before. I remember the question came up in the house about six or eight months after the fall of France. I was able to say at that time that I thought the work of the Department of Munitions and Supply had been a series of splendid or brilliant improvisations. That is just about what it was. The department was forced to get things quickly, and to do so, turned to the area of centralized industry. Unquestionably that was the right thing to do. From the point of view of a department which is interested chiefly in getting out guns, ships and all kinds of equipment, I believe the attitude taken by the Minister of Munitions and Supply is not to be criticized.
On the other hand I do say that governments mu$t consider the social consequences of the courses they may follow. There is certainly too great a concentration of works here in the east, in that portion recently described
by one writer as "the wedge." He was referring to the district bounded by Montreal, North Bay and Windsor. Perhaps it might be called a triangle.
Now I hold in my hand a letter received either to-day or yesterday from the Industrial Development Board of Manitoba. I submit it is a reasonable letter, and I should like to place it on record as substantially expressing my own views with reference to this problem. The letter addressed to me, states:
Thi3 hoard desires to direct your attention to the situation in Manitoba with respect to lack of war production, idle plants and idle men, many with industrial experience.
Relief rolls which had decreased to a very considerable extent during 1941 are now on the increase, for example the number of families on relief in Winnipeg was 535 at the end of last October and has now increased to 710 and is growing every day.
Perhaps I should interject that it is usual in February and part of March for relief rolls to increase. That has been my experience in my constituency. Nevertheless that is a very heavy increase at this juncture of our national life. The letter continues:
The Labour Gazette shows there were 8,790 persons unemployed in Winnipeg, and 9,599 unemployed in Manitoba at December 31 last. The Hon. Errick Willis stated at a recent meeting that there are 1,200 unemployed carpenters in Winnipeg, and that is typical of the conditions amongst skilled men in this province.
Endeavouring to be completely accurate, may I point out that when I was in Winnipeg recently I spoke with the business agents of certain trade unions. They did not place the figure at 1,200, as did Mr. Willis. Rather they said they believed there were between 600 and 700 unemployed at that time. The letter continues:
Very few plants are in operation more than eight hours per day although capable of handling a wide variety of war requirements if given the opportunity.
After two and a half years of war only a very few plants have been built or appreciably extended to take care of war contracts of any amount. They include the cordite plant near Transcona, MacDonald Bros. Aircraft in Winnipeg and St. James, Dominion Bridge Company, Winnipeg, and the Manitoba rolling mills at Selkirk.
Although large numbers of our skilled workmen have gone east and west to fill positions in war industries in other provinces there still remain thousands on short time or without employment who naturally feel that they should be permitted to make their contribution toward the all-out war effort to which Canada and the empire is pledged. Apparently one of the reasons is that industry is far too concentrated in certain areas in the east while vast areas in the prairies are practically without war plants or war contracts. We are informed that Ontario produces 50 per cent of the manufactured goods made in Canada and Quebec 30 per



Income and Corporation Tax
cent, that is 80 per cent of Canada's manufacturing production is concentrated in two eastern provinces, leaving only 20 per cent for the other . seven provinces. Manitoba ranks fourth in manufacturing production for Canada but produces only 4 per cent of the total for the dominion. Many communities in the east are so congested with new industries and expanded industries that they are competing for each other's labour and housing has become such a serious problem that War Housing Limited is required to build new homes in those congested districts by the thousands. In Manitoba we have plants which have had very little or no opportunity of manufacturing or subcontracting for war supplies and thousands of skilled workmen whose homes are in the vicinities of these plants should be engaged in production in two or three shifts per 24 hours.
The number of plants in this province operating more than one shift can be counted on one's fingers. Plants in the east are surfeited with war orders which they are months behind in filling. The machine shops of the large paper companies are surfeited with work for war contracts while our machine shops are relatively at a standstill.
Manitoba has well exceeded its proportion of the dominion government's various drives for money, such as the first and second victory loans and war savings certificates.
I read to-day in a Winnipeg paper that in the recent drive they exceeded their quota by 50 per cent. The letter continues:
In addition it has very well, in proportion to its population, supported the three armed services although very badly depleting many farming communities of necessary farm labour in doing so. We feel that the dominion government should see that this provincial area receives a fair share of the war industrial expansion and production, in spending these vast sums of money collected for war purposes.
We have had a number of officials from various departments of the government in Winnipeg during the past few months and have laid these matters before them with the necessary facts and figures. Mr. Sheils assured us just a few' days ago that full data is on record in the departments at Ottawa, from which comparisons can be made and which give the facilities, labour, plants, and "war production of various Canadian centres.
The next paragraph need1 not be read, because it simply points out that this letter is being sent to other persons. The final paragraph merely expresses the hope that it will be possible to work out some plan more advantageous to Manitoba.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps I was not listening as closely as I might have been, but I did not hear the hon. member mention by whom the letter had1 been signed.


Ralph Maybank: I had not read the actual signature, but I did point out in the beginning that it came from the Industrial Development Board of Manitoba. It is over the signature of the chariman. -who is Mr. J. N. T. Bulman.

I do not read this letter or speak in support of its statements in any spirit of blaming anyone. I do not believe the Department of Munitions and Supply can be expected to pay attention to anything except efficiency of production. That department can hardly be expected to place contracts with a view to their social implications. I do insist, however, that some department of government ought to pay attention to the social factor. Surely one need not argue that a large number of unemployed spells "waste"; there can be no getting away from that fact. The unemployment of machinery spells "waste", and waste is one of the things against which we are struggling.
It is true there are more industrial workers at work in Manitoba to-day than there were last year. Something has been done. But it is also true much more can and should be done by this government. It is possible to place work in the country with some regard to the social importance of its placement; and I submit that this should be done.
I do not wish to be in a position of endeavouring to gouge out something for the province of Manitoba. If it can be agreed that the condition of affairs as set out in the letter I have read represents what is fair and just, then I shall be satisfied1. But it does not seem to me that such a condition does represent fair play; nor do I think it represents wisdom on the part of the government.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Chairman, would it be
unreasonable to ask hon. members to defer this discussion to some other order of business? There are two resolutions before the house, and we are dealing with them by consent. Each relates to tax agreements with provinces. I have been hoping minute by minute that this discussion would not become unduly protracted, but present indications are that we are going to have somebody speaking from each province, and that perhaps several other hon. members will ask that more industries be sent to their provinces. Nothing to my mind could be further removed from the subject matter of the resolution than this type of speech. I would respectfully ask hon. members to make these speeches under a resolution or a motion of some kind where they would be in order, instead of to-day. This can go on indefinitely; it is the sort of debate which can continue for days and weeks, and my object will be frustrated entirely if I do not get these resolutions passed, for which I asked consent to proceed.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Do I understand that
we are out of order in discussing this particular matter now?

Income and Corporation Tax


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I may state, following the statement of the Minister of Finance, that to speak at random on industries in different parts of the country would be out of order at this time. We allow a certain amount of latitude, but if the discussion becomes general it would certainly be out of order.


James Arthur Ross: I think this resolution affects our province very much, and I should like to take just a minute or two to substantiate what the hon. member for Winnipeg South has said.


James Lorimer Ilsley: On a point of order, if this
hon. member speaks, then I see no reason why all should not.


James Arthur Ross: I am agreed.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am raising a point of order now.


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland) :: I should like
to say something on this question, but I will defer it. There is, however, a matter *with respect to the agreement as it applies to the maritime provinces; I refer particularly to Nova Scotia. Why is it nesessary to include the special grants under the Duncan and White commissions in the amounts payable to the different provinces? There is, for example, for Nova Scotia $1,300,000 which it has been receiving for a number of years. Why should these sums be added to the compensation being paid to these provinces at this time under the agreement? In order to have the agreement made acceptable to the maritime provinces, an undertaking is given by means of special legislation that the provinces will not be prejudiced thereby, but these sums will be made payable to the provinces subsequent to the termination of this agreement. Why is the amount not deducted from the amount now payable and made a matter of permanent legislation at this time?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The amounts have been voted year after year by special grant, and all special grants, including these, to the provinces were discontinued. The maritime provinces took the ground that their special grants were in a little different position from the other special grants, and it was considered that the best way to recognize the principle and at the same time follow along the line on which we started was to pay the amounts under the agreements, amounts large enough to include the special grants, until the termination of the agreements, and then guarantee the continuance of them afterwards by this legislation. The dollar result is exactly the same, whether we do it this way or the hon. gentleman's way, but to do it this way fits in to 44561-98^	.
what we did last year; it fits into the item which was passed in the supplementary estimates, and into the general scheme; and since it comes to the same thing financially, and since it gives the same assurance for the future, it would be awkward to change it now.


Percy Chapman Black: It leaves the impression that the maritime provinces are receiving a very much larger sum than they are in reality.


Richard Burpee Hanson: On the
point of the New Brunswick agreement and the Nova Scotia agreement, there is a special item in the New Brunswick agreement of some $300,000 odd which is given for no apparent reason, that I can locate in the schedule. What is the reason for that extra $300,000?
Is it on the ground of necessity?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, the fiscal need.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And was the minister aware that, at the same time as he was giving that $300,000 the government of New Brunswick were proposing to take out of the taxpayers additional sums by way of taxation beyond what they have been taking? The point of the whole thing is that the agreement is being defeated by provincial government policy. Instead of the taxpayers getting relief, they are paying a much larger , sum here in federal income tax, and new taxation is being imposed on them provincially. For example, $250,000 is levied from the people under the guise of a tuberculosis tax; in reality it is a tax on the poor man's tobacco. Then there is this question of freezing the amount of the income tax and the corporation tax at the 1940 level, which is grossly unfair, having regard to the fact that more money is being spent in the province, and to the consequent increase which would come to the province and the municipalities from that increased flow. This is the cause of a good deal of trouble there. It is one of the reasons why we have some new municipal taxes, and it is something of which the minister should have taken account. Why was the figure frozen at the 1940 level? Why should there not have been some flexibility in that amount, so that the provinces would be reimbursed to the extent that they will suffer in any given year by reason of vacating the field, rather than that they should suffer only the loss on a given year which is below the maximum? The minister gets my point, I am sure?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Perfectly.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If this prodigious spending goes on, the loss of revenue in 1942 to the provinces or the
Income and Corporation Tax

municipalities will be still greater, and we shall have more taxes to cany on the public services.
I am bound to say that the municipalities are making a manful effort to keep down the assessment. That of the city of Fredericton is just SI ,000 more than it was a year ago, and the city of Moncton has reduced its municipal assessment by something like $180,000-which is of course most commendable. But the province has raised its budget by half a million dollars, and we are in the unhappy position not only of finding ourselves paying an increased income tax, which we are glad to do, but of being doubled up in the municipal field. The whole thing is wrong, contrary to the spirit of the Sirois report, contrary to the intent of the original municipal agreements; and this government does nothing, as far as I can see, to prevent it. New Brunswick should be spending less as the demands for the federal treasury grow, and yet we are spending more.
I understand the premier of Nova Scotia made the statement that the agreement which they have signed or proposed to sign provides much less than they hoped to get. What was the spirit in which these people came here? Did they come here to ask for a great deal in the hope that they would get something more than had been offered? What was the demand made by Nova Scotia? I have not had time to go through the correspondence. I do not understand what that position is, but I think wTe are entitled to be enlightened, and this is the time for it-on the resolution stage.


Thomas Reid: I understand that British
Columbia has signed an agreement. Has the $750,000 given to that province in 1933 been wiped out?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is discontinued.
Mr. BLACIvMORE: I have no desire to hold up the resolution, but there must be some place where the representatives of the seven provinces that are being fleeced can express their feelings and demand of the government that something be done about the matter. There are seven provinces that are simply paying the shot. Money is being collected which they are gladly giving in the way of loans, and money is being spent largely in the two central provinces. We do not desire to do anything that would militate against the two central provinces, with whom we have no quarrel, but every province lives largely on the product of its industry. If money is to be collected from Alberta, or Nova Scotia, or New Brunswick, or any of

the other seven provinces, with the result that industries and businesses in those provinces are unable to sell their goods, and then the money is spent in the two central provinces, there is being created a situation which is going to wreck the country. All I wish to do is to protest against the whole set-up. I am not satisfied that this is the place to do it, but since the leader of the opposition has raised the question, I agree with him.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: It seems
strange to me that this resolution has been brought in without a statement from the minister. Perhaps he intends to make a carefully prepared statement when he introduces the bill, and I hope that on that occasion he will give us a clear picture of what will be involved in relation to those provinces which are vacating the personal income tax and corporation tax fields, and will tell us what compensation they will receive. If copies of all agreements can be made available, and a statement given showing how the different provinces will be affected, what the quid pro quo will be,-it will be very helpful. In fact, it would have been better to have had that statement when the resolution was being introduced. Had we had such a statement we would have been able to study the whole situation with regard to the agreements as they will affect the different provinces. However, if the minister intends to make a statement later, that will be satisfactory.


James Lorimer Ilsley: To anyone reading the bill, it will convey a great deal of information. It will set out the amounts payable to each province, first, in compensation for the tax fields, and, second, by way of fiscal need subsidy. The agreements, as they had been drafted, were laid on the table of the house some weeks ago. and hon. gentlemen can get those and read them. I wish them joy reading those agreements, because they are very long and complicated; nevertheless, they do convey the information which hon. members are seeking. When I bring down the bill I shall make a detailed statement of the whole matter.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: By provinces?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. I cannot remember having been engaged in a more comprehensive or intricate set of transactions and it has required an immense amount of work and time. It would defeat my purpose entirely and would be out of place for me to attempt to make a long and complex statement in connection with this resolution at the present time. I thought this would be regarded as a technical preliminary to the bill. The hill

Privilege-Mr. Mackenzie King
itself will start hon. members off and they can study the agreements. When I introduce the bill I shall make a careful statement on the whole matter. _


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister should have made the statement at the very outset-that is the proper time-on the principle of the matter, and then an opportunity could have been given to ask questions. We will let it go this time, but not again.


Thomas Reid: Have the agreements been tabled? If so, where can we see them? I have in mind particularly the one in connection with British Columbia.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The one that has been signed has not been tabled; it was signed only on Friday. I will table that right away; there is no reason why it should not be placed on the table. The draft agreements were tabled some weeks ago.


Mr. GILLIS:: Does the minister intend to bring this bill in before the recess?


James Lorimer Ilsley: To-day. I want it given first reading to-day so that the legislatures can have a look at it. Two of them have made a request and one is anxious to see it.


Clarence Gillis: When will the agreements be
available?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The draft agreements are already a part of the records of the house. The only completed agreement is the one with British Columbia, and at the request of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid), I will table a copy of it tomorrow or the next day, as soon as it can be prepared, but before the recess at any rate. The other agreements will be tabled as and when they are completed.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Will the debate on the bills take place before recess, or will the bills be simply introduced.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Just introduced.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: I notice that there is a matter before the legislature of Saskatchewan in the form of the second reading of a bill.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: Has the agreement been completed with Saskatchewan? '


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the position so far as that province is concerned?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think the government has introduced a bill authorizing it to enter into an agreement with the dominion.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Ilsley thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 16, to authorize the governor in council to enter into agreements with the governments of the provinces of Canada respecting the vacation by the provinces of the personal income tax and corporation tax fields for the duration of the war, and Bill No. 17, to provide for the payment of additional subsidies to the maritime provinces.	.
Motion agreed to and bills read the first time.



CANADIAN ARMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Arthur Ross: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), who I notice is not at the moment in his seat. The question is based on an article in the Ottawa Journal of March 21, 1942, under the headline "Canadian army forces to use horses for transport." Will the Minister of National Defence say whether or not this is correct? If it is, it would affect agriculture throughout Canada.


Georges Parent: I think that question should be placed on the order paper.



WAR EXPENDITURES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Miller Bell: 1 should like to ask the Prime Minister if he has been able to complete arrangements for the appointment of the war expenditures committee.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As a matter of fact I have not, but looking at my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) I think he and I shall be able to do so very soon.



PRIVILEGE-MR. MACKENZIE KING

[Stage Direction]
REFERENCE TO ADVERTISEMENT PUBLISHED IN THE NEWSPAPER "LA PRESSe"
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: On a matter of privilege, on Friday last the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe)-I am sorry he is not in his seat at the present time-rose
War Appropriation

on a question of privilege in reference to an advertisement published in the newspaper La Presse. He spoke at page 1485 of Hansard, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege I wish to call the attention of the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) to an advertisement published at the expense of the dominion government in the great Montreal daily La Presse. The concluding words of that advertisement are as follows.
And he gave the concluding words. I have before me the advertisement which appeared in La Presse to which the hon. member referred, and I notice he quoted the words near the end of the advertisement but refrained altogether from quoting the following words which appear equally on the face of the advertisement:
Get espace cst graeieusement ofTert, comme contribution a 1'effort de guerre du Canada, par Hull Iron & Steel Foundries Limited.
Translating that I would say it means that:
This space has been donated as a contribution to the war effort of Canada by the Hull Iron and Steel Foundries Limited.
It is not an advertisement that is being paid for by the government of Canada-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Indirectly it is.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, neither directly nor indirectly. It is paid for by this company as a contribution to Canada's war effort, and 1 submit that the hon. member ought to have been, if he was not, fully cognizant of the statement which appears as I have read it, and should have communicated that fact to the house. As a matter of fact he should not have raised the question at all.



WAR APPROPRIATION


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 15, for granting to his majesty aid for the purpose of financing United Kingdom war requirements in Canada and for national defence and security.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Bradette in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Is it
possible under the wording of this bill, especially section 3, subsection 3, that all the billion dollars might be taken up by acquiring the sterling balances held by the foreign exchange control board? I do not know what the state of the account is but the way the bill reads,

that could be done. It will be remembered that the billion dollar credit is in addition to the 8700 million conversion-to use that for lack of a better term. The bill as drafted provides a blanket additional power and might be used to take up the whole billion dollar gift.
Perhaps the minister would prefer to deal with it section by section, but it goes to the principle of the measure, and this is the only time we can ask questions on the principle in committee.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Whatever could be done under the bill, there is no doubt whatever as to what will be done.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then why not say "will be" instead of "may be"? There should be some limitation, because this may not be a gift at all in a sense for the future. It is quite possible that if the foreign exchange control board had a billion dollars' worth of sterling, the government under this measure could acquire it all and there would not be anything more. This was loosely drafted.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. gentleman is objecting to the word "may" throughout?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, it is a blanket power; it does not go to the objective as stated by the minister.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is the usual way to draw bills.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is no answer.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am sure if I were to go to the justice department and ask them to spell it out, their advice would be, "No, leave it that way." I am stating what will be done. I will read this over critically, having the hon. gentleman's observations in mind; it is possible there would be power to do some queer things with this that nobody has any thought of doing. But I repeat what will be done. There is a considerable amount of sterling in the hands of the foreign exchange control board; it is perhaps not far from a billion dollars; but it is proposed to convert 8700 million worth of it into a loan, and it is proposed to repatriate $295 million of securities, so that takes up $995 million worth of that sterling. Therefore there will be a small amount left, perhaps seventy or eighty million dollars' worth, that will be retired out of the billion dollar gift, leaving something over $200 million available to the United Kingdom for the purchase of goods and supplies in this country. That is the programme, and this bill empowers the government to carry out that programme. The only point as I understand

' War Appropriation
it is that the hon. gentleman says that imperative words rather than empowering words should be put in this bill.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is not the point. I understand the legal position very well.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Order. We are now on clause 1, short title.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But it is
the only clause under which the principle of the bill may be discussed. If you do not let us discuss it on that, we cannot discuss the principle at all in committee. Possibly it might be done on the preamble. The bill now before us does not carry out the government's proposals. It could switch the money. We have heard of this sort of thing being done before. I remember when moneys were voted to the Canadian National Railways prior to 1930 for capital expenditures for the railway and I do not know how many millions were put into the Prince boats. They were switched by the management with the consent of the Minister of Railways of that day, and parliament knew nothing about these ships until the contracts were let. I am not accusing the minister of bad faith, but there is concrete evidence of what has happened in the past as to what may be done. I do not know how much sterling the foreign exchange control , board has at the moment; but if they had a billion dollars, this money could be used for that, and there would be no gift at all.


Mr. MARTIN:: Is it subsection 3 about
which the hon. gentleman is worried


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes; that is the pertinent section. This is a blanket power that will enable the government to do anything with this billion dollars.


James Lorimer Ilsley: As I said, the point is that
the hon. gentleman suggests an imperative word instead of an empowering word.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I suggest
a new set-up altogether, to cover the concrete proposals the minister gave parliament. The gentlemen who drew up this bill did not carry out the thesis of the minister when he addressed the house at the resolution stage, except in part. I think that is a fair statement. There need not be any gift at all, if they want to take up the sterling exchange owned at the present time by the foreign exchange control board.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not admit that for one moment, and the hon. gentleman has to prove it if he wants it to stick. He has made that assertion several times; he has repeated the statement but he has not backed it up by any
argument. I have been trying to find out what he is basing it on, but I cannot. This is what I base my denial upon. On page 3 section 3 subsection 3, at lines 7, 8 and 9, the words "which are not required for the purposes of sections four and five of this act" are found. I understood the hon. gentleman to argue that because subsection 3 reads in this way-
The minister may acquire from the foreign exchange control board all sterling balances held by the said board at the date of the commencement of this act . . . and may pay for the sterling balances so acquired out of the moneys appropriated by subsection one of this section. . . .
-under that the minister might take the whole billion dollars and pay for the sterling balances, leaving nothing for the gift.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is the point.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is as I understand the hon. gentleman's argument. That argument leaves out of account the words which I skipped as I read the section, which were
these:
. . . which are not required for the purposes of sections 4 and 5 of this act and for the current operations of the said board. . . .
Therefore the power which is given in that connection is limited and cut down by the words "which are not required1 for the purposes of sections 4 and 5 of this act." The government cannot use any part of that billion dollars which is required for the purposes of sections 4 and 5 of the bill. Therefore I have to take out of that billion dollars, first of all, the $700,000,000. I have to apply sterling to that $700,000,000 first, before I take this billion dollars to purchase sterling.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Of course it is not imperative upon the government to act under either section 4 or section 5. Perhaps the minister is on sound ground when he says he can take only the balance. But supposing they only take part of what is provided under sections 4 and 5; there is nothing imperative on the minister to repatriate any of these securities. It may be good policy, and I have no doubt the minister will do it, but I am objecting to the way in which the scheme is drawn up. In drafting these measures why do you not appropriate first? You have put this in reverse. Why do you not appropriate the $700,000,000 first, then so much for repatriation, and say that the remainder shall be used in a certain way? I am asking this for information: is it quite clear' that there is a billion dollars plus the $700,000,000 altogether? *


James Lorimer Ilsley: Certainly.
War Appropriation


Richard Burpee Hanson: And the $295,000,000?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then the whole thing would come to almost two billion dollars on that basis, would it not? That is what it would amount to, if you add the three amounts together?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am trying to clarify the situation. A billion dollars is provided for in section 3, subsection 1. Then subsection 3 says:
The minister may acquire from the foreign exchange control board all sterling balances held by the said board at the date of the commencement of this act, which are not required for the purposes of sections 4 and 5. . . .
Is it clear that before he can take those sterling balances held by the board, he must provide for the $700,000,000? The $700,000,000 is in addition to the billion dollars, is it not?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: So that makes $1,700 million, and in addition there is the $295,000,000, for repatriation. Those are to be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund, subject to the proviso in the last part of section 5, subsection 1. I suppose I am stupid, but I just cannot see how much is going into the gift, when you take out the sterling.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: A billion dollars.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, it will be only part of the billion dollars; something has to be taken out for sterling already acquired for this account overseas. The $700,000,000 visualized in section 4 is over and above the billion dollars; I think that is quite clear, and that is what the minister stated in his opening speech. Then it is the remainder of the sterling balance, after the $700,000,000, that may be paid under section 3, subsection 3.


James Lorimer Ilsley: And the $295,000,000 in securities.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the position in dollars and cents? Perhaps that will illustrate it. How much sterling does the foreign exchange control board hold to-day, and is it likely to be increased during the period of this law? We will put it in that way.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The board now has, I believe, $1,087,000,000 of sterling. That sterling will be retired, as I have said, by the proceeds of the $700,000,000 loan. That will retire $700,000,000 of it. The securities will have a

value of about $295,000,000. That makes $995,000,000 of it. The balance will be retired out of the gift.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That will be seventy or eighty million?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will that be frozen at that figure; will there be any more accumulated by the foreign exchange control board which will be payable out of the billion dollars?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No; not in the way in which it has been done in the past, at least, because there will be no occasion for it. The dollars will be supplied by the gift.


Richard Burpee Hanson: To the
extent of the gift?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Exactly. It will not be necessary for us to furnish dollars by the purchase of sterling. We will furnish dollars without purchasing sterling.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. TRIPP:: Will foodstuffs include wheat?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That matter would come
under section 3 and we are still on section 1. I think we should confine our discussion to this section, and perhaps the hon. gentleman will renew his question when we reach section 3.


Mr. ISNOR:: When we rose at 6 o'clock
the leader of the opposition was inquiring from the Minister of Finance as to whether this bill involved an amount of two billion dollars, or whether it covered an amount of one billion dollars. I think the Minister of Finance should clear up this misunderstanding which I believe exists, not only in the mind of the leader of the opposition but in the minds of a great many people throughout the country. I think he would be paying a tribhte to the people of Canada if he explained that this was a gift outright to Great Britain of one billion dollars. As I understand the financial background, by March 31, 1943, Great Britain will owe something like $2,500,000,000 for food, munitions and general supplies. Great Britain owed Canada $1,500,000,000, which has been paid with securities and cash, leaving an outstanding balance of $1,000,000,000. That is the picture as I see it. I believe there is confusion because of the manner in which the resolution was framed. In one part it refers to the gift of $1,000,000,000 which is a generous gesture, not

War Appropriation
on the part of the government but on the part of the people of Canada, as stated by the hon. member for Davenport.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The gift is SI,000,000,000, no more. The indebtedness of Great Britain to Canada, if sterling may be considered an indebtedness-and in one sense it is-up to the present is $1,087,000,000, as I said this afternoon. That indebtedness is not being cancelled except to the extent-this afternoon I said $70,000,000 or $80,000,000, but it may be $90,000,000-of $90,000,000 which will be subtracted from the $1,000,000,000 gift, so that the total gift will be just $1,000,000,000. This $700,000,000 is not an additional gift, any more than the $295,000,000 representing securities.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They are
converted.


James Lorimer Ilsley: You are merely converting
$700,000,000 of sterling indebtedness into a dollar indebtedness; and as regards the $295,000,000 more of sterling indebtedness, you are getting that paid by repatriating $295,000,000 worth of dominion and Canadian National Railways securities in Great Britain. The difference between $995,000,000 and $1,087,000,000 is $92,000,000, which will be represented by sterling in our hands. That sterling we return to Great Britain against the gift, charging it to the gift or subtracting that amount from the gift.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is a
cancellation to that extent.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is a cancellation to that
extent, but it does not increase or decrease the gift; it simply means that the period which the gift covers began earlier this month instead of at the present time. It will run probably until early in 1943, and when the gift is exhausted it will remain to be determined what we shall do then. We may begin accumulating sterling, but that is a matter for later consideration.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How much of this billion dollars is it estimated will come back to the public treasury in taxation?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No estimate has been made of that, and I do not think it would be possible to make one.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What will the government do with the securities that are to be repatriated? Will they be kept in the government treasury or sold on the market?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The securities will not be put on the market. I think the securities of the Canadian National Railways will be held by the government as a charge against the
property of the system. The Dominion of Canada securities would be in our hands; we would owe ourselves.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The
dominion securities would be cancelled, but the Canadian National securities would be held by the government as a charge against the railways.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Right.


Richard Burpee Hanson: At par exchange or $4.45?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not understand that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You are buying them back at $4.45; are you going to charge them against the railway at that rate?


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: As I understand it, the rate of $4.45 does not enter into the picture at all; it is the net cost or purchase price.


Richard Burpee Hanson: When the railway comes to pay for the securities are you going to charge the full value, the cost to the government, or are you going to make a profit?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What is the actual market value of the Canadian National securities that are to be repatriated? I know they are guaranteed by the government, but what is the real value of these securities?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It varies with the security. Does the hon. gentleman want to know whether it will be 90, 95 or 96?


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There are many issues of these securities and I have not a list before me. They are vested in the British government at the market price and we take them over from the British government at that price, plus interest for the time they are in the hands of the British government.


Thomas Reid: I understand that in our debt structure are some old borrowings bearing interest at 3^ per cent, dating back many years and running twenty, thirty and forty years. These are payable in London, and I wonder whether some of them are being liquidated under this plan.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Everything in the hands of residents of the United Kingdom is being repatriated; that is, dominion securities and Canadian National Railways securities. Those would be all kinds of Canadian National Railways guaranteed and unguaranteed securities, in the hands of the British public.
War Appropriation


Thomas Reid: These were not Canadian
National Railways securities. These were borrowings which took place thirty or forty years ago, for which we have been paying 34 per cent interest. They were not Canadian National Railways securities, and I am wondering whether they will be liquidated in this amount.	They were borrowings by the
dominion government.


James Lorimer Ilsley: They are all being repatriated. All Canadian government and Canadian National	Railways securities are being
repatriated.


Mr. JACKMAN:: Are those securities which we are repatriating dollar pay or sterling pay?


James Lorimer Ilsley: They are both sterling and dollar-part of one and part of the other.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Did the minister answer the question of the leader of the opposition with respect to the difference between $4,863 and the amount mentioned here? This is an obligation on the debtor's books, in one instance on those of the Dominion of Canada and in the other, on those of the Canadian National Railways. The repurchase price is $4.45. Where does the difference of 10 per cent come in? Do we set it up as a profit? If we forget the gift end of the matter, there is really a profit on the transaction. When we became obligated the debt stood at a rate of $4.86f, and the rate here indicated is $4.45. With respect to the Canadian National Railways obligations there is a distinct profit of about 42 cents per pound sterling. We retire for $4.45 a debt for which we obligated ourselves to the extent of $4,863.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know whether I understand the hon. member's question. Let me laboriously outline the transaction. As I understand it, at some earlier time the Canadian National Railways borrowed a number of pounds from persons in the United Kingdom. They owe that number of pounds back.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: That refers to sterling securities.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Is that not what the hon. member is talking about?


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Dollar securities.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Is the hon. member talking about sterling securities?


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I asked first whether the obligations we were retiring were sterling pay or dollar pay. The minister replied that there were some of each. If the Canadian National Railways have dollar obligations which they

had1 incurred at $4,863 and which they are now retiring at $4.45, obviously there is a profit of nearly 10 per cent.


James Lorimer Ilsley: If the Canadian National Railways borrowed dollars in the old country, they got so many dollars, and they owe so many dollars in return, do they not? How does the question of exchange enter into the transaction at all?


Harry Rutherford Jackman: When we borrowed dollars from the old country they undoubtedly would stipulate that we pay them either in dollars or in sterling-and from their point of view, at that time it would be preferably in sterling.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I started to talk about
sterling, and the hon. member switched me to dollar pay. Let us take the dollar pay securities first.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: In dollar pay it would clear out; but in sterling pay it will be easier for us to do it now at $4.45 than at $4,863. Therefore there is'a profit.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is what I was trying to analyse. Under sterling pay the Canadian National Railways would borrow so many pounds sterling, at some earlier date. That pound sterling when received by them, they probably converted into dollars, getting $4.86j for each pound sterling. That would give them more dollars than they would be able to get to-day for that number of pounds sterling. But to-day they simply have to pay back their obligation in respect of so many pounds sterling.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: But we keep our books in dollars. The sterling obligation stands on the books of the Canadian National Railways at $4.86j to every pound we owe. Now we are paying it back at $4.45; so obviously there is a profit of about 42 cents.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is right. The Canadian National Railways require fewer dollars to buy the number of pounds required than they got per pound for the sterling which they borrowed some years ago. The railways make a profit there.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a fair answer. But let me understand it. Government funds buy the sterling in the first place; we have advanced the money. You get your sterling against the loan to the British government. Then you make a bookkeeping entry and lend the money to the Canadian National Railways against these securities, do you not? Do they get these securities, or do you hold them?

War Appropriation
In any event the point is that the railways will make a profit on the repatriation out of the public treasury. That is the core of the whole thing, is it not? I do not know that I just understand the mechanics of the transaction. It would be my understanding that the British government have assembled these securities in London from their own nationals, under a vesting order. We have an adverse balance. This is deposited in London banks to take care of the adverse balance. It is in sterling, over there in the banks. The government buys back, and pays out of the sterling accumulated over there. The government gets the securities in the first place, but really for the account of the national railways to whom we lend the money to take up these securities. They eventually get them at $4.45. That is the transaction, is it not?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And they get the profit?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Do we buy them from the British government at the market price? We will say we have a 5 per cent issue which is standing to-day at 110, or we may have a 4 per cent standing at 104, or something like that. I am just using rough figures. Do we pay the British government 110 for the securities they hold, on the basis of S4.45 exchange? Is that the idea of the transaction?
Mr., ILSLEY: We buy the securities at the market price, whatever that was, on January 26, and use the sterling we have to pay for them. The transactions the hon. member is talking about are the transactions between the government and the Canadian National Railways.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Interpretation.
Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the meaning of section 2 (a) (ii)? This has reference to the long list of scheduled companies owned by the Canadian National Railways? The list appears in the revised statutes.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Some of those are held over there, are they?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Can the minister tell us what the allocation is, so that we will know what we are buying?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is a long list.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is not absolutely necessary that I should have it. The minister might let me have a memorandum of it; I do not wish to have it on the record.


James Lorimer Ilsley: They are securities of the Canadian National Railways, the Grand Trunk railway system, the Great Western-


Richard Burpee Hanson: All subsidiary companies.


James Lorimer Ilsley: -and the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, the Grand Trunk Western, the St. John and Quebec, the Canadian Northern Ontario railway, the Canadian Northern Quebec railway, the Canadian Northern railway, the Quebec and Lake St. John, the Northern railway and other subsidiaries.


Richard Burpee Hanson: With
regard to Quebec and Lake St. John, they were to be taken over, except a part, by the dominion under arrangements which the province of New Brunswick made in the early thirties. They are, I believe, guaranteed in full by New Brunswick. Will the government still hold New Brunswick to that guarantee? It does not alter the transaction in that respect.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The securities will remain
alive.	.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The effect will be the same?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is there
any distinction between the companies referred to in section 2(a) (ii) and 2(a) (iv)? There must be a reason. I do not understand. I tried to puzzle that out from the statutes this afternoon before I came downstairs. The Canadian National Railways Act, section 2, paragraph (e)' referred to in section 2(a) (iv) of -this bill, gives a definition of Canadian National Railways. Is this an extension of the definition referred to in 2(a) and 2(a) (ii), or are they the same?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The question is, whether
any companies have been declared by the governor in council to be comprised in a system that is not included in the schedule?


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
really the effect of the question.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have not that information.
War Appropriation


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, I
would not hold up the bill. The question is not important.


John Ritchie MacNicol: May I ask a question
with reference to paragraph (b) of section 2, which reads:
(b) "Dominion of Canada securities" means stocks, securities, or obligations of, or guaranteed either as to interest or as to principal and interest, by the Dominion of Canada.
What are the stocks, if any, other than those that are of the Canadian National Railways or any subsidiaries of the Canadian National Railways.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Montreal harbour bonds and New Westminster bonds. Those are the only ones that are neither securities of the government nor securities of the railways.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The ones the minister
has just mentioned are securities of the government then?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Those two types of securities I have mentioned are guaranteed by the Dominion of Canada. I thought that was what the hon. gentleman asked-if there were any issued by other than railways which are guaranteed by the dominion government. Those are the ones I mentioned.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: What is meant by paragraph (e):
(e) "sterling balances" means deposits in pounds sterling in banks in the United Kingdom.
What deposits are meant? Deposits by *vhom?


James Lorimer Ilsley: They are deposits to the
credit of the foreign exchange control board or of the government of Canada in banks of the United Kingdom payable in sterling.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: For instance, there are some companies which have deposits in banks in the sterling bloc; but in certain cases the deposit is frozen; in other cases the only thing they can do with it is invest it in British securities. Does it mean those balances which are now controlled by the British government?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.


Mr. HAZEN:: Also in connection with section 2 (e), is the definition complete enough?
(e) "sterling balances" means deposits in pounds sterling in banks in the United Kingdom.
The minister just said that these were deposits to the credit of either the dominion government or the foreign exchange control board. Should it not say so in the definition?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not think so. Wherever it is used in the bill, that point is made clear.


Douglas King Hazen: Is it clear in the bill? I have not gone all through it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have not run through the bill critically, but in section 3, subsection 3, reference is made to "sterling balances held by the said board", and in subsection 4 reference is made to "the amount of sterling balances required for the current operations of the foreign exchange control board". That last does not quite cover the point, but subsection 3 does. It is a typical use of the expression.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Minister may pay for the account of the government of the United Kingdom, $1,000,000,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: In lines 36 and 37, section 3 reads:
The minister may, subject to regulations to be made by the governor in council with reference thereto. . . .
What are the nature and scope of the proposed regulations? Will the minister read them?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Under section 3, subsection 2:
Payments or advances may be made under subsection 1 of this section from time to time upon the minister being satisfied that the amount thereof is necessary to make the said purchases and defray the said expenses.
The character of the evidence which will be regarded as necessary to satisfy the minister and, probably, procedure of one kind and another which one cannot just visualize now, will have to be laid down. It will have to be laid down by regulation. Therefore the payment of this is authorized subject to regulations to be made by the governor in council.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In other words, the legislation merely lays down an enabling provision and leaves it to the governor in council to operate it in any way they like, subject to the succeeding clauses, which stipulate the purposes only of the bill. We ought to have these regulations in the bill rather than leave it to the governor in council. Of course it is now an old policy with this government to do everything by order in council. I think this ought to be in the bill, and those who are drafting the legislation should be prepared to tell us what the regulations are to be, their scope, and how the mechanics are to be operated.
I object to the principle of doing things by order in council. We have not objected enough. It may be that this is a war measure; it may be that the government think they

War Appropriation
could have done the whole thing by order in council under the War Measures Act. I do not agree, but they have been good enough to bring down a bill, which of course is very much better than the way in which they handled the summer-fallow last year, by estimate and regulation. After all, however, this leaves power in the hands of the governor in council to legislate, and the principle is objectionable. Having registered that protest I will say no more about it.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I want to see if I have a clear understanding of section 3. Let us assume that the bill has passed and that the British government now have a credit of one billion dollars in Canada. As they order any of the items mentioned in the section-tanks, guns and so on-they determine how much they want of each item, and whatever they determine they need, our government buys for them in Canada, making a free gift of the whole to the British government. Am I clear in that?


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is not clear from the legislation.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not like to say yes unless I understand fully what the question is.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I will try to put it a little more clearly.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. member was pretty clear and I will try to deal with the question. The United Kingdom will continue, I anticipate, to order goods from Canada in the future as they have done in the past, and in some instances it may be that the goods will be bought by the dominion and given without a price being attached to them other than the price which was paid by the dominion government.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What goods you buy you will buy on request orders from the British government?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. In other instances, though I cannot say that this is what will be done, I expect that the United Kingdom would themselves set the price in agreement with agencies of the dominion government, or the dominion government itself selling Canadian goods-to the United Kingdom, except that no money would be collected for them. Some commodity would be sold at so much a unit and would be charged to the gift. It would be necessary to know the amount of the gift in order to determine when the period of the gift was exhausted.


John Ritchie MacNicol: For instance, if the British government sends an order to the dominoin government, or through its agencies here, for,
say 4-7 inch guns, one of the items mentioned, when these guns are shipped the price is charged against the credit of one billion dollars.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, that is right.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What I am trying to get clear is this. It is a billion dollars of a free gift in goods?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: To help the British government fight the war.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is correct.


Mr. TUSTIN:: Is the British government going to set the price on the goods?


James Lorimer Ilsley: In agreement, I said, with the agency of the dominion government selling the goods.


Mr. STIRLING:: They will do what they have been doing up to now.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Exactly.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The British government will hardly look a gift horse in the mouth and ask what price tag you are putting on this machine or that.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not want any such idea to get abroad.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The
minister's explanation is susceptible of that construction.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not expect the dominion government to put two prices on anything.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I did not suggest that. I said they would not look a gift horse, a free gift, in the mouth, and ask what price tag you were putting on anything in using up the billion dollars. I would not think they would, when they are getting it free, and I did not suggest that there would be two prices. What I think the government ought to do would be to charge against the billion dollar appropriation, the actual, proper cost of the goods in question, delivered to Britain. That is what I hope will be done, and it will be a gift in kind from the Canadian people to Britain. That is what ought to be done.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That sounds simpler than it is. There are some articles as to which the cost cannot be ascertained.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Until
completed.


James Lorimer Ilsley: We anticipate that the transactions will go on just as they have done before. These are to be business transactions,
War Appropriation

the same as if we were seller and they were buyer; otherwise the transaction has no meaning. It makes a big difference with regard to the terminating date of the transaction.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I agree with that, but that is another matter.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It makes a big difference if either party is to be loose about price.


George James Tustin: In the same paragraph reference is made to foodstuffs. In the past year or two there have been agreements between the dominion and British governments in regard to bacon and cheese, and the price that has been paid to the producer in Canada has been considerably above that paid by the British government. Is the same kind of agreement going to enter into this billion dollar transaction?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is not correct. The price that has been paid for bacon is the price received by the British government. There was a bonus for a time but there is no longer any bonus. The price for bacon is 100 shillings per hundredweight, obtained from the United Kingdom and paid to the Canadian producer.


Thomas Miller Bell: Does that policy apply to wheat as well as to bacon and cheese?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Does what apply?


Thomas Miller Bell: Is the price paid by Britain that which has been credited to the farmer by the wheat board.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Absolutely; there is no doubt about that. The wheat board cannot do anything else.


Thomas Miller Bell: The wheat board is receiving only the price the farmers get?
Mr. ILSLEY': The wheat board sells the wheat for a certain price, and that price is dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the wheat board act. The wheat board could not do anything else; they could not subtract any part of it.


Thomas Miller Bell: There is a belief that the British government has been paying considerably more than the Fort William price of wheat, through the Canadian wheat board, and I am asking the question because of the manner in which another question was put by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox, who inquired about bacon and hogs.
I was wondering whether the same policy carried right through.


James Lorimer Ilsley: 
Mr. QUELCH:: Would the minister say a
few words regarding the general principle of this section as it applies to other allied nations? As I understand it, all the allied nations have undertaken an all-out war effort, to fight the enemy wherever he may be, whether on the shores of England, Australia or America. I think I heard the President of the United States say that the allied nations would pool their resources. If that is the situation, there should be no such thing as inter-allied payments; every nation should turn into the pool the total amount of its production for a common effort. Have there been any discussions in that regard? We are making this gift to Britain, and I think all the allied nations should be turning in their total production for the purpose of defeating the enemy, wherever found, without any question of payment.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have not sufficient knowledge of those matters to give an answer which would be of value with regard to that.


Victor Quelch: Is this likely to be the
beginning of such action on the part of other nations?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I would not say it is. The principle which the hon. member suggests is perhaps correct; but from our point of view here in Canada we are anxious to keep producing all we possibly can and producing smoothly and without delay in delivery, and one way by which we can ensure ourselves against delays is to keep in a position to get imports from the United States and be able to pay for them. For that reason we have to think about our

War Appropriation
exchange position, our exports to the United States and so on. If we were simply to say we will send the United States anything they want and the United States will send to us anything we want, it might have a prejudicial effect upon deliveries and, indirectly, upon production.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It would have.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is not so simple to get
great pools and governmental agencies to act just whenever and as they should. Those are matters that require a great deal of arranging. Therefore, pending such time as arrangements are made, we have to go on buying and selling, and that is what we are doing. ,


Victor Quelch: Then, if it is not going to be possible to get the nations to contribute their production on a free basis and we are going to have to go on buying a certain proportion of the production of the United States, in view of the fact that the United States must be just as much interested in winning the war as we are they should be anxious that our production be on as effective a basis as possible. We have been told on several occasions that we are reaching or rapidly approaching our maximum production, on account of the shortage of skilled labour. We have at present, I understand, something in the neighbourhood of 32,000 skilled men, miners and mechanics, employed in the goldmining industry. It is not helping the United States war effort in the slightest degree to receive that gold at the present time. They may intend to use it after the war, but it is of no use to their war effort now. If it is necessary for us to pay the United States in gold for the goods we are getting to-day, would it not be possible to hypothecate the production of gold in Canada for so many years after the war and release for the present that labour for use in war industry? That would benefit the United States just as much as ourselves. If, after the war, the United States still want that gold, there would be the possibility of putting all that labour to work in the gold mines after the war and providing employment, but for the time being that labour so necessary for the war effort would be released.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The question of going out of the gold-mining business in Canada, is a separate one. I do not think it is sufficiently related to this bill to justify us in devoting attention to it now. It is a large question; I would hesitate to make any offhand observations on it, and I would consider it irrelevant to this bill.


Victor Quelch: But there is a definite connection. If the United States were turning their goods into the pool as we are, we would not have to turn over gold, and 32,000 men now occupied in mining the gold would be released for war work. Instead of mining it and sending it to be placed in the vaults at Fort Knox, the gold could remain where it is for the time being and that labour be released. Surely the minister is prepared to say why it is considered necessary to mine gold at a time like this. I understand that Russia has stopped the mining of gold for the duration of the war. I am not sure as to that, but I read it in the paper the other day. When we are trying to make an all-out war effort surely we should not carry on a non-essential industry. If the minister is not prepared to make a statement now, I hope that at some time during the session he will be prepared to justify the carrying on of the gold-mining industry.


John Ritchie MacNicol: 
James Lorimer Ilsley: Correct.


John Ritchie MacNicol: If they did, it would not be a business transaction.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is correct.


John Ritchie MacNicol: They will buy as cheaply as they can, and they will charge against the billion dollars as low a price as they buy the tanks at.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know just what the course of business is, but I think in the purchase of the tanks the British government gets the Department of Munitions and Supply to produce or buy the tanks, and they get them as cheaply as they can.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The British government buy as cheaply as they can.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes; I am pretty sure they do, and the Department of Munitions and Supply would get them made as cheaply as possible. They would make a business transaction with the people who produce them. And that will continue. It would make this
War Appropriation

thing ridiculous if we let .the existence of this gift change the business practice that now prevails in the setting of prices and supplying of goods.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is a change in law, because heretofore the Minister of Munitions and Supply has been merely the agent of the British government, and now he will be acting for our own government. Certainly there is a legal difference.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not think so. He will continue to be the agent.


Mr. PERLEY:: Coming back to the question of foodstuffs, I think the minister will agree that wheat comes under that category, and I think it should be included in this clause. The government have been supplying bacon, cheese and other commodities at agreed prices and, I think, financing the purchases for the British government. We have every reason to believe that in recent months, according to the monthly reports of the minister, wheat has been offered at St. Lawrence ports at considerably over 90 cents a bushel, and no doubt a good deal of it has been sold at that figure. I do not see why the government could not include wheat in this clause, since this really is to be a gift; and the government could finance the British purchases of wheat, as they finance purchases of other foodstuffs.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The dominion government is not financing the purchase of foodstuffs in any other sense than this, that they are providing the United Kingdom with dollars with which to make their purchases generally in Canada, by buying sterling; that is all.


Ernest Edward Perley: Is that not practically the same thing?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No; it is not financing in one sense at all.


Ernest Edward Perley: Then what is the meaning of the word "foodstuffs" in this bill?


James Lorimer Ilsley: "Foodstuffs" includes wheat, of course. I thought the hon. gentleman was saying it should include wheat.


Ernest Edward Perley: I say it should.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It does include wheat. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Tripp) brought up that question half an hour ago; he said he wanted to know if it included wheat, and I asked that he should let it go until we came to section 3. There is no necessity to add anything to the word "foodstuffs".


Thomas Reid: Are there any Canadian
National securities, or other Canadian securities, held in Eire? If so, would Eire be

in a position to unload them on Great Britain, so that we in turn would repatriate them under this scheme?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The British government has not power to take securities away from the residents of Eire and vest them with the British government.


Thomas Reid: But suppose the residents of Eire wanted to do it voluntarily. In this bill you designate Great Britain and Northern Ireland. My question is whether those people in Eire holding Canadian securities could unload them on Great Britain, so that under this arrangement we in turn would repatriate them.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is a question for the British government, I think; but in all probability the British government would not allow the importation of securities from Eire into the United Kingdom, since this would necessitate the export of British capital to Eire in return for the securities. Certainly that would not be permitted by the foreign exchange control authorities in Britain.


Thomas Reid: But Eire may have debts owing to Great Britain, and one way of paying those debts would be by Canadian National or other Canadian securities, which we in turn might repatriate.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am afraid I cannot add anything to what I said. I do not know whether such transactions, even if possible, would be very probable.


Thomas Reid: It would be interesting to
know.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am not at all sure that they would be prejudicial to us; we would be getting back our securities, anyway. I would have to think about that, to see whether there would be any harm in it.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: It is not the intention, as I understand, for us to interfere with ordinary business practice between the two countries; yet one cannot help but feel that the man who pays the piper usually calls the tune. Is there likely to be any disposition on the part of our government, acting through the Minister of Finance in this case, in authorizing advances or payments for British account, to dictate or suggest to the British government the type of goods or material they shall buy in this country, or is this a straight gift?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is a straight gift, without strings. This arrangement is in pursuance of our policy announced a long time ago and concurred in by everyone, to supply the

War Appropriation
United Kingdom with all that the United Kingdom requires for the purpose of carrying on the war. If we interjected a commercial motive into it at this stage, it would be inconsistent with the whole spirit of this transaction and the whole spirit of our policy for some time past.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: It is not a commercial motive; but if we wanted to send tanks instead of aeroplanes, it would not be our intention to dictate to them what they should order from Canada so far as the spending of this billion dollars is concerned? It will be left exactly as it is now?


James Lorimer Ilsley: We certainly would not dictate. On the other hand, of course, there is no doubt that our defence authorities would have views as to what ought to remain in Canada and what should go to the United Kingdom. They at least would be as entitled to those views as the United Kingdom government would be entitled to their views. But I think that is a different matter from what the hon. gentleman has in mind. That is not a case of dictating; it is a case of expressing an opinion as to where rifles should go, or where tanks or aeroplanes should go. If we needed them for the west coast, for example, perhaps we would not send them to Great Britain, or perhaps we would; I do not know. We would have views on that, however, and would not feel obligated to abandon our views.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Having
regard to the experience of the past year in sending goods to Britain for which we hold certain sterling balances, which are now to be funded, how much of this billion dollars shall we have to send to the United States for materials entering into the manufacture of the goods we are giving to Britain? How much of the money is going to be lost to Canada in the sense that we have to buy from outside this country?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No estimate of that has been made. If half of this money were spent for foodstuffs, that half would all be spent in Canada; there would be practically nothing imported from the United States in the line of foodstuffs. The same would apply to minerals, mined in Canada, though there might be something there in connection with imported machinery or something like that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am
talking about tanks and aeroplanes, in connection with which we have to import large quantities of goods.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. We cannot tell. If
we were to take one particular commodity or article, such as tanks or aeroplanes, an estimate could be made.


Richard Burpee Hanson: None has been made?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Perhaps my colleague the Minister of Munitions and Supply could tell hon. members what is the United States content of tanks, and what is the Canadian content.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Subsection 4 of section 3 deals with the determination of the amount of sterling balances. That is of some importance. If the government should desire to hold many hundreds of millions of pounds worth of sterling, it would, of course, virtually extend the size of the gift. Does the minister care to express any view as to what the foreign exchange control board would want to hold in the way of sterling balances?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Perhaps two or three million pounds.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Just a nominal amount?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: And the date of coming into force of the act has some bearing on it also? I presume you want to bring it into force as soon as possible?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Before the Easter recess.


Douglas King Hazen: I should like to call the attention of the minister to subsection 3 of section 3. This reads: "The minister may acquire from the foreign exchange control board all sterling balances," and then at line 10 it reads, "and may pay for the sterling balances so acquired," and so on. In section 4 we find the words "The minister may acquire from the foreign exchange control board", and in line 27 the words, "and pay therefor out of unappropriated moneys." It will be noticed there are two wordings used in those two sentences. We have, "may pay for the sterling balances so acquired," in line 10, and in line 27 we have, "pay therefor out of unappropriated moneys." Then in section 5 it is provided that the minister may purchase and so on, until we come to line 45 where it states, "and may pay for the same out of any unappropriated moneys." There you have another different wording. Had the draftsman of the bill any reason for making these slight changes? After the plebiscite bill had passed this house and was referred to another place, it came back here with a number of technical changes and alterations.
War Appropriation

I just happened to notice these slight differences in wording, and I was wondering whether there was any particular reason for them.


James Lorimer Ilsley: At the moment I do not see any reason for the difference in wording. I cannot see why you could not say "pay therefor".


Douglas King Hazen: The meaning seems to be about the same.


James Lorimer Ilsley: First you have, "may pay for"; then you have, "pay therefor," and then you have, "may pay for."
Mr. HAZEN; The one is, "pay therefor," and the others are, "may pay for."


James Lorimer Ilsley: "May" is used twice. I cannot think of any possible danger in leaving it that way.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Rate of acquisition of sterling balances.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Subsection 3 of this section reads;
The governor in council may fix a date which shall be deemed to be the termination of the war for the purposes of this section.
In all other legislation this is fixed by the provisions of the War Measures Act. If this subsection should carry * in its present form, you would have an anomalous position. The war might actually be over, not only de jacto but de jure. I wonder whether that is done on purpose? If so, for what purpose? I would suggest that if it is not in contravention of some fixed principle or policy, there should be uniformity.
Mr. ILSLEY; The hon. gentleman is hardly right in saying that in all legislation the date is fixed by the War Measures Act.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should have said in most legislation.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I call to mind the War Exchange Conservation Act which contains a clause giving the governor in council power to proclaim the end of the war for the purposes of that act.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That must have escaped me at the time or I would have called attention to it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There is perhaps some objection in relying upon a proclamation under the War Measures Act to fix the date of the termination of the war for other purposes. It may be desirable to continue the War Measures Act until a certain condition ceases to

exist in the country. I think the end of the war for the purposes of the War Measures Act was 1920.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is
defined in the War Measures Act.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is left to the governor in council to determine for the purposes of that act, and that may be too late or too early for the purposes of this measure. I went through this matter in negotiating with the provinces. The termination of the agreements with the provinces was designed to be the termination of the war, and at first it was thought we should put into these agreements the date fixed under the War Measures Act as the termination of the war. After much discussion and consideration it was decided not to do that, but to provide for a date which might be different from that date. There is no assurance that that date will coincide with the termination of hostilities. In fact, it does not have any relation to the termination of hostilities. If one puts in, "the termination of hostilities," that might prove to be a controversial date. It might be urged by one party to the agreement that hostilities have ended, and by others that some hostilities are still in progress. Therefore, there has to be power vested in some body to make a decision in the matter and fix a date. For our purposes we think this is the way to do it, to leave it to the governor in council to fix a date for the termination of the war for the purposes of the act.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a convenient thing to do. I have sent out for a copy of the War Measures Act because I have not the text in front of me. I should like to point out to the minister that probably the reason is that when the war ceases under the War Measures Act, the changes in the British North America Act brought about by the War Measures Act, including the control of everything under which we are being regimented, stop immediately. The ordinary principles of the Canadian constitution then become operative, and price ceilings and all the rest of it go by the board. There is no doubt about that, and that may be the reason for this. I do not say it is, but I am pointing that out. These gentlemen who are talking about planned economy after the war had better put on their thinking caps and read a few cases on the constitution. They will then ascertain that after the war is over, there will be no more wartime prices and trade board; there will be no more controllers bobbing up and setting a ceiling on maple syrup to the habitants in the province of Quebec; there will be no more interference with the principles of

War Appropriation
the British North America Act with respect to property and civil rights; there will be no more freezing of wages by order in council.


Clarence Gillis: I hope the hon. member is
right, but I am doubtful.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am
telling you, and I can give you some cases which you can read for yourself. If we are going to have this planned economy, which the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) talks about, in the post-war days we shall have to have a new constitution in this country. I should like to see him get it, having regard to the fact that you would have to persuade not only this parliament-I am also talking for the benefit of the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) who, I see is taking down a few notes-but the nine provincial legislatures. I think you will find that is true, because they will not change the British North America Act, over there, on the other side, without the consent of the provinces. They will not take away from the provinces the powers conferred upon them by imperial acts of parliament with respect to property and civil rights, without the consent of the provinces. I will tell you that Quebec will fight it to the limit-and they will be right-because we would have centralized in the central government of Canada too much power. I would be content to see the centralization of currency, credit control and matters of that kind. But with respect to property and civil rights the subject is far safer under the present system than he would be with centralized control. I believe the people of Quebec will agree with me that they will be much safer under the present system than under one of centralized control.
This is a piece of free legal advice I am giving. It will not cost my hon. friends anything. And, if they want me to, I shall cite the cases to back up my opinion.


Thomas Miller Bell: If it does not cost anything, then I imagine from a lawyer's point of view it is not worth much.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It cost me a lot to learn.


Thomas Miller Bell: I am not going to argue about the constitution to-night. Constitutions are made for men, not men for constitutions. When the people of this country decide; when all the provinces and the dominion decide that economic and social conditions make the amendment of the constitution necessary, the Dominion of Canada is going to amend her own constitution. Make no mistake about that. That will be done, when the time comes and it is found to be necessary.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But with the consent of the provinces.


Thomas Miller Bell: It will be done when it is necessary. Let me say this, that while some people think there is a safeguard in the fact that we are unable to amend our own constitution, and that it has to be amended by the imperial parliament, I am willing to wager that any request which came from Canada by way of a clear majority vote now would be approved by the imperial parliament almost without discussion. They would not wish to interfere with the expressed will of a majority of the Canadian people. That, in my opinion, is the situation as it stands to-day.
I had not intended to say that, but the leader of the opposition provoked me to it. What I did rise to say is that we are dealing with section 4 of the bill, and it appears that under that section a loan of $700,000,000 is to be made to Great Britain, without interest, for the duration of the war. I do not think anyone is going to disapprove the making of the loan under circumstances as they are to-day. But I am going to suggest that in making the loan the whole problem of the repatriation of the remaining securities now outstanding in Great Britain should be gone into, and that they might be regarded as tantamount to collateral against this loan to be dealt with, if you like, at the termination of the war.
I have been thinking a great deal about what was said the other day by the Minister of Finance with respect to the gift, the reasons for it, and the loan. I disagree entirely with the point of view that we should not contemplate repatriation of the remaining securities held in Great Britain, so that we might have them in our own dominion and, as I should like to see them, in the hands of the government, in order that we might have a greater control of industry-and particularly certain monopolistic industries-than we have to-day.
We shall need this when the war is over, if we are going to rehabilitate this country. I believe it would be to the advantage of the people of this country if in the making of such loans we could contemplate in the future that we could recover from any overseas investors the securities they now hold upon industries, and other enterprise, in Canada.
For example, we have the railways problem. I am not in favour of any unification or amalgamation such as has been suggested or of the handing over of our government road to any form of private management. But I do believe that probably the war will thrust upon us, during its progress, a greater measure of control over our whole transportation system.
War Appropriation

I should like to see bus and truck services used to feed the railways, instead of to compete with them. I believe that would save both tires and gasoline, and after the war it would assist us in developing a real transportation system.
As I said the other afternoon there are in Great Britain, among other securities, some 8596,600,000, par value, of Canadian Pacific Railway stock and debentures. I can see no reason at all why these stocks and bonds should not at least be regarded as collateral against this loan of $700,000,000. I do not subscribe to the point of view that we should endeavour to remain a debtor nation to Great Britain simply because some believe that that would enable us to export goods there in payment of the interest and dividends on our debt beyond the seas. To my mind, carried to its logical conclusion, such an argument implies that the man who owes the most should be the best off, because he would have to pay the most to a creditor, and that would mean that he would have to hand over more and more of the fruits of his labour.


John Ritchie MacNicol: May I ask a question? Mr. COLDWELL: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: How would the hon. member take over the several millions of dollars worth of Canadian Pacific Railway securities? They belong to private investors.


Thomas Miller Bell: They belong to private investors, my hon. friend says. But the British government to-day is causing or compelling British investors to hand securities held in Great Britain over to the government when called upon to do so. We are going to repatriate another block of Canadian National bonds which were held by private individuals in Great Britain.


John Ritchie MacNicol: We guaranteed them.


Thomas Miller Bell: It does not matter whether we guaranteed them or not. They are in the hands of private investors. They have securities and we have given a guarantee. But that does not place them in any other category, so far as the ownership of the bonds or stock goes in Great Britain; they are or have been privately owned. Everyone holding an overseas security must register it and, if called upon by the government, he must surrender it to the government. That is the well-defined plan or policy Britain has adopted, and Canadian Pacific Railway stocks are no exception.
Naturally the British government will pay the British investor in sterling funds-but that is being done in all cases. Canadian Pacific Railway stock is in no different position. It 
is up to the British government to make their own arrangements with their own people. It is up to us to make the best arrangements we can for the Canadian people. I am pointing out that with relation to stocks and bonds of this description-we will say securities of International Nickel, and some of the other larger corporations in this country-we are derelict in our duty if, in addition to making a gift of a billion dollars outright, which we have all supported, we make a loan and leave over there securities which might be repatriated to this country eventually, and which would relieve us of the payment of interest and dividends to any investors beyond the seas.
Of course, if these securities are resold in Canada, there may be some slight advantage. If they are resold to investors, we will say, in the United States, then there is little or no advantage in that regard, because you would just be changing one set of creditors in one country for another set of creditors in another country. But I want to emphasize that from my point of view-and I believe I am expressing the point of view of many people in this dominion-in the making of this loan we should proceed-as we are told trades in goods between Great Britain and this country are made-on sound business principles.
I suppose that the British purchaser insists that the goods he buys from Canada shall be bought at prices comparable with those of goods of the same type which he can get elsewhere. I think wTe should view the loan- not the gift; I make the distinction very clearly'-from exactly the same business point of view, and we should as far as possible protect our own country and its future by asking at least that these securities be placed as collateral against this loan, so that, when we come to determine what shall be done at the termination of the war, we may, if it seems advantageous on both sides to do it, be in a position to repatriate bonds and stocks of Canadian corporations for the benefit of this country. I believe that is the businesslike point of view to take. I know that if there is one group in the world who-quite properly-enter into transactions on a businesslike basis, it is the British business man. I remember Mr. Bennett, when he was leader of the opposition in this house, talking about the imperial conference in 1932 and explaining that the British did not allow sentiment to interfere with their business transactions, even when negotiating empire trade agreements; and we, I think, having made a gift, should see to it, in making the loan, that it is made on a sound and proper business basis to protect this country in the days which follow the war.

War Appropriation


Richard Burpee Hanson: That just means the hon. gentleman's policy of nationalization of industry in Canada. We may as well face that situation fairly and squarely; and if we have another depression we shall have two railroads on our hands instead of one.


Thomas Miller Bell: I said a little earlier that there is a time and place to discuss the possibilities of nationalization of industry in the Dominion of Canada. This is neither the time nor the place, but if the leader of the opposition wants us to discuss it now, I am quite prepared to enter into a discussion with him, but I do not think this is either the time or the place. But when he says we desire to nationalize all industry in Canada he is saying that which is not correct. We have never suggested that. What we have suggested is that-[DOT]


Richard Burpee Hanson: I did not say, all industry.


Thomas Miller Bell: -the monopolistic industries that are now exploiting the people of Canada and will continue to exploit them in the future ought to be taken over, organized nationally or cooperatively, and used to provide goods and services for the Canadian people instead of profits for those who have invested in them.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Mr. Chairman, it is very easy to use those two expressions, "monopolistic" and "exploiting", but I have never been able to get a definition of either the one or the other from my hon. friends to the left.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Miller Bell: Probably this discussion is out of order, but I would be very glad to define both terms for the hon. gentleman, although I suggest to him that if he will look up a good dictionary he will find them accurately defined.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I know the dictionary meaning. What I want is the hon. member's meaning.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar has made, if he will permit me to say so, a pretty good speech, but I just want to say, briefly, this. If we were to insist on the repatriation of private securities we would leave, I think, a justifiable feeling of resentment in Great Britain. The reason is this. Market values are low, or at least they are considerably lower than the holders of them think the securities are really worth,
and will be worth later; and for us to take them over at the market value and insist on getting them back under present conditions would be regarded as unduly harsh, and would be, I think, unduly harsh.
With regard to the second proposal, that we stipulate that they be lodged as collateral,
I merely want to point out that no part of the British empire, in loaning money to another part of the British empire, has stipulated for collateral securities. I do not think we should start, under conditions such as these. I say that particularly because I am satisfied that the present arrangement is as safe, or virtually as safe, for us as it would be if we asked that these stocks be put up. Of course, if we did it as part of a plan to get partnership in the industries in Canada, that would be understandable-


Thomas Miller Bell: That is what I had in
mind.


James Lorimer Ilsley: -and it would be a move toward, as the leader of the opposition says, nationalization of certain of our industries. At least, the government would be a partner in those industries and have its directors as members of the boards of those industries. I suppose that the operations of those industries would be brought before parliament, and there would be questions on the orders of the day and so on. If that were considered a desirable thing to do, an important thing to do, a matter of great importance to do, we could, by taking these harsh steps-steps which would be regarded as harsh in the circumstances-undertake to do it. But apart from these considerations, the fact that the United Kingdom has given us an obligation for $700,000,000 and is agreeing that, if any of these securities go abroad, the money which residents of the United Kingdom get for them is to be applied in reduction of our loan, and that, if any of these securities are redeemed, the price for which they are redeemed will be applied in reduction of this loan-


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is, the vested securities?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, the un-vested securities; not the government or guaranteed securities, but the others, the ones which the hon. gentleman from Rosetown-Biggar is talking about. But I say, the fact that the United Kingdom is agreeing to all that and that the British government have a rigid and effective control of these securities is good enough, I think, from our point of view.
War Appropriation


Thomas Miller Bell: I was not looking
at it from just the point of view the minister has expressed at the moment. I wanted to bring this point forward, that in a discussion of this loan there should be an understanding that if we desired to follow this plan when the loan is due and payable, it may be followed. When I referred to collateral I did not mean exactly that; perhaps that might be a little harsh. The minister rather alarms me when he says that we have an undertaking from the British government, that, in respect of securities sold to residents of other countries, the amounts obtained will be credited to this loan. That indicates to me that we ought to do something to prevent these securities from getting into the hands of investors other than in Great Britain or Canada. I do not want to see this country dominated economically by the United States. I do not want any of these securities sold in New York to United States investors. I should like the British government to give some undertaking, perhaps in the form of hypothecation-the suggestion that they be put up as collateral may appear too harsh-that these securities, if moved at all from Great Britain, shall come to Canada and not go to the United States or some other country.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What about Canadian
investments in other countries?


Thomas Miller Bell: If by business arrangement we can relieve ourselves of debt to the United States or any other country, then I believe it is good business to remove that debt and take ourselves out of the debtor class to any country.


Mr. HILL:: The hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar is suggesting that we penalize the holders of Canadian securities in England, because this loan is to the people as a whole, and such a method, whereby we would force the holders of Canadian securities in England to bear the entire brunt of the loan, would be penalizing the holders of Canadian securities there. What the hon. gentleman has suggested however is sound, I think, namely, that if these securities are to be sold by English holders, they should be sold to the Canadian government.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-Purchase of securities.
Douglas Gooderham Ross: What are the
mechanics of the operation? The national

railways are going to buy their own securities, and then they will sell their securities to the government of Canada. Is that it, or how is it to be worked?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The transaction is to be this. We buy the securities; then we lend the Canadian National the money with which to redeem the securities, and we retain the securities in the meantime as security for repayment of the loan.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: The Canadian National, as I understand it, are to issue debentures to the Bank of Canada or the government of Canada, as security for the loan. That is subsection 3. What actually is going to happen is this. The government of Canada will buy these securities from the government of Great Britain. Take one of these securities like 5 per cent, 40-year Canadian National 1969, which to-day may stand at a market price of 120. You buy it at that price. At what price will you sell that to the Canadian National? That is the 5 per cent debenture. The Canadian National will issue their debentures at 3 per cent, say, and those debentures will be held by the Bank of Canada. Why should the Canadian National buy their own debentures in, when those debentures could just as well be held by the government of Canada, as they are being held to-day, until maturity. What is the object?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The purpose is to substitute a loan from the government to the railways for a loan from the public to the railways. That is the purpose of the whole transaction.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: But it does not seem to me that it does that. What is happening is this. The government are buying the security. Why do they not just hold the security? The government will take that 5 per cent security which they are holding and turn it in for a 3 per cent security which they will take as collateral for a loan from the railways apd the railways cancel the 5 per cent security. It is only a matter of bookkeeping. I do not see why the government are going to sell these securities to the railways and not hold them themselves. It does not make sense to me.


James Lorimer Ilsley: This is the kind of thing that has been going on, provided for every year by our Canadian National financing acts, and the object of the transaction is as I have stated. I do not know that I can explain the matter further than that. Perhaps it could be taken up in the railway committee.

War Appropriation


Douglas Gooderham Ross: What we are doing from year to year is refinancing as far as the railways are concerned in relation to the public, and I see sense in that; but as regards trying to refinance as between the Canadian National and the government of Canada, I do not see any sense in it, because it is taking it out of one pocket and putting it in another. I do not see why you do not take a loan such as the one that goes to 1969 and let it go to maturity. There is no expense connected with it and the whole thing is a matter of bookkeeping. That is all there is to it. I do not see what the object is, and so far no explanation has been given me.


Angus MacInnis: In the exchange of securities between the Canadian government and the Canadian National Railways, would the transaction be solely as between the government and the railway company, or would any outside agency enter into the transaction?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No outside agency would enter in.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Subsection 6 reads:
The governor in council may make regulations for cancelling and withdrawing from circulation or for reselling any of the Dominion of Canada securities. . . .
Or cancelling Canadian National securities. The latter are dominion government securities. I asked the minister some time ago whether repatriated securities would be resold and I understood him to say no; but this clause provides for reselling them. To whom would they be resold? Why would the government not retain them in their own possession?


James Lorimer Ilsley: There might be a small amount of reselling, I am informed. Some of these securities are 3 per cent and they might be just suitable for selling instead of selling our own bonds. But the scope of those operations would be very limited. My former answer was, I think, substantially correct.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Sold to the Canadian public?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, they might be to a small extent.


Angus MacInnis: I must confess to being very ignorant of this matter of high finance. I am wondering why, when these securities would be acquired by the Canadian government, they could not be cancelled. Would there be any loss accruing to anyone, or any gain, if they were cancelled?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Some of the issues are secured by mortgages, and part of the securities are in the hands of other persons. If we were to cancel our part of the security, it would enhance unduly the value of the securities in
the hands of others. That would be one reason. These are secured on all kinds of properties, different lines forming part of the Canadian National system.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They could be cancelled only if the debtors supplied the funds to buy their own bonds.


Thomas Miller Bell: The minister said that some few securities might be sold. What type of securities have been sold?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Canadian dollar securities of a reasonable term and a low coupon rate.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-Loan authorized.
Ernest George Hansell: 
James Lorimer Ilsley: No.
War Appropriation


Ernest George Hansell: Perhaps I am wrong, but the billion dollars has to come from somewhere ; whether it comes from taxation, or from debt incurred which will eventually mean taxation, I do not know; but it does figure out at about $100 per capita on all the people of Canada, that they will be called upon to pay either now, next year or a thousand years from now. That is the position. If a proportion of this is going to be raised by way of loan, particularly if any part comes from the Bank of Canada, could that not be lent to the government without interest? That, I believe, is a fair question, and I think considerable progress would be made in the fiscal policy of the country if something like that were brought about.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The only way to get a loan without interest is by compulsion, and the whole issue of compulsory loans would have to be faced. Both sides of that question have been argued in other sessions. I have not brought myself to the place where I feel it would be wise to propose a system of compulsory loans in Canada. I do not think anything would be gained by going into that issue now.
But the point I should like to make clear is that the making of a gift to Britain instead of lending the money to Britain does not impose any further obligation on the Canadian people. The gift feature of it does not cost us $100 a head; it is the making of the equipment, the producing and forwarding of the goods that takes so much of the energies and resources of the Canadian people. Whether we give it or sell it or lend it to Great Britain, the effect on the Canadian people is exactly the same.
The other question, whether as part of our general policy we should obtain money by compulsory loans instead of voluntary loans, is an issue which is in no way related to this. This does not make the case any stronger or any weaker for compulsory loans versus voluntary loans. There would be no advantage as far as I can see in charging interest to Great Britain for the $700 million, because it would render their requirements for Canadian dollars that much greater and so exhaust the billion dollar gift that much sooner. And since it will probably be exhausted in the early part of 1943 anyway, it would to a certain extent affect the transaction if we were to do it. I do not think there really would be any advantage to us in shortening that period somewhat by charging interest on this money, which is the only effect it would have.


Ernest George Hansell: Perhaps the minister misunderstood me. I was not proposing that we 
should or should not charge Great Britain interest; but the fact remains that a portion of this billion dollars will have to be raised by way of loan from our banking institutions.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not agree with that.


Ernest George Hansell: Well, perhaps; I do not know, but I cannot see how that would not be so. But suppose part of it is raised in that way. I quite understand the minister's objection to compulsory loans; as a matter of fact, in my limited understanding of this whole monetary arrangement I personally do not believe in compulsory loans from the people. I do not believe that would serve the purpose, technically. But I am not suggesting compulsory loans when I suggest that if a portion of this billion dollars should be a fresh creation of credit from the banking institutions, that fresh creation of credit should be made without interest; and we would not be forcing that upon them at all. It seems to me we could do it through our own Bank of Canada, which I think could issue it free of interest. It would be money just the same, but the Canadian people would not be paying interest on part of this money which constitutes this gift to Britain.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That just opens the other issue. I thought the hon. gentleman was advocating compulsory loans, but he is advocating the creation of credit. He is advocating financing by borrowing from the Bank of Canada to a greater extent than we are doing.


Ernest George Hansell: Free of interest.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is pretty well the policy of the hon. gentleman's party, as to the way we should be financing. That question is an old issue, which we have debated back and forth for a long time. I think it would be dangerous to go too far along that line and I have repeatedly given my reasons for that belief. It is the equivalent of the issue of currency to finance the war; it is simply saying to the bank, "Write up a credit for us and let us cheque on it." It is exactly the same as though we said to print so many notes, and that is dangerous if carried too far.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I asked the question I did in connection with the exchange of security because I do not want to see the Dominion of Canada lose money to the advantage of the railways by any such exchange. I should like to point out that to-day the proprietor's equity in the Canadian National Railways, which is interest free as far as the railways are concerned, is over $663,000,000. At the time that transaction took place this note was added at the bottom

War Appropriation
of the page, for the definite purpose of showing governments that we could not go on forever exploiting railways here and railways there. The footnote says:
The proprietor's equity is included in the net debt of Canada and is disclosed in the historical record of government assistance to railways as shown in the public accounts of Canada in connection with the Canadian National Railways Capital Revision Act, 1937.
I just wanted to point out that I see no reason why the securities should be exchanged, and certainly I do not want to see the government of Canada put in any worse position for the benefit of the railways. They must stand on their own feet.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Subsection 2 of section 6 says "The principal raised by way of loan under this act", while subsection 1 says "The governor in council may, in addition to the sums now remaining unborrowed and negotiable", and so on. Does this have to be by way of loan, or will part of it come out of taxes, or out of the general fund? Is it all loan, or part taxes, or what?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Section 3 sets out the origin of this billion dollars. It comes from the consolidated revenue fund, and of course from time to time the consolidated revenue fund is replenished by taxes and loans. One cannot say what part of this will be the result of loans and what part will be the result of taxation.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: (Peterborough West): That was why I asked the question, because in the one case it says "may" and in the other case it says "raised".


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is if any is "raised".


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It does not say that; it just says "raised by loan". It is definite there.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It means any principal which may be raised by wmy of loan under this measure.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Then will what is raised be a loan from the banks, or from the insurance companies, or from the people? Will it be raised here as a domestic loan, or will it be raised in the United States, or does the minister know?


James Lorimer Ilsley: This section simply gives the usual borrowing power to the governor in council, and the borrowing policy of the government will be determined from time to time. The hon. gentleman is familiar with 44561-99
that policy; it is to borrow at about 3 per cent interest, for ten or twelve years-that is the way in which the bulk of the money has been borrowed-and to borrow it from the Canadian public rather than from the banks. That is the backbone of our loan policy, and I have no reason to think that it should change.


John Horne Blackmore: A moment ago the question was raised as to the advisability of raising what money must be borrowed through the Bank of Canada, interest free, not so much as a forced loan but as a cooperative loan which the Bank of Canada would make to the dominion because it is the Bank of Canada and because it is the dominion, and because the two of them are serving the Canadian people. The minister did not make any definite pronouncement on the subject. It is a confused question, and one about which there is great diversity of opinion. I just wish to tell the minister now that when the two billion dollar war appropriation bill comes before the house we shall ask him for an explanation why it would not be advisable to raise that money in that way. We are refraining from discussing the matter on this bill because we wish to help the minister get this bill through, in order that some business may be cleared up before the Easter recess. But we do believe it is possible to obtain this money at very low interest rates, and possibly without interest at all, and we think it will be impossible for the minister to show us to the contrary.
There is one more thing it might be well for me to say here. I laid down in my speech on Friday what I think is a safe assumption, that this one billion dollar gift to Britain is going to mean probably $500,000,000 collected from the people of Canada in taxes and $500,000,000 to be borrowed by the government from either the people, the banks or other institutions, and upon which there will be at least 2 per cent interest practically in perpetuity. This will mean the virtual saddling of the Canadian people for ages, at least for generations, with $10,000,000 annually in interest charges. I think I am safe in making this assumption. This is all I have to say at the present time.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Mr. ROY:: (Translation) Mr. Chairman, I cannot allow the second reading of this bill respecting-


The CHAIRMAN:: We are not on the second reading of the bill. The house is in committee.
Bill reported.

War Appropriation

Mr. J. SASSEVILLE iROY (Gaspe): (Translation) Mr. Speaker, I cannot allow the third reading of this bill granting to Great Britain the gift of one billion dollars without recording my opposition to such a measure


Richard Burpee Hanson: I rise to a point of order. A debate on the third reading is not in order at this stage because third reading cannot be proceeded with without unanimous consent, and I do not give unanimous consent.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It will be the next sitting.




[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to be called the Supplementary 1941 War Appropriation Act to provide inter alia,
1.	That sums not exceeding $135,000,000 be granted to his majesty in addition to the sums granted by the War Appropriation Act, 1941, towards defraying any expenses or making any advances or loans that may be incurred or granted by or under the authority of the governor in council during the year ending March 31, 1942, for:-
(a)	the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada;
(b)	the conduct of naval, military and air operations in or beyond Canada;
(c)	promoting the continuance of trade, industry and business communications, whether by means of insurance or indemnity against war risk or in any other manner whatsoever; and
(d)	the carrying out of any measure deemed necessary or advisable by the governor in council in consequence of the existence of a state of war.
2.	That the governor in council be empowered to reexpend, advance or loan moneys that may be received by way of refund or repayment of advances, loans or expenditures under the War Appropriation Act, 1939, the War Appropriation Act, 1940, the War Appropriation Act, 1941, and the Supplementary 1941 War Appropriation Act.
He said; My remarks in moving this resolution will be very short. What I am asking for is $135,000,000 supplementary war appropriation, being money required for the current fiscal year ended March 31. The amount voted by the house about a year ago was $1,300,000,000, and the requirements for war purposes, including provisions for contingencies of $3,268,200, will be $1,435,000,000. The total amounts required for each department making expenditures for war purposes are as follows;
[The Chairman.]
Estimated expenditures by departments to the end of the fiscal year
National defence-*
Army services	$507,757,000
Naval services	 138,771,300
Air services	 414,811,900
Sundry services		6,716,100
[Stage Direction]
Munitions and supply..	252,000,000
Other departments-[DOT]
Agriculture	$ 32,786,000
Auditor general's
office	 169,950
Civil service commission	 242,000
External affairs		396,900
Finance	 20,226,800
Fisheries	 113,500
Justice	 102,600
Labour	 6,608,750
Mines and resources.. 1,044,100 National harbours
board	 1,797,600
National research
council	 1,350,200
National revenue....	3,300
National war services	3,543,700
Pensions and national
health	 6,073,700
Post office		645,600
Privy council office. .	6,100
Public archives		2,600
Public works	 4,827,800
Royal Canadian
Mounted Police...	3,209,100
Secretary of state...	193,000
Trade and commerce.	81,300
Transport	 4,220,900
[Stage Direction]
 87,645,500
Chargeable to war expenditure. . .$1,407,701,800 Chargeable to asset accounts		24,030,000
Total foreseen at this time	$1,431,731,800
Provision for contingencies		3,268,200
Richard Burpee Hanson: Could the minister give us the details of the items already voted? It would be most convenient if it could be done.


James Lorimer Ilsley: They must be on Hansard of last year.
Mr.'HANSON (York-Sunbury): If the minister has not that information here, of course he cannot give it, but I think it should be placed on the record for purposes of comparison in order that we might see the increases in each case.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The estimates that I presented last year added up to $1,450,000,000, and the expenditures, so far as we can see now, are less than that; that is, $1,435,000,000. True, the house voted only $1,300,000,000, but the list of proposed expenditures in the estimates last year will show a total slightly greater than this. I presume some depart-

War Appropriation
ments will be larger and others smaller, but my recollection is that the information was placed on Hansard last year. When I came here with my request for $1,300,000,000 I believed I produced estimates which totalled $1,450,000,000, and those must appear on Hansard. I am not going to say anything more except that the usual time for discussion of the supplementary estimates of the expiring fiscal year is not on the measure for voting those supplementary estimates; it is on the appropriation for the estimates for the new year. This discussion would be on the $2,000,000,000 measure that is on the order paper, and it is then that the government would naturally account for what they had done in the year that was past, when they are requesting a vote for the coming year. I am just saying that because if we alter the practice by going into these exhaustively and fully, by bringing in all the ministers one by one, we would be instituting an innovation. In the interests of economy and time I would suggest that the ministers be questioned by hon. members at one time, and that they be asked about the figures I placed on Hansard to-night. That has been the practice. It was the practice last year-I am not sure about the year before. Nevertheless the accounting for our stewardship has been given when we have asked for new money.
I am putting these figures on Hansard to-night so that hon. members may see them, and because I must make a case for my request for an additional $135,000,000. I am making a prima facie case, but I am suggesting that the discussion in committee ought to be, as it was last year, on the bill for the new year. That is all I have to say.
Mr. HOWARD C. GREEN (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, if the suggestion of the minister is followed, namely that there should be no discussion on this measure, the result would be, I fear, that there would be no discussion of Canada's war effort until the house reassembles on April 20. In the present state of the nation, and more particularly in the present peril of the nation, considering wrhat is happening beyond our boundaries, I do not think it is wise that the house should postpone discussion of Canada's war effort for another month. Anything may happen in that time.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am not suggesting that the hon. member postpone his speech on this matter, or that other hon. members postpone their speeches. If possible I should like to get this through before the end of the week. All I am suggesting is that in committee, when the ministers undergo what is virtually 44561-99}
an examination by hon. members, that we ought not to go into expenditures of the last year on this bill, but that we ought to go into them on the next one. That does not interfere with the hon. member for Vancouver South or any other hon. member who wishes to make a speech on the bill: when Mr. Speaker is in the chair-as I presume the hon. member proposes to do now.


Mr. GREEN:: I do not think we should be confined to the making of speeches. My suggestion is that an opportunity should be-given to hon. members to discuss across the-floor of the chamber those matters having to>
do with the war effort.	'


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister just said that.


Howard Charles Green: We shall be sitting here for another four days. Surely the whole of that time could be well spent in discussing Canada's war effort.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister said that.


Howard Charles Green: That, of course, depends on the government. I suggest that if the government does not wish to have all the-ministers here at one time, it should make-arrangements to have one of them here at a time and have his department discussed.. Then, when that department has been completed, we could go on to another minister. That might have been done last year, and if it had, our discussions would have been far more easily followed, and far more businesslike.
The resolution under debate to-night might be described as a declaration to the effect that it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide an additional $135,000,000 for Canada's war effort during the current year which, as hon. members know, ends in eight days, on March 31, 1942. As the minister has just explained, that will make a total expenditure for war purposes during the-current year of about $1,435,000,000. For the-year 1942-43 war expenditures are to be over $2,200,000,000, if I understood the minister correctly when he spoke the other night. That is an increase for -the coming fiscal year of approximately 50 per cent. In addition there is a billion dollars for aid to Great Britain.
Those are huge sums, but there will be little complaint from the people of Canada. Provided the money is fairly spent and that it is not wasted, they will approve the voting of these sums. To understand the reason for their approval one need only compare the present position with the position last.
War Appropriation

year. In the twelve months which have intervened the war has become a world war. Russia has come in as an ally of the British nations. Japan has gone in with Germany and Italy. The United States, our great neighbour, has come in with us. So that now it is a case of the united nations against the axis powers, in a struggle to the death. That was well described by General McNaughton when he used these words in Montreal on February 6:
This is a war in which the whole forces of science have been fixed by the enemy on one purpose alone, and that is our death.
"Our death"-that is the objective of the axis powers. Canadians know these facts and, as I have said, they will approve the raising of these moneys. They also know that beyond our eastern shores the British nations are still the bulwark against a nazi move to the west, and that they are preparing to strike out. They know that over there, in Great Britain, is our own Canadian army ready to go into action at a moment's notice.
On the other side beyond our western shores, our people know that Singapore is now in the hands of the enemy. Java is gone, and we hear Japan threatening our sister dominion of Australia. On March 11 the Japanese premier is reported to have used these words:
The best and only way for Australia to take was shown by Premier Hideki Tojo when he declared that if the Australian people continued their present attitude "we will show no mercy in crushing them."
Australia is preparing desperately, and at the same time she is warning other nations, including Canada. She is giving a warning, as indicated in these words spoken by the Prime Minister of Australia about ten days ago:
But I give you this warning. Australia is the last bastion between the west coast of America and the Japanese. If Australia goes, the Americas are wide open. It is said that the Japanese will by-pass Australia, and that they can be met and routed in India. I say to you that the saving of Australia is the saving of America's west coast. If you believe anything to the contrary, then you delude yourselves.
May I repeat those words: "If you believe .anything to the contrary, then you delude yourselves."
At this point I urge upon the ministry that they send at least a token force to Australia. Canada is a Pacific nation, a nation on the Pacific. It may be that Canada's best defence on the Pacific will be by fighting in Australia. For that reason alone-for that selfish reason alone, if for no

other-we should have troops standing beside the Australian troops. Furthermore we are a sister nation in the British commonwealth. We fought beside the Australians in the last war, and we have a brotherly feeling towards them in this one. Their young airmen have come here to take training. Surely Canada should not hang back. We should send at least a token force to Australia at the earliest possible moment.
Further than that, Australia is asking that a Pacific council be set up with headquarters in Washington; and the minister who came from Australia the other day suggested that Canada should have a member on that council. We have brought forward that suggestion in the house on two or three occasions, but as yet the ministry have not seen fit to act.
I urge upon them that they endorse the plea of Australia for the setting up of a Pacific council in Washington, and that Canada ask for representation on that council.
I believe everyone here will agree that the Canadian people see this nation menaced directly at its gates on either ocean. They know and we know that 1942 is the critical year. There is yet no certainty that Canada will survive. I thought the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) put it very clearly when, in his radio address eleven or twelve days ago, he said:
The present is the crucial year. Germany and Japan are staking everything on 1942.
He went on to say-and the house should mark every word of this utterance:
The survival of every nation is at stake. Now, more than at any other time, the maximum force of the united nations must be brought into action.
No, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people do not object to the spending of two billion dollars in the next twelve months on the war effort. But-and there is a "but"-it is not enough for the ministry and for this parliament to raise and spend money. The Canadian people are asking-they are demanding, and quite properly so-that this ministry, and this parliament-it is not a matter for the ministry alone-should lead them boldly in waging war. We in the House of Commons are the elected representatives of the people. We cannot evade this responsibility, a responsibility so great and so challenging, because of the nation's peril, that it should be an inspiration to every hon. member.
What can we do to lead the Canadian people in waging war? First of all, I think, comes the attitude of mind. It always seems to me that the mental approach to these questions is of the utmost importance, and I suggest that we in this parliament can help, by the

War Appropriation
attitude we have in our minds, by realizing clearly and remembering constantly, not only for an hour now and an hour again, but constantly, that practically every day some young Canadian airman dies to help keep this nation free-that is a thing to be remembered by the members of this house-by realizing that to-day, not next month or next year, the Canadian army overseas may be locked in a death struggle with the nazis in Great Britain or be in the van of an invasion of the continent; by realizing that to-day, not next month, cities, towns and villages of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and the St. Lawrence district of Quebec, may be bombed from the air or bombarded from the sea; that to-day or to-morrow Japanese invaders may be on Canada's Pacific coast, in my own province of British Columbia, tying up Canadian prisoners of war and bayoneting them to death, and raping and murdering our women as they did in Hong Kong.
We must realize these things ourselves and convince our people that they, too, must face these ugly facts. Mr. Speaker, the ministry and parliament and the Canadian people must plan and act accordingly. There are many things which can and must be done. Every ounce of our national strength must be directed to waging war. That is not so now, and I propose to give several examples.
First, there has been a great increase in the production and sale of non-war goods. A short time ago very interesting articles appeared under the hand of Grant Dexter, one of the leading members of the press gallery, in which he set out a list of non-war articles and showed how the amount spent on them increased from 1939 to 1941. I propose to give several of his figures in round numbers:
Item
Women's dresses, coats
and suits	
Men's and boys' clothing and furnishings.
Furniture	
Home furnishings	
Hardware and kitchen utensils	
Expended	Increased expenditure
in 1939	in 1941
$21,750,000	$7,000,000
27,100,000	6,500,000
12,200.000	5,000,000
15,500,000	5,400,000
8,000,000	3,000,000
There has been a great increase in production of non-war articles which he sums up in these words:
Thus we have stepped up the production of musical instruments, furniture, silk stockings, clothing, tobacco, beverages, glassware and heating appliances.
Another distressing aspect of this condition is that it has made a great increase in the number of people producing non-war articles, as he says:
We have devoted man-power to these purposes. . . . Three hundred and thirty-nine thousand pairs of hands have gone to work since the war began at jobs which have small war significance.	*
I believe every hon. member knows that these things are going on in his or her constituency. It is a situation which should be checked at once. Action should be taken to direct much of this portion of our national strength to waging war. That would mean a release for war purposes of man and woman power, and of materials, money, and the equipment for manufacturing goods.
Donald Gordon, chairman of the wartime prices and trade board, said much the same thing when he spoke in Montreal late last week. He is quoted in the press as having said:
We must be prepared to give up all our choices and preferences and accustom ourselves to a standard of living based on bare essentials, for only by so doing can we divert to war the maximum of our productive effort which is the prime requirement for total war.
But direction from the ministry is necessary, and it is not being given at this time. The Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power), speaking in Montreal on December 13, shortly after Japan struck, used these words:
These powers-
Referring to the powers given to the government under the National Resources Mobilization Act.
-we propose to use in the emergency which confronts us and in an endeavour to see to it that every man and woman in this country carries on the work which will be of the greatest possible benefit to the state as a whole.
That was nearly four months ago, and it is about time that the government took the advice of the minister and got busy on the programme which he outlined at that time. If he had been in charge of carrying out the programme, something would have been done long since.
It would help if the ministry would ask those Canadians who are serving on the home front to buy on the basis of "How little do I need; what can I do without?" rather than on the present basis, which seems to be, "How much can I get and how long can I get this or that?" If the Canadian people are shown that every dollar spent on supplies not absolutely necessary may mean less war material produced or fewer men in the fighting forces, they will respond. The government from the start of the war have made the mistake of not asking the Canadian people for enough, not asking them to do as much as the people have been and are prepared to do.
War Appropriation

That brings me to the fighting forces-manpower-and I am glad to see the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) in his seat. The position in respect of man-power is much the same. We are not using our available man-power. Although Japan struck over three months ago and Canada's position became infinitely more dangerous, the defence department has gone placidly on calling on the Department of National War Services for about the same number of men-no hurry apparently, no urgency, plenty of time to get men and give them training. Now we find this situation. I quote from a press dispatch by Mr. Carnegie of the Canadian Press on March 14:
The supply of man-power to keep up the flow of compulsory service recruits to the training centres at the rate of 5,000 a month has *diminished to such an extent that the age limit shortly will be advanced probably to 30 years, a government authority said to-day.
It is my understanding that no men are being called above the age of twenty-six. If that is not correct, I ask the minister to correct me. Meanwhile the Australians have made provision to call men for military service up to the age of sixty. Our ministry apparently expect that men from nineteen to thirty-five are to do the fighting in the active army. If that is so-and I do not think it will be denied

those men should be given training at once; they should be called up without further delay and given a chance to get proper training, which in the long run may mean the saving of the lives of many of them, and will certainly mean a stronger and more efficient fighting force. Instead of that, we are to have another survey or registration of some kind, which again will take weeks.
Something should be done now about the size of our active army. It should be increased. On February 10, speaking in this house, the Minister of National Defence said, as reported at page 451 of Hansard:
It should be remembered that apart from the fourth division and the brigade groups of the sixth division, we have in Canada over 110.000 active service personnel in training centres and elsewhere.
Since then, I believe about 10,000 have enlisted, but-and here again there is a "but"- many, many thousands of these men are pinned down; they are engaged in some particular army work so that they cannot be moved about. For example there are men on the training centre staffs and men on the district depot staffs and on headquarters staffs, and many of the men in the veterans' guard, men in detachments on the home war establishments and attached to the air force, men in permanent hospitals, and thousands of coast defence troops. There are many more thousands who are reinforcements for overseas,
IMr. Green.]
with the result that there is a comparatively small number to form mobile forces in Canada. We should have larger mobile forces in Canada; for example, on the Pacific coast at the present time we should have a striking force. In the first place, that would be the best way to defend our coast, by building up a force that could be rushed from one part of the coast to another. It should not be a matter of a few hundred men here and there but a proper striking force. The time will come, I hope, when we shall be able to send a striking force out over the Pacific, and in the meantime men could be trained in British Columbia for that purpose.
The province of British Columbia should be treated as a war front, just as Great Britain is treated as a war front. I cannot understand, for example, why the rule which calls for younger men in command of the different units should not apply in British Columbia just as it applies in Great Britain. The forces on the Pacific coast under present conditions should be handled as though they were on a war front, which is actually the case.
Then we should do something now about our reserve force. It should be increased. This little government publication called "Canada at War", which comes out every month, says at page 8 of the supplement of February 1:
At home, a special reorganization and regrouping is being planned for the reserve army, which consists of about 140,000 men.
Over one-third of these men, I believe, are recruits who were called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act for 30-day training. They are carried as supernumerary to establishment, which means that they are merely names on the walls of the different armouries across Canada. No doubt many of them have since enlisted in the fighting forces, and yet these men are shown as a portion of the Canadian reserve army. The result is that the Canadian people think they have
140,000	men in the reserve army, while actually they have very many under that number. Provision should be made so that the men who come within this classification can actually train with the other men in the reserve forces. If necessary, if the ministry cannot recruit the reserve army in any other way, let them call up men over thirty-five for the purpose.
They must give this reserve army some equipment. In my own province of British Columbia there has now been a brigade formed in the reserve army; the men who are joining up are joining up to fight, to be in a position to defend their homes, and if enthusiasm is to be maintained and the brigade is to become efficient, they must be given proper equip-

War Appropriation
ment. It must not be a ease of sending them a field gun or two, a mortar or two, or a small amount of equipment with which they can merely train; they must have weapons with which to fight.
Then I suggest the time has come when we must organize a home guard in Canada. That is particularly true on our war front on the west coast and, I believe, also on the east coast. Certainly on the Pacific coast every able-bodied man should be in the home guard or in air raid precaution work or preparing in some way to take his part should there be an invasion of that coast. At the present time the government has extended the reserve army to some extent by forming small companies in a few centres on the Pacific coast. But it should go much further. Every ablebodied man in British Columbia should be trained and put in some position where he can take his part should the province be invaded.
Another thing that should be done at once or very shortly is that we should produce more equipment. The troops on duty in Canada are not fully equipped-I do not think the minister will deny that. These troops should be equipped, for example, with planes and tanks. The government boasts a great deal about shipping military equipment all over the world; every week some press dispatch is given out to tell of Canada shipping military equipment to all parts of the world. I do not quarrel with that, but the position is just this serious, that Canada must go one step further and produce enough equipment to arm her own troops at home, who may be called upon to defend this nation.
Finally, the ministry should make plans to help the Canadian people meet any eventuality. For example, have plans been made for the evacuation of women and children from either coast in the event of attack? If not, such plans should be made now while we have a chance to do it without great haste, and the leaders in the different communities should know those plans so that there will not be great confusion if trouble comes.
Another question is, is Canada to adopt a scorched-earth policy or is she not? That decision should not be left until the enemy is at our gates. We find Australia on March 10 putting through regulations which are described as follows:
The government is empowered to order the civil evacuation of any area threatened by invasion and in cases where property and live stock cannot be removed their destruction may be ordered.
The regulations also provide for demolition of buildings, public works, airports, railways, mines and reservoirs in such emergencies.
The ministers may smile; some may think this is funny. But may I impress upon them with all the power at my command that things like this should be planned now; there is no better way of instilling confidence in the Canadian people than to have plans prepared and thoroughly understood to meet eventualities of this type.
Each thing I have advocated could be and, I believe, should be done now. There has been too much delay. I can understand that the ministers are overburdened with work, under pressure every day and for long hours, with all kinds of things to do, but there has been much delay and there should be no more. We should get right down to business and start doing these things of the nature I have outlined. Delay is one of the greatest menaces to Canadian survival. I ask the ministry to tell us-and tell us before the Easter adjournment, not on April 20-and through this house tell the Canadian people what they propose to do about these things I have mentioned and other things of the same kind. I urge them and urge every member of this house to give this nation at once far more aggressive leadership in waging war.


Georges Parent: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Surely the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) will make some statement in reply to this. We want time to read the minister's statement. This resolution should not go through now without some statement by the minister. It is almost eleven o'clock. We should hear it to-morrow.


James Layton Ralston: I am not going to take the time of the house now. I do jiot know what my hon. friend means. The ministry will make a statement in due course. I do not think there is any occasion for making a statement particularly in answer to a speech made at ten minutes to eleven.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not expect you to; move the adjournment of the debate. If you want to get this resolution through, you will have to make a reply. If there had not been so much chattering over there, perhaps the ministers would have heard what the hon. member said.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: We heard every word of it.
On motion of Mr. White the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Crerar the house adjourned at 10:52 p.m.
Mobilization oj Man-Power

Tuesday, March 24, 1942